Page 241 of 740 FirstFirst ... 141191231237238239240241242243244245251291341 ... LastLast
Results 2,401 to 2,410 of 7393
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

  1. #2401
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Ron Paul was right...again!

    Special Report: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent


    By Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball | Reuters – 2 hrs 55 mins ago



    (Reuters) - The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.
    Those conclusions, drawn from extensive interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran, contrast starkly with the heated debate surrounding a possible Israeli strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities.
    "They're keeping the soup warm but they are not cooking it," a U.S. administration official said.
    Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran's nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.
    That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had "high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.
    Current and former U.S. officials say they are confident that Iran has no secret uranium-enrichment site outside the purview of U.N. nuclear inspections.
    They also have confidence that any Iranian move toward building a functional nuclear weapon would be detected long before a bomb was made.
    These intelligence findings are what underpin President Barack Obama's argument that there is still time to see whether economic sanctions will compel Iran's leaders to halt any program.
    The Obama administration, relying on a top-priority intelligence collection program and after countless hours of debate, has concluded that Iranian leaders have not decided whether to actively construct a nuclear weapon, current and former officials said.
    There is little argument, however, that Iran's leaders have taken steps that would give them the option of becoming a nuclear-armed power.
    Iran has enriched uranium, although not yet of sufficient quantity or purity to fuel a bomb, and has built secret enrichment sites, which were acknowledged only when unmasked.
    Iran has, in years past, worked on designing a nuclear warhead, the complicated package of electronics and explosives that would transform highly enriched uranium into a fission bomb.
    And it is developing missiles that could in theory launch such a weapon at a target in enemy territory.
    There are also blind spots in U.S. and allied agencies' knowledge. A crucial unknown is the intentions of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Another question is exactly how much progress Iran made in designing a warhead before mothballing its program. The allies disagree on how fast Iran is progressing toward bomb-building ability: the U.S. thinks progress is relatively slow; the Europeans and Israelis believe it's faster.
    U.S. officials assert that intelligence reporting on Iran's nuclear program is better than it was on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which proved to be non-existent but which President George W. Bush and his aides used to make the case for the 2003 invasion.
    That case and others, such as the U.S. failure to predict India's 1998 underground nuclear test, illustrate the perils of divining secrets about others' weapons programs.
    "The quality of intelligence varies from case to case," a U.S. administration official said. Intelligence on North Korea and Iraq was more limited, but there was "extraordinarily good intelligence" on Iran, the official said.
    Israel, which regards a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, has a different calculation. It studies the same intelligence and timetable, but sees a closing window of opportunity to take unilateral military action and set back Iran's ambitions. Israel worries that Iran will soon have moved enough of its nuclear program underground -- or spread it far enough around the country -- as to make it virtually impervious to a unilateral Israeli attack, creating what Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently referred to as a "zone of immunity."
    While Israel would not be able to launch an effective offensive in this analysis, the U.S., with its deeper-penetrating bombs and in-air refueling capability, believes it could still get results from a military strike.
    Israel has not publicly defined how or when Iran would enter this phase of a nuclear weapons program. Barak said last month that relying on an ability to detect an order by Khamenei to build a bomb "oversimplifies the issue dramatically."
    CONFIDENCE IN INTELLIGENCE
    U.S. confidence that Iran stopped its nuclear weaponization program in 2003 traces back to a stream of intelligence obtained in 2006 or early 2007, which dramatically shifted the view of spy agencies.
    Sources familiar with the intelligence confirmed the intercept of Fakhrizadeh's communications. The United States had both telephone and email intercepts in which Iranian scientists complained about how the leadership ordered them to shut down the program in 2003, a senior European official said.
    U.S. officials said they are very confident that the intercepts were authentic - and not disinformation planted by Iran.
    "Iran has been a high-priority intelligence target for years. Sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes we really are good," said Thomas Fingar, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when it compiled the 2007 intelligence estimate.
    While declining to provide specific details, Fingar, now at Stanford University, said: "We got information that we had never been able to obtain before. We knew the provenance of the information, and we knew that we had been able to obtain it from multiple sources. Years of hard work had finally paid off."
