Can the MSM pull the plug on Ron Paul?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjtFl...eature=related
Printable View
Can the MSM pull the plug on Ron Paul?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjtFl...eature=related
Ron Paul STILL leading in Iowa - scientific poll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnNx-zGPyW0&feature=related
"Ron Paul is the Most Incorruptible Man I Have Ever Worked For"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoLjbdT4HxU&feature=related
Ron Paul IS NOT an isolationist, he is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXEFaV4xGbo&feature=related
Ron Paul - Finally an End to Racist Allegations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAAi5fU954U&feature=related
Do Black Americans Believe Ron Paul Is Racist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MA&feature=youtu.be
Pat Buchanon calls RON PAUL most underrated person!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFhEm2zOfPw&feature=related
Ron Paul - The NDAA Repeals More Rights
Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act. No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property. Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.” However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.
The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.
The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?
Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” This means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.
The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for "really bad people" or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...talk&Itemid=69
CNN/Time Poll Finds Romney, Paul Iowa Photofinish, PPP Has Paul In Lead For Second Week
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/28/2011 17:02 -0500
When a week ago we reported the latest weekly data from the Public Policy Polling institute, many were stunned to learn that Ron Paul was in the lead in the Iowa caucuses. In light of the neverending media onslaught against the Texan, this is not very surprising. The discrepancy between PPP and other, more "accepted" polls such as the CNN/Time was borderline ridiculous, when it came to the standing of the anti-Fed crusader (attacks against whom have recently passed into the Twilight Zone as per this NYT article). Just released, however, is the latest CNN poll information, which is far more in line with what PPP predicts, namely an Iowa photofinish between Paul and Romney. "Twenty-five percent of people questioned say if the caucuses were held today, they'd most likely back Mitt Romney, with 22% saying they'd support Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Romney's three point margin is within the poll's sampling error. The poll's Wednesday release comes six days before Iowa's January 3 caucuses, which kickoff the presidential primary and caucus calendar. The Iowa caucuses are followed one week later by the New Hampshire primary." In its previous poll, CNN had Gingrich in the lead with 33%, followed by Romney and Paul with 20% and 17%. So while CNN implicitly admits that Paul may well be in the lead net of sampling error, it masks this by making the story focus on something totally irrelevant: the fact that somehow Santorum's support is surging.
From CNN, deflecting from the main story:
In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns.So while the MSM continues to pray that Paul does not go far, here is the PPP following up on the story it broke last week:
According to the survey, 11% are backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 9% are supporting Rep Michele Bachmann, and 1% are backing former Utah Gov. and former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, who's spending nearly all his time campaigning in New Hampshire.
Santorum is campaigning on a shoestring budget, but he's visited all of Iowa's 99 counties and has made a strong pitch towards social conservative voters, who are very influential here in Iowa on the Republican side. Wednesday Santorum was up with a new radio spot on Hawkeye State airwaves touting endorsements by social conservative leaders. His pitch may be starting to pay off.
"Most of Santorum's gains have come among likely caucus participants who are born-again or evangelical, and he now tops the list among that crucial voting bloc, with support from 22% of born-agains compared to 18% for Paul, 16% for Romney, and 14% for Gingrich," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
The last week and a half has brought little change in the standings for the Iowa Republican caucus: Ron Paul continues to lead Mitt Romney by a modest margin, 24-20. Newt Gingrich is in 3rd at 13% followed by Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum at 10%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.And since the whole public is beyond tired of the relentless media spin, the good thing is that there is less than a week until the Iowa results are actual. One can only hope Diebold has not been used to tabulate the votes.
Paul's strength in Iowa continues to depend on a coalition of voters that's pretty unusual for a Republican in the state. Romney leads 22-20 with those who are actually Republicans, while Paul has a 39-12 advantage with the 24% who are either independents or Democrats. GOP caucus voters tend to skew old, and Romney has a 34-12 advantage with seniors. But Paul's candidacy looks like it's going to attract an unusual number of younger voters to the caucus this year, and with those under 45 he has a 35-11 advantage on Romney. The independent/young voter combo worked for Barack Obama in securing an unexpectedly large victory on the Democratic side in 2008 and it may be Paul's winning equation in 2012.
Paul continues to have much more passionate support than Romney. 77% of his voters are firmly committed to him, compared to 71% for Romney. Among voters who say their minds are completely made up Paul's lead expands to 7 points at 28-21. If Paul's lead holds on through next Tuesday it appears he'll have won this on the ground- 26% of voters think he's run the strongest campaign in the state to 18% for Bachmann and 10% for Santorum with just 5% bestowing that designation to Romney. There's also an increasing sense that Paul will indeed win the state- 29% think he'll emerge victorious with 15% picking Romney and no one else in double digits.
From CNN:
Iowa CNN
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cnntim...ad-second-week
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.co...s/iac_logo.png
Breaking: Michele Bachmann campaign chairman endorses Ron Paul
Mary Stegmeir
7:47 PM, Dec 28, 2011
Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chairman Kent Sorenson tonight endorsed Ron Paul, one of her rivals in the Iowa caucus race.
“I believe we’re at a turning point in this campaign,” Sorenson said during his surprise announcement this evening at a Ron Paul rally in Des Moines. “… I thought it was my duty to come to his aid, just like he came to my aid during my Senate race, which was a very nasty race.”
The state senator from Indianola was greeted with a round of applause from the roughly 500 people gathered at the Iowa fairgrounds for the event.
Many rose to their feet and hoisted Paul campaign signs above their heads when Sorenson added: “We’re going to take Ron Paul all the way to the White House.”
Sorenson told The Register he had been thinking about supporting Paul for a couple of days, but that he didn’t make the decision to switch campaigns until this evening.
Sorenson said he drove to Paul’s 7 p.m. event, called a Paul staffer and asked: “Do you guys want me on board?”
“(The staffer) walked out to the parking lot and then I walked in with him,” Sorenson said.
Sorenson declined to talk about the Bachmann campaign, instead saying he was basing his decision on the strength of Paul’s efforts in Iowa.
“The fact of the matter is that I believe we have a clear, top-tier race between Romney and Ron Paul,” said Sorenson, who also noted he believed the “Republican establishment” was unfairly biased against the congressman’s bid for office.
“We have a choice where we can elect more of the same like what we’re having in Romney, or we can elect someone who’s going to transform this country to get it back to what our founding fathers wanted, and I believe that’s Ron Paul,” he said.
The turnabout is a major surprise with just six days remaining before Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. Sorenson, in fact, appeared at a Bachmann event just this afternoon — a stop at the Pizza Ranch in his hometown of Indianola.
