Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

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



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.

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.

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.

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’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.



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:



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.




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:



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:



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.

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.

How Would Paul’s Actions Actually Affect People of Color?

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



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:

1. 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.
2. The US has legally bound itself in its Constitution, Federal Law, and four treaties to never torture.
3. Presidents Bush and Obama, along with corresponding leaders, claim that upon their unquestionable word that someone is a “terrorist,” those laws no longer apply.
4. 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.
5. US corporate media does clearly explain the above legal facts. I mean, this has all been news to you, yes?

Continued Below

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:

1. 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.”
2. 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.

Corporate media won’t report the following polling data, but the American public have noticed something is very wrong with their “news”:

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

$4,942,467.26 Contributed So Far TOWARDS FREEDOM!!!!!

https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/?sr=29-1226

Ron Paul Council Bluffs Town Hall Meeting Attracts 750 People

Paul voter outreach event attracts hundreds—again

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.

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.



Ron Paul surveys the standing-room-only crowd of 750 people in Council Bluffs.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/2...ts-750-people/