    The judgment that Iran had stopped work on the weapons program stunned the Bush White House and U.S. allies. Critics accused U.S. spy agencies of over-compensating for their flawed 2002 analysis that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had active nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.
    The 2007 report gummed up efforts by the Bush administration to persuade the U.N. Security Council and others to add pressure on Iran with more sanctions. It was greeted with disbelief by Israel and some European allies.
    "It really pulled the rug out of our sanctions effort until we got it back on track in 2008," recalled Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to Bush.
    Overlooked by many was that the report said Iran had been pursuing a nuclear weapon and was keeping its options open for developing one, he said. "The problem was that it was misinterpreted as an all-clear when it wasn't that at all," Hadley said.
    A November 2011 report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency said suspected nuclear weaponization efforts led by Fakhrizadeh were "stopped rather abruptly pursuant to a 'halt order' instruction issued in late 2003 by senior Iranian officials."
    The reasons for this are not clear. Western experts say it was probably related to a fear of being next on the hit list after the United States toppled Saddam next door.
    Iran emphasizes its nuclear program is for civilian purposes. Ayatollah Khamenei this week said Iran does not have nuclear weapons and will not build them.
    DISMEMBERED AND BURIED
    Some key U.S. allies were never entirely comfortable with the 2007 U.S. intelligence estimate. The Europeans conceded that a centrally directed weaponization program probably stopped, but believed pieces of the program were being pursued separately.
    Many European experts believed the Iranians had dismembered their bomb program and scattered and buried its parts, some of them in military or scientific installations, some in obscure academic institutions.
    Under pressure from both European allies and Israel's supporters, U.S. intelligence agencies late in the Bush administration and early in Obama's tenure began to take a second look at the 2007 estimate. Some consideration was given to bringing it more into line with European views. Intelligence received after publication of the 2007 estimate suggested that in 2006, Iran believed the United States was going to have to abandon its troubled venture in Iraq. Wisps of information were gathered that Iranian officials were talking about restarting elements of the bomb program, a U.S. intelligence official said on condition of anonymity. But analysts were divided about the significance of the new information. The revised estimate was delayed for months. Eventually, at the very end of 2010, an updated version was circulated within the government. Unlike the 2007 estimate, the White House made public no extracts of this document. A consensus emerged among U.S. experts that the new intelligence information wasn't as alarming as originally thought, according to officials familiar with the result. The 2010 update largely stuck to the same assessments as the 2007 report, these officials said. U.S. intelligence chiefs issued a vague public acknowledgement of the ambiguities of their latest assessment.
    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress in February 2011 that "Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so."
    TIME FRAME
    The United States and Israel are on the same page in judging how long it would take Iran to have a nuclear weapon that could strike a target: about a year to produce a bomb and then another one to two years to put it on a missile.
    Both countries believe Iran has not made a decision to build a bomb, so even if Tehran decided to move forward, it would be unlikely to have a working nuclear device this year, let alone a missile to deliver it.
    "I think they are years away from having a nuclear weapon," a U.S. administration official said.
    Three main pieces are needed for a nuclear arsenal: highly enriched uranium to fuel a bomb, a nuclear warhead to detonate it, and a missile or other platform to deliver it. For Iran's program, the West has the most information about the first.
    Iran has a declared nuclear program for medical research and producing energy, is a member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allows U.N. nuclear inspectors into its facilities.
    The inspections are conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its reports provide some of the best snapshots of where Iran's program stands.
    Iran conducts uranium enrichment at the Natanz plant in central Iran and at a site at Fordow buried deep in a mountainous region near the holy city of Qom. Both sites were built secretly and made public by others.
    Natanz was unveiled in 2002 by an Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq. Obama and other world leaders announced the existence of the Fordow site in 2009.
    Natanz houses about 8,800 centrifuge machines spinning to increase the concentration of U-235, the type of uranium that yields fissile material. Fordow is built to contain about 3,000 centrifuge machines, but the most recent IAEA report says about 700 are operational.
    Most of Iran's stockpile is 3.5 percent low enriched uranium. When Tehran declared in February 2010 that it would begin enriching uranium up to 20 percent purity, that sharply increased the anxiety of Israel and others.