Sorenson said little at the event, but appeared with Bachmann and clearly offered indications of support for her candidacy.
Fellow Bachmann campaign co-chairman Brad Zaun told reporters Sorenson had just returned from the dentist, and Sorenson himself said he was saying little because he was still numb and afraid he would drool on himself.
Sorenson has been with the Bachmann campaign for months, traveling by her side throughout Iowa and acting as a surrogate at campaign events and in the press.
He is serving his first term in the Iowa Senate and previously served one term in the state House. A Paul press release lauds him as a leader in the fight in defense of traditional family values, the sanctity of life, and a restoration of Second Amendment rights.
- The Register’s Jason Noble contributed to this report.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.co...rses-ron-paul/
Do Black Americans Believe Ron Paul Is Racist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MA&feature=youtu.be
Take a moment and watch this video
Former Fed VP Accuses Bernanke Of Bailing Out Europe Via Currency Swaps
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/28/2011 12:00 -0500
First it was Zero Hedge. Then Ron Paul joined in. Now it is the turn of a former Dallas Fed Vice President, Gerald ODriscoll, to outright accuse the Fed of bailing out Europe courtesy of "incomprehensible" currency swaps, and implicitly accusing Bernanke of lying that he would not bail out Europe even as he has done precisely that. And not only that: by cutting the USD swap spread from OIS+100 to OIS+50, the Fed has made sure it gets paid less than ever for extended Europe the courtesy of bailing it out all over again. Incidentally, O'Driscoll says, "America's central bank, the Federal Reserve, is engaged in a bailout of European banks. Surprisingly, its operation is largely unnoticed here." One thing we can say proudly - it has been noticed loud and clear here...
From the WSJ:
The Federal Reserve's Covert Bailout of Europe
When is a loan between central banks not a loan? When it is a dollars-for-euros currency swap.
America's central bank, the Federal Reserve, is engaged in a bailout of European banks. Surprisingly, its operation is largely unnoticed here.
The Fed is using what is termed a "temporary U.S. dollar liquidity swap arrangement" with the European Central Bank (ECB). There are similar arrangements with the central banks of Canada, England, Switzerland and Japan. Simply put, the Fed trades or "swaps" dollars for euros. The Fed is compensated by payment of an interest rate (currently 50 basis points, or one-half of 1%) above the overnight index swap rate. The ECB, which guarantees to return the dollars at an exchange rate fixed at the time the original swap is made, then lends the dollars to European banks of its choosing.
Why are the Fed and the ECB doing this? The Fed could, after all, lend directly to U.S. branches of foreign banks. It did a great deal of lending to foreign banks under various special credit facilities in the aftermath of Lehman's collapse in the fall of 2008. Or, the ECB could lend euros to banks and they could purchase dollars in foreign-exchange markets. The world is, after all, awash in dollars.
The two central banks are engaging in this roundabout procedure because each needs a fig leaf. The Fed was embarrassed by the revelations of its prior largess with foreign banks. It does not want the debt of foreign banks on its books. A currency swap with the ECB is not technically a loan.
The ECB is entangled in an even bigger legal and political mess. What the heads of many European governments want is for the ECB to bail them out. The central bank and some European governments say that it cannot constitutionally do that. The ECB would also prefer not to create boatloads of new euros, since it wants to keep its reputation as an inflation-fighter intact. To mitigate its euro lending, it borrows dollars to lend them to its banks. That keeps the supply of new euros down. This lending replaces dollar funding from U.S. banks and money-market institutions that are curtailing their lending to European banks—which need the dollars to finance trade, among other activities. Meanwhile, European governments pressure the banks to purchase still more sovereign debt.
This Byzantine financial arrangement could hardly be better designed to confuse observers, and it has largely succeeded on this side of the Atlantic, where press coverage has been light. Reporting in Europe is on the mark. On Dec. 21 the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung noted on its website that European banks took three-month credits worth $33 billion, which was financed by a swap between the ECB and the Fed. When it first came out in 2009 that the Greek government was much more heavily indebted than previously known, currency swaps reportedly arranged by Goldman Sachs were one subterfuge employed to hide its debts.
The Fed had more than $600 billion of currency swaps on its books in the fall of 2008. Those draws were largely paid down by January 2010. As recently as a few weeks ago, the amount under the swap renewal agreement announced last summer was $2.4 billion. For the week ending Dec. 14, however, the amount jumped to $54 billion. For the week ending Dec. 21, the total went up by a little more than $8 billion. The aforementioned $33 billion three-month loan was not picked up because it was only booked by the ECB on Dec. 22, falling outside the Fed's reporting week. Notably, the Bank of Japan drew almost $5 billion in the most recent week. Could a bailout of Japanese banks be afoot? (All data come from the Federal Reserve Board H.4.1. release, the New York Fed's Swap Operations report, and the ECB website.)
Continue reading here
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/former...currency-swaps
Ron Pauls Policy and always has been "The Rule of Law" and Follow the Constitution. Correct, we already have guest worker permits that Ron Paul was referring too... the thing is, the Democrats dont want that... they want AMNESTY ... Ron Paul says NO Tax Payer Benifits which is a huge draw to Illegals entering this country and Attrition Through Enforcement ... a Majority will go home within 3-6 months ... the rest would be easier to deal with
Attrition Through Enforcement
The principle behind Attrition Through Enforcement is that living illegally in the United States will become more difficult and less satisfying over time when the government – at ALL LEVELS – enforces all of the laws already on the books. The goal is to make it extremely difficult for unauthorized persons to live and work in the United States. There is no need for taxpayers to watch the government spend billions of their dollars to round up and deport illegal aliens; they will buy their own bus or plane tickets back home if they can no longer earn a living here.
as far as Wet Foot Dry Foot for those that havent been to Miami in a while... stop down and take a look what it has done to South East Florida and you will see why it has got to be Abolished
Michele Bachmann campaign chairman defects to Ron Paul
By ALEXANDER BURNS |
12/28/11 8:27 PM EST
In a shock announcement Wednesday night, Iowa state senator and onetime Michele Bachmann campaign leader Kent Sorenson declared that he is now supporting Ron Paul for president.
Sorenson made the announcement at a Paul rally with veterans here in Des Moines, telling the crowd: "I believe we're at a turning point in this campaign."
Calling the decision to abandon Bachmann a painful one, Sorenson said he felt obligated to join Paul as the "Republican establishment" tries to undermine his campaign.
"I thought it was my duty to come to his aid, just like he came to my aid during my Senate race, which was a very nasty race," Sorenson said, pledging to go all-out for Paul over the next few days.