    Nuclear experts say that enriching uranium from the naturally occurring 0.7 percent concentration of U-235 to the low-level 3.5 percent accomplishes about 70 percent of the enrichment work toward weapons-grade uranium. At 20 percent concentration, about nine-tenths of the work has been completed. For Iran, getting to 90 percent would require changing some of the plumbing in the centrifuges, experts said.
    "From 20 to 90 is exponentially easier," a U.S. intelligence official said.
    An IAEA report last month said that Iran has produced nearly 110 kilograms (240 pounds) of uranium enriched to 20 percent. That is less than the roughly 250 kilograms (550 pounds) that nuclear experts say would be required, when purified further, for one nuclear weapon.
    Iran's enrichment program was set back by the Stuxnet computer virus, which many security experts suspect was created by Israeli intelligence, possibly with U.S. assistance. It wormed its way into Iranian centrifuge machinery as early as 2009. The Institute for Science and International Security estimated that Stuxnet damaged about 1,000 centrifuges at Natanz and stalled its enrichment capability from growing for about a year.
    But it isn't clear how lasting an impact Stuxnet has had. Reuters reported last month that U.S. and European officials and private experts believe Iranian engineers have neutralized and purged the virus.
    EYES IN THE SKY
    U.S. officials and experts are confident that Iran would be detected if it jumped to a higher level of enrichment.
    The IAEA monitors Iran's enrichment facilities closely, watching with cameras and taking measurements during inspections. Seals would have to be broken if containers that collect the enriched material were moved or tampered with.
    U.S. and European intelligence agencies are also keeping tabs through satellites, sensors and other methods. They watched for years as a hole was dug into a mountainside near Qom and determined - it is unclear precisely how - late in the Bush administration that Fordow was likely a secret uranium enrichment site.
    Obama was briefed on Qom when he was president-elect and was the one to publicly announce it to the world in September 2009.
    "They had a deep understanding of the facility, which allowed them to blow the whistle on Tehran with confidence," a U.S. official said.
    Rumors periodically pop up of other secret enrichment sites, but so far they have not been substantiated. "Most of the people who make the argument that they might have a covert facility or a series of covert facilities are doing that to justify bombing them sooner rather than later," said Colin Kahl, a former defense official focused on the Middle East.
    "We are very confident that there is no secret site now," a U.S. administration official said. But given Iran's history of secretly building facilities, the official predicted Tehran would eventually construct another covert plant.
    THE UNKNOWN
    One of the biggest question marks is how far Iran advanced in designing a nuclear device - a task considered to be less complicated than producing highly enriched uranium.
    The more primitive the device, the more enriched uranium is required. Making it small enough to fit on the tip of a missile would be another challenge.
    The IAEA has information that Iran built a large containment chamber to conduct high-explosives tests at the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran. Conventional weapons are tested at that base, and the U.S. government appears convinced that any nuclear-related tests occurred prior to the 2003 halt.
    But Iran denied the IAEA access to the Parchin site in February, raising more suspicion, and the nuclear agency seems less confident that weapons work has halted altogether.
    IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said recently, "We have information that some activity is ongoing there."
    In its November 2011 report, the IAEA said it had "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program."
    It cited Iran's efforts to procure nuclear-related and dual-use equipment, acquisition of nuclear-weapons development information and work on developing a nuclear weapon design in the program that was stopped in late 2003.
    "There are also indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing," the IAEA said.
    While Iran does not yet have a nuclear warhead that can fit on a missile, it does have the missiles.
    Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, and many of those projectiles could be repurposed to deliver a nuclear device, intelligence director Clapper said in congressional testimony.
    Western experts also point to Iran's test firing of a rocket that can launch satellites into space as an example of a growing capability that could potentially be used for nuclear weapons.
    "The nuclear threat is growing. They are getting relatively close to the place where they can make the decision to assemble all three parts of their program -- enrichment, missile, weaponization," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said in an interview. Khamenei "hasn't said 'put it together' yet," said Rogers, a Republican. "Have they decided to sprint to making the device that blows up? Probably not. But are they walking to a device that blows up? Yes."
    The debate over air strikes, supercharged by Israel's anxiety and U.S. election-year politics, has raised the specter of the Iraq war. The White House justified that conflict on the grounds of weapons of mass destruction, as well as significant ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Both proved to be mirages.
    "There are lots of disturbing similarities. One has to note the differences, too," said Paul Pillar, a former top CIA analyst.
    "The huge difference being we don't have an administration in office that is the one hankering for the war. This administration is not hankering for a war," said Pillar.
    (Editing by Warren Strobel.)