To cheers from the crowd, he continued: "We're going to take Ron Paul all the way to the White House."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...ul-108965.html
http://video.foxbusiness.com/images/...oxbusiness.gif
How Ron Paul Would Defend America
Dec 21, 2011 - 4:11 -
Columnist Jack Hunter helps explain why Ron Paul is not an isolationist and how he would defend the homeland
Video: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1341058115001/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&feature=player_embedded
Ron Paul grassroots supporters release video on US foreign policy
By Michael KrebsDec 18, 2011 in Politics
3 comments
In a long-form video released by grassroots supporters of the Ron Paul presidential campaign, American militarism and foreign policy in the Middle East is explored in depth.
Republican presidential candidate and former Congressman Ron Paul released a video on his campaign web site on Saturday that explores American history in the Middle East from the perspective of a militarized foreign policy agenda. Paul's rejection of American militarism is one of his key political platforms and is likely his most striking contrast with his fellow Republican presidential contenders.
The video was produced by grassroots supporters of the Libertarian-leaning candidate.
"This is a beautifully done grassroots video outlining the different aspects of Ron Paul’s foreign policy that some Republicans have trouble comprehending," Jack Hunter, Paul's official campaign blogger wrote. "If there is another terrorist attack it will be because America did not follow the foreign policy proposed by the Founding Fathers and Ron Paul. The reason there would even be another terrorist attack in the future would because America did not follow the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers and Ron Paul."
Ron Paul has received widespread support from members of the U.S. military and among veterans, and he has been very critical of hawkish U.S. politicians. In an interview with Fox News, Paul criticized former House speaker Newt Gingrich for his lack of military service and his aggressive militaristic tone, as CBS News reported.
"He supports all of the wars in the Middle East, a thousand times more than I would, but you know in the 1960s when I was drafted in the military he got several deferments. He chose not to go. Now he will send our kids to war. But at that time he said that one person wouldn't make a difference. He didn't know how he could make a difference. So I see that as important information. People should know that. And it reflects on him," Paul told Fox News.According to the latest Gallup poll, Paul is currently in third place among the GOP presidential candidates, trailing Gingrich and Romney nationally.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316304
Kelly Clarkson Endorses Ron Paul
By Tim Molloy at TheWrap
Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:22pm EST
"American Idol" winner Kelly Clarkson wandered into presidential politics with an endorsement of Rep. Ron Paul, then defended her candidate against accusations of racism and homophobia.
"I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last Republican nomination and no one gave him a chance. If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he's got my vote. Too bad he probably won't," Clarkson tweeted of her fellow Texan late Wednesday.
Also read: Jon Stewart: When Does Ron Paul Get to Be the Media Frontrunner?
She said of her political views: "I am a Republican but I actually voted Democrat last election."
Several of her followers accused Paul of racism and homophobia, citing articles in a newsletter he published from the 1970s until the mid-1990s. Paul has said he did not write the comments and does not agree with them.
Clarkson was apparently unaware of the controversy. "I love all people and could care less if you like men or women," she responded to one Twitter follower. "I have never heard that Ron Paul is a racist or homophobe?"
Also read: Ron Paul Walks Out on CNN Interview
Responding to others critical of her decision, she also posted several tweets that were a variation on this one: "Because you don't agree with me, I'm stupid. Very mature response."
Clarkson also elaborated on her views by saying: "I don't believe in the death penalty. Most Republicans do but not me."
With the Iowa caucuses just days away, Paul is the latest candidate to enjoy a sudden surge. He and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led in a CNN/Time poll released Wednesday.
Still up in the air? The crucial Gary Busey vote.
Related Articles: Jon Stewart: When Does Ron Paul Get to Be the Media Frontrunner? (Video) Review: Kelly Clarkson Provides a Master Class in Pop Singing in 'Stronger'
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...02053320111229
Bachmann Iowa campaign chairman goes to Paul
By Brian Bakst December 29, 2011 7:20 am
http://www.gopusa.com/news/files/201...us-300x180.jpg
INDIANOLA, Iowa (AP) - Michele Bachmann's struggling presidential campaign saw her Iowa chairman defect Wednesday to rival Ron Paul's side, an embarrassing blow that came as some called for her to leave the race to free up her supporters for other candidates.
Hours after appearing with Bachmann at an event, state Sen. Kent Sorenson gave his endorsement to the Texas congressman at a Des Moines rally. Sorenson said he resigned from Bachmann's campaign to back Paul, whom he called the most conservative of the top-tier candidates.
Bachmann said Sorenson made the jump after "he was offered a large sum of money to go to work for the Paul campaign."
"Kent said to me yesterday that 'everyone sells out in Iowa, why shouldn't I,'" Bachmann said in a written statement. "Then he told me he would stay with our campaign. The Ron Paul campaign has to answer for its actions."
Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said the campaign was not paying Sorenson and that he was puzzled why Bachmann would make such a claim against an elected official popular with Iowa conservatives.
"We've always known Michele to be an honorable person. She should stop slandering an honorable Iowa state senator," Benton said.
Benton said Paul campaign officials had been begun speaking to Sorenson "in earnest" in the last few days, and that he had informed the campaign Wednesday he was ready to sign on.
Sorenson announced the switch during a Paul veterans rally in Des Moines. He didn't immediately return a phone call from The Associated Press to address Bachmann's charges that the move was financially based.
"The fact is, there is a clear top tier in the race for the Republican nomination for president, both here in Iowa and nationally. Ron Paul is easily the most conservative of this group," Sorenson said in a statement. "The truth is, it was an excruciatingly difficult decision for me to decide between supporting Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at the beginning of this campaign."
Susan Geddes, a veteran operative in conservative GOP political circles who managed Sorenson's 2008 and 2010 legislative races, said Sorenson had told her several times, as recently as last month, that the Paul campaign had offered him money to leave Bachmann's campaign for the Texas congressman's.
Geddes said Sorenson had damaged his political future in Iowa by abandoning Bachmann's campaign less than a week before the caucuses.
"He just committed political suicide," she said.
Bachmann has been on a frantic 99-county push across Iowa in an effort to recover from the slide that followed her Iowa straw poll victory in August. Paul was a close second in that contest.
Earlier in the day, two influential pastors said they wanted either her or former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum to drop out of the running to keep evangelical voters from splitting their support. Bachmann insisted she would see the Iowa caucus campaign through.
Sorenson, who has strong ties to Iowa's tea party, was one of Bachmann's earliest public supporters and joined her for an afternoon stop at a Pizza Ranch restaurant in Indianola. Standing by her side, he declined to speak to the crowd there, citing numbness from dental work.