    Special Report: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent - Yahoo! News



    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2402
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Wow, Jesse Benton really took it to MSNBC today ... It was AWESOME!

    Submitted by baparson on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 17:56
    Ron Paul 2012


    He did an interview on MSNBC today and some "dude" really went out of his way to make Jesse look bad, but Jesse put him in his place (Actually that's an understatement).

    I was completely floored when I saw Jesse do that. It was freakin' awesome!!! Check it out .... the fun really starts at around the 6:15 mark.



    Paul Campaign: 'We're hoarding cash' for Texas, California - Video on msnbc.com

    Wow, Jesse Benton really took it to MSNBC today ... It was AWESOME! | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 03-23-2012 at 11:43 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #2403
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Ron Paul was Right! The TSA is out of Control (Video)

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #2404
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Rick Santorum Has Disqualified Himself for Elected Office

    Submitted by meekandmild on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 21:46
    Ron Paul 2012


    Whether he knows it or not, Rick Santorum disqualified himself for the Republican nomination when he suggested that a second term of Barack Obama would be preferable to electing Mitt Romney, according to the Associated Press.

    To be sure, he recanted that remarkable statement through a spokesperson, according to the National Journal, but the damage has been done. Santorum has proven to one and all that his presidential bid is not so much about removing Obama from office, but rather his own self-aggrandizement.

    Even Newt Gingrich, who is well known to personally detest Romney, has said that he would support Romney over the current president, according to NBC. Gingrich may have an outsized ego, but he is also a patriot who will put country first. Mind, he is still convinced that he would be the better alternative to Obama's misrule, but that is another matter.

    Rick Santorum Has Disqualified Himself for Elected Office - Yahoo! News



    Rick Santorum Has Disqualified Himself for Elected Office | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #2405
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696


    $567,542.33

    https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/?pid=dp

    The Revolution Lives

    Dear XXXXXX,

    Thank you for your generous contribution toward my campaign to win the White House and Restore America Now.

    With your support, I secured a strong top-tier finish in Iowa and an historic second place in New Hampshire. In Iowa, we more than doubled our vote total from 2008. We more than tripled our 2008 total in New Hampshire, and we quadrupled it in South Carolina.

    These results make it clear that I am the only candidate with the resources, volunteers, and organization to compete nationwide and stand as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

    This is only possible thanks to you and thousands of other grassroots Patriots all across the nation.

    The American people ~
    not the establishment media ~ will decide who the Republican Party will nominate.

    Your donation allows us to continue directly reaching millions of voters in the rest of the key early states with the truth about my consistent conservative record.

    Your support also enables us to get the word out about my "Plan to Restore America," which cuts $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year of my presidency, abolishes five federal agencies, and delivers a fully balanced budget by year three.

    Our nation can no longer afford politicians who would rather play games with the American people than get serious about implementing the fundamental changes necessary to get our country back on track.

    Thank you again for everything you do to help me win this race!

    For Liberty,

    Ron Paul
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #2406
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Mitt Romney Proposes $8 Trillion Welfare Program for Defense Contractors; Prepare for Two Wars if Romney Wins

    Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:57 AM

    I sit back in amazement and watch Republicans self-destruct with ridiculous proposal after ridiculous proposal.