All day, Bachmann bashed Paul as "dangerous" for having a hands-off foreign policy. It was part of a double-barreled attack on the two Texans in the race. She went after Gov. Rick Perry for "27 years as a political insider."
The aggressive tone underscored Bachmann's role as a chaser in the final week of campaigning. She has bet heavily on Iowa, where she was born.
Bachmann came hardest at Perry, who this week began a television ad lumping Bachmann with other Washington figures seeking the GOP nomination in his attempt to come off as the outsider in the race.
"Just because he's held office outside of Washington, D.C., does not mean he is not a political insider. It's what you do in your office that matters," she said outside a small-town cafe. "There aren't very many politicians who have spent more time paying off political donors than Gov. Rick Perry has."
Perry has served Texas as a legislator, agriculture commissioner, lieutenant governor and governor.
Bachmann also said Perry has engaged in "crony capitalism" by helping donors with Texas government contracts or giving them political appointments. And she called Perry a double-dipper for collecting his gubernatorial salary and state pension at the same time.
Campaigning in Indianola on Wednesday, Perry scored what appeared to be a double hit of his own. Although he didn't name his targets, he took aim at lawmakers who sound off in Washington without much influence on policy - a rap sometimes attached to Bachmann and Paul.
"Some campaigns are about their voting record, on bills that never make it to the president's desk. I'm campaigning on ideas that I've signed into law," Perry said.
As for Paul, Bachmann criticized him as misguided about foreign threats to U.S. interests.
"Ron Paul would be a dangerous president," Perry said. "He would have us ignore all of the warning signs of another brutal dictator who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. I won't. He would wait until one of our cities is wiped off of the map until he reacted. I won't wait."
On Wednesday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told CNN that he would find it personally difficult to vote for Paul if the Texas congressman were to become the party's choice to go up against President Barack Obama next fall. Bachmann refused to go that far, dodging two direct questions about her willingness to back Paul later on.
"He won't win the nomination," she said.
At stop after stop, Bachmann cast herself as America's "Iron Lady," the nickname assigned to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Bachmann sits on the House Intelligence Committee, which she said gives her a firm grip on world affairs.
State Sen. Brad Zaun, who had been Bachmann's Iowa co-chairman, was named full chairman after Sorenson's resignation.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2011/12/2.../?subscriber=1
The American War-Machine, A Lesson in Blowback, and The Greatest Speech Ever Written.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ7Hz7WCQE8
Bachmann Iowa Chairman Quits Campaign
Thursday, 29 Dec 2011 12:05 AM
Republican candidate Michele Bachmann's Iowa campaign chairman resigned on Wednesday and endorsed rival Ron Paul, six days before Iowa voters begin the nomination process to select the 2012 Republican presidential nominee.
Kent Sorenson, an Iowa state senator who had served as Bachmann's state campaign chairman for nearly a year, said he had decided to switch his support to Paul because the campaign had reached "a turning point."
"When the Republican establishment is going to be coming after Ron Paul, I thought it is my duty to come to his aid," Sorenson said, announcing his endorsement for the Texas congressman during a rally at the Iowa State Fairgrounds.
Sorenson said in a statement that Paul was "easily the most conservative" member of the top tier in the race for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic President Barack Obama in elections in November next year.
"The fact that he doesn't take this decision lightly tells a great deal about the senator and Ron Paul," said Jesse Benton, Paul's national campaign chair.
Paul has a strong organization in the early voting state and is one of the favorites to win the Iowa caucuses vote on January 3.
Sorenson's defection gave the Paul campaign some respite from questions about his links to newsletters two decades ago that carried his name and contained racist, anti-homosexual and anti-Israel rants.
Soon after Paul took the stage at the rally late Wednesday, he was interrupted by a few protesters from the "Occupy Des Moines" movement.
"Freedom of speech. Ain't it wonderful?," Paul said, "We're all upset and we want a change in Washington. As a matter of fact, that's what our purpose is."
The protesters were escorted out.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/b...mo_code=DCF9-1
Jesse Ventura Endorses Ron Paul as the Only Anti-war Candidate
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 29, 2011
Appearing on Alex Jones’ nationally syndicated radio show today, the former governor of Minnesota and best selling author, Jesse Ventura, emphatically declared his support for Ron Paul’s presidential run.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p8gtLvUvhE...se-Ventura.jpg
“Ron Paul has Governor Jesse Ventura’s endorsement without a doubt,” he said. “It’s not even close. Because I want a new president that is going to change the direction of this country. I want a new president that is going to follow the Constitution. I want a new president that is going to believe in states’ rights. I want somebody that will shock the status quo.”
Jesse said Ron Paul is the only candidate that will put an end to the establishment’s wars and foreign adventures.
“It’s a simple as this,” he said. “If people truly are looking for an attempt at change in this country – changing who are and what we will be in the future – then there is only one candidate, and that is congressman Ron Paul. He’s the only candidate that wants to audit the Federal Reserve… he is the only candidate that wants to talk rather than wage war, so I think this will truly be an agenda for the United States of America, an agenda to determine what we stand for. Do we stand for being the most aggressive, war-mongering country in the world who is all set to go to war with Iran, too, or are we going to be a country that stands for peace?”
Jesse said that there has not been a president since John F. Kennedy who worked for peace and opposed the endless war policies of the ruling elite. Ron Paul is the first candidate since Kennedy to oppose the perpetual war agenda, he explained.
He criticized the corporate media for its effort to portray Paul’s foreign policy philosophy as “scary” and said the exact opposite it true – the foreign policy of the establishment and its handpicked candidates is scary. “All we do is go to war – one after another after another – and I’m one of the people being a veteran who says stop it, that’s enough of this,” Ventura said.
If America wants a change in direction, Jesse said, the only choice for president in 2012 is Ron Paul. “He is then only one who says we ought to talk before we shoot.”
Ventura cited as an example the response of the United States to Iran’s announcement that if may block the Strait of Hormuz if the United States and the EU impose a crippling embargo – essentially an act of war – on the country. The U.S. has vowed to respond if Iran blocks the strategic waterway.
He compared the latest actions of the U.S. to an earlier embargo – the oil embargo imposed on Japan by the United States that ultimately resulted in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the start of the Second World War.
http://www.infowars.com/the-only-anti-war-candidate-jesse-ventura-endorses-ron-paul/
CNN Poll Fundamentally Flawed: Romney Is Not Leading Paul In Iowa
New Iowa poll discounts independent, Democratic voters
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
December 29, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-12/67041824.jpg
Contrary to what the Mainstream media would have you believe today, Mitt Romney is not “surging in Iowa”.
A newly released CNN poll out of Iowa suggests that Mitt Romney is once again in the lead ahead of Ron Paul going into the caucuses. However, it is fundamentally flawed in that it does not take into account independent and Democratic voters.
The poll is making headlines today with other media outlets, such as The Huffington Post, claiming that Romney is once again on top in Iowa, having taken the lead from Paul.
Yet, as Nate Silver of the New York Times points out, the poll was conducted by using a list of registered Republican voters and registered Republicans only, provided by the Iowa Secretary of State
That means that independent and Democratic voters, who are easily able to register or re-register as Republicans at the caucus site, have been excluded from the survey.
As we have previously highlighted, a significant chunk of Ron Paul’s support is coming from independent and Democratic voters.
In a recent NBC News/Marist poll, Paul was the only GOP contender to lead in a head to head with Obama among independent voters. Paul also attracted 15 percent of Iowa’s Democrats according to the survey.
As Silver also points out, entrance polls in Iowa in 2008 indicated that roughly 15 percent of participants in the Republican caucus identified themselves as independents or Democrats on the way into the caucus site.
More telling is the poll also released this week by Public Policy Polling, which found that Ron Paul is in the lead in Iowa with 24 percent to Romney’s 20 percent. That survey estimated that 24 percent of potential Iowa caucus participants are currently registered as independents or Democrats and will re-register as Republicans before voting.
“The CNN poll is quite simply missing these voters and therefore will probably underestimate Mr. Paul’s support, perhaps by several percentage points.” Silver explains.
http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-fun...-paul-in-iowa/
NY Times Attacks Ron Paul For Living in the Real World
Gingrich-linked smear specialist Kirchick labels Paul “paranoid conspiracy theorist” for discussing manifestly provable issue
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Gingrich-linked smear specialist James Kirchick is presumably nonplussed that his attempt to regurgitate the 15-year-old debunked non-story of Ron Paul’s ‘racist’ newsletters has had absolutely no effect on the polls, but he is forging ahead anyway with further attacks, this time in the form of a New York Times editorial that labels Paul a “paranoid conspiracy theorist” for discussing manifestly provable issues.http://imgsrv.wina.com/image/WiresGr...AUL-ISRAEL.JPG
As we previously documented in our response to Kirchick’s regurgitation of a story he originally pushed four years ago, the New Republic writer is an apologist for Newt Gingrich and other neo-cons of his ilk.Sitting on the group’s Leadership Council is none other than Newt Gingrich, one of Ron Paul’s main rivals in the Republican primary. Given that association, it’s unsurprising that Kirchick has chosen to dredge up a series of debunked smears at this key time in the election cycle, with Gingrich’s campaign now imploding and Ron Paul’s popularity surging.
Kirchick is a proud neo-con who serves as a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, an influential neo-conservative collective funded by numerous noted billionaires. The group’s list of “distinguished advisors” includes former CIA and FBI heads. The group is virtually a lobbying front for the state of Israel, which explains perfectly why Kirchick is so upset with Paul, who has promised to put a stop to the billions in foreign aid the United States sends to Israel every year.
Kirchick’s latest New York Times hit piece moves on from the ineffectual “racist” smear (Ron Paul’s new campaign ad documents how Paul “came to the rescue” of a black man who faced prejudice for having a baby with a white woman back in the 1970′s), and instead switches to smearing Paul as a “conspiracy theorist” who advocates using violence against the government with no proof whatsoever.
Kirchick’s three major issues he cites to claim Paul is living in a fantasy world are all documented facts which only the most naive or agenda-driven observer could dismiss as “conspiracy theories”.
Linking to an Infowars.com article concerning Paul’s recent appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Kirchick highlights Paul’s assertion “that the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on United States soil was a “propaganda stunt” perpetrated by the Obama administration.”
As World Net Daily documents, every single presidential run-off since 1960 has included one if not two candidates who were members of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, or both organizations.
Far from being a deluded conspiracy theory voiced by Paul alone, this assertion was first made by retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, whose source for making the claim was an FBI insider.
Indeed, far from being an out-there conspiracy theory, the New York Times itself entertained the notion that the incident was potentially a propaganda stunt, reporting how the dubious nature of the plot caused “a wave of puzzlement and skepticism from some foreign leaders and outside experts.”
Kirchick’s next example of how Ron Paul dabbles in ‘paranoid conspiracy theories’ is his assertion that individuals who become members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission “usually end up in positions of power”.
Far from being a “conspiracy theory,” this is again a manifestly provable fact.
To deny that members of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission routinely go on to occupy positions of power is like arguing that attendees of top law schools don’t routinely go on to become lawyers.
Kirchick’s third example of Ron Paul’s penchant for “paranoid conspiracy theories” is Paul’s acknowledgement of the threat posed to national sovereignty by the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway.
Again, to claim that the NAU and the NAFTA Superhighway are baseless conspiracy theories is like claiming that the G20 doesnt exist or that the World Trade Organization is a figment of the imagination.
Even as the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP meetings, openly declared the agenda to set up a North American Union with a NAFTA Superhighway back in 2005, the establishment press pretended the whole issue was non-existent, and Ron Paul was attacked for even mentioning it during the 2007/2008 presidential campaign.
The mission to create a North American Union was also discussed in September 2006 during a closed-door meeting of high-level government and business leaders in Banff, Canada.
Earlier this year, a Wikileaks cable confirmed that the agenda to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into an integrated North American Union has been ongoing for years.
“The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union,” reported the National Post.
Every issue Kirchick cites as a ‘paranoid conspiracy theory’ embraced by Ron Paul is in reality vehemently documented and manifestly provable as a concrete fact.
This is Ron Paul’s world – the world of reality and facts – not the world of Kirchick and other anti-Paul attack dogs who are so desperate to denigrate the Texan Congressman’s presidential campaign that they will openly lie to their readers by denying the blindingly obvious – and the New York Times will rush to print such garbage without battering an eyelid.
http://www.infowars.com/ny-times-att...he-real-world/
Romney and Perry Cite Lies About Iran in Effort to Discredit Ron Paul
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 29, 2011
Desperate to claw their way back up in the polls, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have attacked Ron Paul on Iran.
“One of the people running for president thinks it’s okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” said Romney on Wednesday without mentioning Paul’s name directly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FDKMR7mJERU
Ron Paul debunks the “wipe Israel off the map” lie on Fox News, much to the incredulity of Sean Hannity.
“You don’t have to vote for a candidate who will allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Because America will be next,” said Perry from Urbandale, Iowa. “I’m here to say: You have a choice.”
Neither the IAEA or U.S. intelligence agencies have produced information indicating that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is working on one. Iran has not called for wiping “Israel off the face of the earth,” as Perry claimed. In fact, the remark is attributed to a deliberate Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) mistranslation of an Ahmadinejad speech in 2008. MEMRI is an Israel-centric propaganda tool run by a former colonel in Israeli intelligence.
Rick Perry has declared his support for Israel if it attacks Iran. “Obviously, we are going to support Israel. And I’ve said that we will support Israel in every way that we can, whether it’s diplomatic, whether it’s economic sanctions, whether it’s overt or covert operations, up to and including military action,” he said in November.
“The right course for (us on) Israel is to show that we care about Israel, they are our friend, we’ll stick with them,” Romney said during a foreign policy debate. The former Massachusetts governor has said he would use “blockade, bombardment and surgical military strikes” to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The establishment media has portrayed Ron Paul’s non-interventionist, constitutionally-based foreign policy as dangerous and naïve. Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Bachmann – the latter supposedly representative of a formerly libertarian Tea Party – have all called for a belligerent posture toward Iran.
The handpicked GOP field of candidates naturally embrace the establishment’s fantasy narrative about Iran despite the fact there is no behavioral evidence whatsoever demonstrating Iran is building a nuclear weapon or plans to nuke Israel or any other country.
For more facts on Iran and its nuclear development and foreign policy objectives – including the pragmatic step of developing secret ties and trading arms with Israel, even as Iran and Israel denounced each other in public – see this list of key myths produced by the American Foreign Policy Project.
http://www.infowars.com/romney-and-p...edit-ron-paul/
Attack On Paul As “More Left-Wing Than Obama” Is Laughable
Congressman is officially the most conservative politician of the last 70+ years
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
December 29, 2011
Fox News correspondent Dick Morris appeared on The O’Reilly Factor and Fox And Friends yesterday and attempted perhaps the most ridiculous smear against Ron Paul to date – suggesting that the Congressman is more of a left wing radical than Obama.
Describing Paul as “the most liberal, radical left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last 50 years,” Morris added, “This guy is no conservative. This guy is a ultra, ultra left-wing radical.”
“I think it’s horrible!” Morris exclaimed. “Nobody else wants to dismantle the military, including Obama, but he does. Even Obama doesn’t want to repeal the Patriot Act but he does! Even Obama doesn’t say that we caused 9/11 and brought it on ourselves. But Ron Paul does. Even Obama doesn’t want to legalize heroin and cocaine, but Ron Paul does.”
Watch Morris’ comments below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mxCv9UJHz4E
The assertion that Ron Paul is the not only the least conservative candidate in the 2012 GOP field, but also the most liberal is beyond ridiculous. In fact, Ron Paul is not only the most conservative candidate, he is officially the most conservative member of congress and more conservative than any senator or president, not only today but dating all the way back to 1937.
Out of 3,320 individuals, Ron Paul ranks number 3,320 (number 1 being the most liberal) in a Common Space Scores tabulation by distinguished political scientist Dr Keith T. Poole. The scores are computed from all the roll calls cast in the House and Senate for the 1937 – 2002 period.
To suggest that the other GOP contenders are more conservative than Ron Paul is truly laughable. Both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney supported the banker bailout and Romney was the author of an almost identical proposal to Obamacare, while Michelle Bachmann, the so-called Tea Party (Taxed Enough Already) candidate, is a former tax collector. All candidates also endorse an aggressive militaristic foreign policy.
OnTheIssues.org charts politicians on their stance on every issue by collating news reports, speeches and roll calls. According to their charts, Obama is considerably more Liberal than Ron Paul – as if we needed to point that out in any case. Paul espouses a libertarian economic stance and conservative positions on social issues.
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...l-ideology.png
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...a-ideology.png
The smear attacks on Ron Paul have continued throughout the day, with the latest coming from Bloomberg Businessweek. Columnist Joshua Green once again drags up the long debunked “racist newsletters” non-issue and throws in a few more of the standard attacks against Paul such as ‘he’s an isolationist’, and ‘even if he wins in Iowa it won’t matter.’
A further Businessweek break down of Paul’s chances contends that the mild weather will likely scupper his chances in Iowa, and suggests he can only win if there is a blizzard.
http://www.infowars.com/attack-on-pa...-is-laughable/
In the Categories Which Matter Most, Ron Paul Will Treat Minorities Better than Obama
Posted on December 28, 2011
by WashingtonsBlog
Beyond the Newsletters … How Do People of Color View Ron Paul?
The mainstream media says Ron Paul is a racist.
Granted, some of the newsletters written by others and published by Paul appear to be racist. And there are other actions that could be viewed as racist as well.
But Paul voted to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday, the only time in history that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.Is that the behavior of a racist?And – at the same time the “racist” newsletters were released – Paul was publicly giving speeches decrying the racist drug war. Ron Paul stated that drugs should be legal and that drugs were illegal for two reasons. One of the reasons was a racist campaign to create the means to target minorities for arrest and imprisonment by making their drug of choice illegal:
Non-Transferrable Video at the link
And watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8fl0vy44GO0
Indeed, the latest CNN/ORC poll finds that Paul scores highest amongst minorities when matched up against Barack Obama in a hypothetical election head to head. Paul scores 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets 15%.
The president of the Austin, Texas branch of the NAACP – asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, replied:
“No I don’t.”He added that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Many African-Americans support Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fyRVa4lzRo&feature=player_embedded
As do other minorities.
Daily Caller notes:
Two former opponents of Rep. Ron Paul, one of whom once worked for the Texas congressman, have come forward to discuss racist comments in newsletters published by the Republican presidential candidate.How Would Paul’s Actions Actually Affect People of Color?
Even though the newsletters were never a secret, a former Democratic consultant told The Atlantic’s Molly Ball that plans to turn them into an issue during Paul’s 1996 campaign for Congress never picked up steam ….
Eric Dondero, a Paul-staffer turned 2008 primary opponent … recently published an account including his thoughts on Ron Paul and the racist newsletters. He wrote that while many of the Paul’s views are old-fashioned or eccentric, Paul is neither a racist nor an anti-Semite.
“I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently,” Dondero writes. “I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant.”
***
Dondero says Paul has no problem with American Jews, and even worked to befriend the very small Jewish community in his own district.
Despite the uproar over the newsletters, Paul continues to poll well in early primary states, and is currently leading the rest of the Republican field in Iowa according to the RealClearPolitics polling average.
President Obama is continuing the wars against brown-skinned people throughout the North Africa and the Middle East planned 20 years ago by the Neoconservatives. Martin Luther King would have been outraged … as is Ron Paul.