    Let's ponder two plans, neither of which is going anywhere, and one of them may very well cost Mitt Romney the election should he win the nomination.

    Ryan Plan Revives Deficit Duel

    The Wall Street Journal reports Ryan Plan Revives Deficit Duel
    Rep. Paul Ryan's budget instantly became the centerpiece of an election-year debate over the size of government on Tuesday, thrusting back into the spotlight a topic—the deficit—that has been largely overlooked by the presidential candidates.

    Mr. Ryan (R., Wis.), who heads the House Budget Committee, said his plan would put the U.S. on a sound economic path by spending $5.3 trillion less than Mr. Obama recommends over 10 years, resulting in a budget deficit that would be $3.3 trillion narrower.


    Let's pause right there for a second. The deficit is about $1.4 trillion. If the US lapses back into a recession at any time, (something I think is highly likely) it will worsen. Cutting $5.3 trillion over 10 years, is $530 billion a year, still leaving deficit spending at $900 billion a year, not counting the odds of a recession.

    Let's continue with a few more snips ...
    Congressional budgets by nature lack specifics—those are provided in spending bills that come later—and this one was no different. Still, Mr. Ryan made some things clear. Most dramatically, he proposed repealing Mr. Obama's health law.

    The plan also would cut the top tax rates for corporations and individuals to 25% from 35%, creating just two brackets for individuals, 10% and 25%.

    Mr. Ryan angered Democrats, and privately frustrated some Republicans, by proposing a $1.028 trillion cap on discretionary spending for next year, a figure that excludes formula-based programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The two parties, after weeks of negotiation, had agreed on a level of $1.047 trillion in a deal in August.

    Mr. Ryan said he was taking into account another section of that deal, which requires across-the-board cuts of $97 billion beginning in January, $55 billion of that in defense. Party leaders are planning to negotiate a way to restructure those cuts, probably after the election. Mr. Ryan's plan instead directs six House committees to come up with cuts by May that total a similar amount.


    Ryan Reneges on Defense Cuts


    Notice that Ryan cannot even stand for a measly $55 billion cut in defense spending instead wanting to cut entitlements. Yes, entitlements should be cut, but so should defense spending.

    This proposal is doomed from the get-go. It is both pointless, and weak. All Ryan has proven is that he is a deficit-cutting wimp. If you are going to start another budget war, at least have the decency to propose a balanced one.

    Ron Paul alone wants to balance the budget.

    Searching for Sings of Intelligent Thought

    The only possible conclusions for Ryan's proposals are: He is brain-dead. He does not want a deal for political reasons.

    Although it's frequently hard to see signs of intelligent life from either party in Congress, I will give Ryan the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that he purposely wants to antagonize Democrats for political reasons.

    No Deal Coming

    A USA Today Editorial states GOP budget hurts prospects for deficit deal.
    If anything is obvious from the past several years of budget wrangling, it's that meaningful progress on the federal deficit will require a grand, bipartisan deal of the kind that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner were negotiating last summer before their talks collapsed.

    Democrats will have to give ground on the entitlement programs that are swallowing the federal budget. Republicans will have to compromise on tax revenue.

    If that is too tall an order during a presidential election year, the two parties should at least avoid fanning flames that will make future deals harder to achieve.

    What's most galling, however, is that the plan would violate the terms of the stopgap budget deal worked out last summer. It would breach the cap on defense spending and take money from other areas. It is hard to imagine a better way to undermine prospects for a broad long-term deficit deal than for one side to go back on its word.

    As for Democrats, they need to get their heads out of the sand. The argument that they can simply "protect" Medicare against marauding Republicans does not square with reality. While prudent tax hikes can buy some time, and cuts in other spending might be in order, the biggest threats to the nation's solvency by far are health care and retirement entitlements.

    The Democrats' response to Ryan's latest plan was both predictable and troubling. Even before the plan was out, they launched a Medi-scare campaign of letter-writing and robocalls targeting 41 vulnerable Republican incumbents.

    But, in an era in which both parties try to pawn off partisanship as patriotism, why let the facts get in the way of a good attack ad? Perhaps after this year's election, when big spending cuts and tax hikes are slated to take effect, the two sides will seriously address the long-term fiscal problems the nation faces. After all, notwithstanding the fantasies of party leaders, a sweeping deficit reduction package enacted on a party-line basis is not going to happen.


    Mitt Romney Proposes $8 Trillion Welfare Program for Defense Contractors


    As noted above, Ryan's proposal is seriously misguided at best. Unfortunately, Romney's plan is far worse.

    Please consider A Lesson in Republican Math: Throwing Money at the Pentagon

    If you’ve been fretting about faltering math education and falling test scores here in the United States, you should be worried based on this campaign season of Republican math. When it comes to the American military, the leading Republican presidential candidates evidently only learned to add and multiply, never subtract or divide.

    Despite current Pentagon budgets that have hovered at the highest levels since World War II and 13 years of steady growth, the administration’s latest plans would only reduce spending at the Department of Defense by 1.6% in inflation-adjusted dollars over the next five years.

    Still, compared to his main Republican opponents, Obama is a T. rex of budget slashers.

    After all, despite their stated commitment to reducing the deficit (while cutting taxes on the rich yet more), the Republican contenders are intent on raising Pentagon spending dramatically. Mitt Romney has staked out the “high ground” in the latest round of Republican math with a proposal to set Pentagon spending at 4% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That would, in fact add up to an astonishing $8.3 trillion dollars over the next decade, one-third more than current, already bloated Pentagon plans.

    Nathan Hodge of the Wall Street Journal engaged in polite understatement when he described the Romney plan as “the most optimistic forecast U.S. defense manufacturers have heard in months.”

    In fact, Romney’s proposal implies that the Pentagon is essentially an entitlement program that should receive a set share of our total economic resources regardless of what’s happening here at home or elsewhere on the planet. In Romney World, the Pentagon’s only role would be to engorge itself. If the GDP were to drop, it’s unlikely that, as president, he would reduce Pentagon spending accordingly.

    Rick Santorum has spent far less time describing his military spending plans, but a remark at a Republican presidential debate in Arizona suggests that he is at least on the same page with Romney.

    Mitt Romney at Sea

    But let’s stick with the Republican frontrunner (or stumbler). What exactly would Romney spend all this money on?

    For starters, he’s a humongous fan of building big ships, generally the most expensive items in the Pentagon budget. He has pledged to up Navy ship purchases from 9 to 15 per year, a rise of 50%.

    Romney is also a major supporter of missile defense — and not just the current $9-$10 billion a year enterprise being funded by the Obama administration, primarily designed to blunt an attack by long-range North Korean missiles that don’t exist. Romney wants a “full, multi-layered” system.

    That sounds suspiciously like the Ronald Reagan-style fantasy of an “impermeable shield” over the United States against massive nuclear attack that was abandoned in the late 1980s because of its staggering expense and essential impracticality.

    If the development of Romney’s high-priced version of a missile shield were again on the American agenda, it would be a godsend for big weapons-makers like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, but would add nothing to the defense of this country. In fact, it stands a reasonable chance of making things worse. Given the overkill represented by the thousands of nuclear warheads in the American arsenal, the prospect of a nuclear missile attack on the United States is essentially nil.

    Ensuring a Cost-Overrun Presidency

    If you were hoping that, with an eye to fighting yet more disastrous wars in the Greater Middle East like the $3 trillion fiasco in Iraq, the U.S. would raise ever larger armies, then Mitt’s your man.


    Prepare for Two Wars if Romney Wins


    Should Mitt Romney win election this November, prepare for two wars.

    1. War with Iran
    2. Trade War with China

    Both would be stupid and both will cost trillions of dollars.

    Actually, the sane thing to do is prepare for two wars regardless of who wins. The odds may be lower under Obama, but that is the best one can say.