Police brutality and incarceration disproportionately affect minorities. Yet Obama is cracking down on our civil rights even more than Bush. And see this and this.
Unemployment is hitting African-Americans much harder than any other group. Indeed, blacks are experiencing Depression levels of unemployment. And yet Obama thinks that high unemployment is a good thing.
I voted for Obama in 2008, and was very happy that an African-American had won. I am voting for Ron Paul in 2012.
I believe that Paul will – on the whole – treat people of color in the U.S. and abroad better than Obama.
The bottom line is that – while Obama might be African-American and Ron Paul is white – I think Paul’s actions will help minorities much more than Obama’s. Many people of color agree with me.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...-a-racist.html
NDAA 2012 torture of Americans, or arrest the 1%’s criminals: your choice
Posted on December 28, 2011
by Carl Herman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GAZuQiJUrIQ
I appreciate my colleagues at Activist Post posting my friend Billy Vegas’ PuppetGov video, Obama and the War Criminals. The video powerfully shows damning testimony of US government “leadership” admitting they can torture any person they dictate as a “terrorist.”
Art and academic/professional documentation synergize for the 99% to declare the “emperor has no clothes” obvious facts of the 1%’s crimes.
NDAA 2012 (National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012) explicitly states dictatorial authority of the US executive branch to order US military to seize any person, including US citizens, for unlimited detention and without rights.
This repeats explicit language in the 2006 Military Commissions Act.
Because US government’s 1% “leadership” has tortured, refused to stop or prosecute torture under “new” “leadership” of Obama, now assassinates American citizens upon the dictation of the president, and repeats legislative language in NDAA 2012 again to “disappear” American citizens, Americans’ choice in 2012 seems clear: either arrest the criminal 1% “leadership” for obvious War Crimes, or suffer the torture of your neighbors, friends, family, and yourself in 2012.
Following is my best attempt to academically and professionally document this obvious crime against the US Constitution; from my 6-part series, Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%’s crimes then and now:
Let’s briefly consider allegations of US torture to detainees/claimed “unlawful enemy combatants.” Remember, a “detainee” hasn’t been charged with a crime; the person’s habeas corpus right has been destroyed, and the US government currently claims authority to imprison the detainee indefinitely or simply assassinate anyone claimed to be a “terrorist.”
The US applies interrogation techniques to “unlawful enemy combatants/terrorists” that previous case law found were torture. For example, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have both admitted to authorizing “waterboarding,” [13] found by courts to be torture in all previous case law in the US and internationally[14]. When previous US courts are unanimous in their findings, [15] that means the legal definition of an act is absolutely certain. In this case, waterboarding, or more accurately “controlled drowning,” is torture.
The US Constitution expressly forbids torture in the 8th Amendment. United States Federal Law forbids torture under Code 18 section 2340. The US is bound by several treaties to never torture: the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (legally defining the meaning of the UN Charter treaty, and the most-translated document in world history), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (an interesting study of the US saying one thing and doing the opposite), the Geneva Conventions, and the UN Convention Against Torture.
Importantly, these laws do not say there are exceptions to allow torture; that is, the torturer cannot use the specious “ticking time bomb” excuse that torture was required to save lives. For example, one US treaty to end torture is the UN Convention Against Torture. It states under Article 2 [16]:
“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
Convention III of the Geneva Conventions defines torture in Article 3 as, “outrages upon human dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”
The US refused the UN’s request to inspect the US prison at Guantanamo Bay to evaluate claims of torture. [17] The US refused to release to the press the International Red Cross’ findings of the treatment of detainees. [18]
The US claims under MCA that the US can remove all protections of persons under interrogation: US Constitution, Geneva Convention, and other applicable treaties. This is in Orwellian contradiction to the US Constitution being the definition of American law (and what it means to “defend America”) and in Article 6 that US treaties are the “Supreme Law of the Land.” The word “supreme” means “highest in rank or authority…greatest, utmost…last or final.”
So let’s pause and digest this. It is as simple, I assert, as our baseball analogy of a batter being out at first base by twenty feet, and an umpire/announcer conspiracy trying to get away with the lie of calling the runner safe.
Let’s look:Continued Below
- By any and all understanding of professional legal practice, waterboarding is legally defined in the present as torture because it was determined as torture in all previous cases.
- The US has legally bound itself in its Constitution, Federal Law, and four treaties to never torture.
- Presidents Bush and Obama, along with corresponding leaders, claim that upon their unquestionable word that someone is a “terrorist,” those laws no longer apply.
- When government is no longer limited by law, that form of government is no longer a Constitutional Republic. Government based upon what the leader says at any given time is the very definition of dictatorship.
- US corporate media does clearly explain the above legal facts. I mean, this has all been news to you, yes?
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are welcome to argue for waterboarding’s reclassification as a legal practice, of course, but the legally-demanded place under a constitutional republic is in a Federal criminal courtroom, not a book tour.
Is this really that clear? Although I’m perfectly free to assert this as a fact, you’re perfectly free to determine the facts, their meaning, and what we should do about it for yourself.
For an expert legal analysis, you might consider Jonathan Turley, voted among the editors of the American Bar Association Journal as having the US’ top legal blog [19]:
“The United States has a clear obligation to prosecute those responsible for our torture program. However, President Obama has promised to block any investigation of torturers and has stopped any investigation of those who ordered the war crime.”
This would be as if the school principal’s son were a student here and would take tests while having notes on his desk with the test’s content and answers. We know that in all previous “case law” that when a student is caught taking a test with notes that contain test content, that is called “cheating.” However, the principal, son, teacher, and local media call it an “enhanced studying technique,” that while controversial, is necessary for school security against terror-tests that might infiltrate the school from people who hate education. They say this with a straight face. You know that if you did what the principal’s son did, it’s cheating and you’re busted.
Let’s consider US corporate media’s “reporting” in more detail. This is essential because if American’s access to accurate information is compromised by government propaganda, then Americans will not have easy access to the facts. This is what the California Framework means when it asks you to guard against propaganda. Doing so requires your real-world critical thinking skills.
“Torture at Times: Waterboarding in the Media,” a paper published from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government that studied the US’ four most-read newspapers, found from the 1930s to 2004 that The New York Times reported waterboarding as torture 82% of the time, and The Los Angeles Times did so 96%. After stories broke that the US was waterboarding “detainees” in current US wars, the papers’ reporting of waterboarding as torture dropped to 1% and 5%, respectfully. In addition, after the US admitted to waterboarding, The Wall Street Journal called it torture in just 1 of 63 articles (2%), and USA Today never called it torture.
We have verified history of official government propaganda having infiltrated corporate media. The Church Senate Committee hearings had the cooperation of CIA Director William Colby’s testimony that over 400 CIA operatives were controlling US corporate media [20] reporting on specific issues of national interest in what they called Operation Mockingbird. This stunning testimony was then confirmed by Pulitzer Prize reporter Carl Bernstein’s research [21] and reporting. Of course, corporate media refused to publish Bernstein’s article and it became the cover-story for Rolling Stone. For a 13-minute video that includes the President of CBS admitting that their news agency accepted and communicated CIA-generated and planted stories, the CIA Director admitting to the Senate that this is true, examples of widely-reported “news” stories that were total lies from the CIA to foment war support from the US public, watch here. [22]
So which conclusion seems most plausible to you:Corporate media won’t report the following polling data, but the American public have noticed something is very wrong with their “news”:
- US corporate media stopped calling waterboarding “torture” because leading and professional reporters of law somehow forgot or found basic legal definitions based on case law no longer important. I like to characterize this as the “Homer Simpson” or “SpongeBob defense.”
- US corporate media were ordered to change their reporting. Professional writers in law are very aware of looking at case law, and independent legal experts they interview affirm this as basic legal analysis especially when case law is unanimous in verdicts. It’s impossible to explain this removal of reporting waterboarding as legally-defined torture unless the corporate media editors made that conscious decision.
Just as only one in five Americans report trust and satisfaction with their government [23] (and here [24]), Americans also perceive corporate media disinformation and are rejecting their “reporting.” According to a 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center [25], the majority of the American public see the US major media news organizations as politically biased, inaccurate, and uncaring. Among those who use the Internet, two-thirds report that major media news do not care about the people they report on, 59% say the news is inaccurate, 64% see bias, and 53% summarize their view on major media news as, “failing to stand up for America.” In their latest poll [26], “just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate.”
A June 2010 Rasmussen poll [27] found 66% of voters “angry” at the media, with 33% “very angry.” Rasmussen also found 70% “angry” at current federal government policies.
A possible genesis of oligarchic control of American major media was reported in the US Congressional Record in 1917 [28]. US Congressperson Oscar Callaway claimed evidence that J.P. Morgan had purchased editorial control over 25 of the nation’s most influential publications in order to create public support for US entry into World War 1 and his new banking legislative victory: creation of the Federal Reserve system. Mr. Callaway’s colleagues voted down an official investigation.
Related corporate reporting history is summarized and documented in this brief article, “The news media at war” [29].
Continued Below
endnotes:
13. To understand waterboarding, you can watch leading journalist Christopher Hitchens get waterboarded: Watch Christopher Hitchens get waterboarded (Vanity Fair): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 .
14. This story was opened by ABC News. Sources: top Bush advisors approved ‘enhanced interrogation.’ Greenburg, J.C., Rosenberg, H.L., deVogue, A. April 9, 2008: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPoli...4583256&page=1 and obvious follow-up analysis calling for prosecution (among many in alternative media) from Common Dreams. Arrest Bush: Bush confesses to Waterboarding. Call D.C. cops! Rall, T. April 30, 2008: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/30/8611/ . For more current analysis, consider these entries from Washington’s Blog: Cheney admits to being War Criminal. Feb. 16, 2010: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/...-criminal.html , Obama team feared revolt if he prosecuted War Crimes. Sept. 12, 2011: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...ar-crimes.html , Everything you need to know about torture. March 7, 2011: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...t-torture.html
15 the link is a nice visual and list from ProCon.org. For legal discussion: Washington Post. Waterboarding used to be a crime. Wallach, E. Nov. 4, 2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110201170.html , Washington University Law Review. Waterboarding is illegal. Huhn, W. May 10, 2008: http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opin...ng-is-illegal/
16 For discussion, consider Virginia Law. U.S. may be sidestepping U.N. Convention Against Torture in War on Terror. March 20, 2003: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/new...torture_ps.htm
17 BBC. US faces prison ship allegations. June 28, 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4632087.stm
18 BBC. ICRC raises Guantanamo conditions. Feb. 15, 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4267297.stm
19 Jonathan Turley. London mayor tells Bush to stay out of Londontown – will international shunning become prosecution? Nov. 19, 2010: http://jonathanturley.org/2010/11/19...e-prosecution/ Video interview with Keith Olbermann here: Informed comment. Bush could be arrested in Europe: Turley to Olbermann. Nov. 21, 2010: http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/bush...olbermann.html
20 And other documentation of controlled US media: Examiner.com. Protitution “journalism”: Yup, mainstream media is intentional propaganda. Accept the evidence. Herman, C. Nov. 24, 2009.
21 The CIA and the media: How America’s most powerful news media worked hand in glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and why the Church Committee covered it up. Bernstein, C. Oct. 20, 1977.
22 Sibel Edmond’s Boiling Frogs. CIA News: A brief history of media manipulation by U.S. Intelligence. Sept. 30, 2011: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011...-news-media-2/
23 Pew Research Center. Distrust, Discontent, Anger, and Partisan Rancor. April 18, 2010.
24 Infowars.com. Dissatisfaction with government reaches all time high. Watson, S. Sept. 26, 2011.
25 Pew Research Center Publications. Internet news audience highly critical of news organizations. Aug. 9, 2007.
26 Pew Research Center. Press accuracy rating hits two decade low. Sept. 13, 2009.
27 Rasmussen reports. 66% of voters are angry at the media. June 15, 2010.
28 Examiner.com. Congressional Record: JP Morgan & Co purchased all major media for propaganda: 1917. And now…? Herman, C. June 6, 2010.
29 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The news media at war. Hansen, T. June 22, 2010.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...ur-choice.html
Ron Paul Council Bluffs Town Hall Meeting Attracts 750 People
ANKENY, Iowa – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul was greeted by 750 people tonight at his Council Bluffs Town Hall Meeting held at the city’s Mid-America Center.Paul voter outreach event attracts hundreds—again
Iowa campaign staff for the 12-term Congressman from Texas reported that the energetic audience comprised of supporters and undecided voters filled the venue to capacity, resulting in a standing-room-only crowd. The theme of Paul’s speech – “Restoring Our Personal and Economic Liberties” – was extraordinarily well received, according to Ron Paul 2012 Iowa Chairman Drew Ivers.
Last night at his own ‘Salute to Veterans’ rally in Des Moines, Paul attracted more than 550 veterans, their family members, and the general public.
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/af10358...1_640x361_.jpg
Ron Paul surveys the standing-room-only crowd of 750 people in Council Bluffs.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/2...ts-750-people/