    Republican Self-Destruction

    The self-destruction of Republicans is very painful to watch because I am not a Democrat and do not like President Obama in the least.

    Unfortunately, some Republican proposals are so out of whack with what needs to happen that independents are highly likely to make a lesser-of-two-evils choice of Obama over whoever the Republican nominee is.

    Given the strong likelihood Republicans manage to hold the House, a divided Congress and a divided executive-legislative split might easily be the best we can hope for.

    I am writing in Ron Paul. The chips will fall, how they fall.

    Hopefully Republicans get their act together in 2016 because this was a pathetic performance.

    Mike "Mish" Shedlock
    Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

    Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Mitt Romney Proposes $8 Trillion Welfare Program for Defense Contractors; Prepare for Two Wars if Romney Wins
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 03-24-2012 at 12:12 AM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #2407
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Crowd at Louisiana College for Ron Paul

    Submitted by sambo722rt on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 18:44 Ron Paul 2012
    Louisiana


    Here is a short video of Ron Paul's Introduction today at Louisiana College in Pineville, La. Camera pans to the back half way through to see the entire crowd.




    Crowd at Louisiana College for Ron Paul | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #2408
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Ron Paul to Hold Giant Town Hall Meeting in Wisconsin March 29

    Submitted by legalizeliberty on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 15:18 Ron Paul 2012
    Wisconsin


    LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul will hold another large college-campus town hall meeting, this time in Wisconsin ahead of the Badger State’s Tuesday, April 3rd primary.

    Dr. Paul’s campus town hall meeting will take place on Thursday, March 29th at 7:00 p.m. CST at the University of Wisconsin – Madison Stock Pavilion, located at 1668 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706. The event is free and open to the university and general community. Doors open to the public at 6:30 p.m. To reserve your seat for the event featuring Dr. Paul and enter the venue 30 minutes earlier than the general public, please click here.

    “University of Wisconsin-Madison students are not beholden to the Democrat Party or President Obama. Ron Paul attracts young people from all backgrounds, and he is the only Republican candidate who inspires voters within this and other key demographics. We’re excited to bring the best, most consistent candidate and his constitutionally-limited government message to UW students and Wisconsin voters,” said Edward King, National Youth Director for the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign.

    Ron Paul’s campus town hall meeting at the University of Wisconsin is being organized in part by ‘Youth for Ron Paul’ (YFP). YPF, an initiative of the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign, launched in September 2011, and since its inception students nationwide have organized 591 chapters and recruited more than 51,800 people. To learn more about ‘Youth for Ron Paul’ including how to sign-up and establish a local chapter, visit the YFP website by clicking here.

    An open press opportunity will follow Ron Paul’s campus town hall meeting. Members of the local and major print, broadcast, and online media with particular needs should contact Assistant Press Secretary Arick Stall at aricks@ronpaul2012.com. Please, no exceptions.

    Event details are as follows. Time is Central.

    Thursday, March 29, 2012
    7:00 p.m.
    Campus Town Hall Meeting with Ron Paul
    University of Wisconsin — Stock Pavilion
    1668 Linden Drive
    Madison, WI 53706

    Continue: Ron Paul to Hold Giant Town Hall Meeting in Wisconsin*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee


    Ron Paul to Hold Giant Town Hall Meeting in Wisconsin March 29 | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #2409
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    SD for Ron Paul


    Submitted by Drew D on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 23:26
    Ron Paul 2012
    South Dakota

    To all the Ron Paul fans in SD. We need to get 20% of the vote to go for RP to get delegates here. We can do this if we all continue to work hard. SOUTH DAKOTA IS RON PAUL COUNTRY.

    SD for Ron Paul | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  10. #2410
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Mitt ADMITS he's a RINO!

    Submitted by stm on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 22:43 Videos


    Q: Aren't you connected to the Republican Party in the state of Massachusetts?"

    Mitt Answers, "The only connection is that I'm registered as a Republican.."



    H/T Buzzfeed Romney In 2002: My Only Connection To The Republican Party Is My Party Registration


    Mitt ADMITS he's a RINO! | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •