Page 549 of 740 FirstFirst ... 49449499539545546547548549550551552553559599649 ... LastLast
Results 5,481 to 5,490 of 7393
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)

  1. #5481
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    How to create Angry People, Part 1



    A FEW USEFUL LINKS:

    "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers" (2006 documentary)
    Iraq For Sale

    "Why we fight - War sells" (2005 documentary)
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8826421983682#

    "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (200
    Zeitgeist: Addendum

    "The Shock Doctrine" - documentary adaptation of Naomi Klein's 2007 book
    The Shock Doctrine 2009 - YouTube

    "Fabled Enemies" (Super High Quality, full movie)
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

    "press for truth"
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

    "In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories of the 9/11 Families"
    In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories of the 9/11 Families - Full Length - YouTube

    "improbable collapse"
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

    "the elephant in the room"
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

    Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

    Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

    "Denial Stops Here - From 911 to Peak Oil "
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

    http://www.operationtruth.us/home.html

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

  2. #5482
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Ventura: Abolish Both Political Parties



    Published on Jun 12, 2012 by TheAlexJonesChannel

    [Editor's Note: Jesse's latest book is currently available in the Infowars Shop.]

    DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans

    Former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura called for the abolition of the Democratic and Republican parities in an appearance last night on CNN, saying they are worse than violent warring street gangs.

    In an interview with Piers Morgan, Ventura did not hold back, urging that "We need to abolish the political parties," and "Make them political action committees."

    As he does in his new book, the former Navy Seal compared the current two party US political system to the infamous Los Angeles street gangs the Bloods and Crips.

    "They call the blue states Democrats, well that is also the colors of the Crips," he explained. "Naturally, the Bloods' color is red and the Republican states are called red states."

    "They're worse," Ventura continued. "Let me explain why they're worse: The Crips and the Bloods, the street gangs, while they can be devastating to a certain small part of the population, the Democrips and the Rep-bloodicans, they affect everybody in this country."

    Ventura elaborated by explaining that the system has been corrupted by big money and both parties are bought and paid for, leaving no room for a third party to have any success.

    Ventura suggested that presidential candidates should be "required to wear a NASCAR racing suit" to "show who owns them".

    The former Governor also had some choice words for the corporate media, for not scrutinizing the political system and instead concentrating on pap.
    » Ventura: Abolish Both Political Parties Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
    by Steve Watson

    Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
    http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
    Twitter
    Alex Jones | Facebook
    [Check out Alex's New Social Network-'Planet Infowars'
    Planet Infowars

    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 06-17-2012 at 01:41 AM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #5483
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Doug Wead on Iowa

    Submitted by DJP333 on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 23:17
    Ron Paul 2012


    Ladies and Gentlemen, once more we must announce the winner of the Iowa Caucus.

    And it isn’t Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney afterall, it is Ron Paul.

    http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/theres-a-new-winner...

    I especially like the comment from annebeck58:
    Oh, and by the way, Doug; please do NOT count Texas out as a state where our delegates ARE bound. Oh, that was just maneuvering (a bit of illegal bullying, snowing, strong-arming on the part of the cuckoo-old-party). Steve Muniesteri was happy for the filing of legal papers, and even happy to be served, as he WOULD like to know how “legal and legitimate” the binding of any delegates IS. We’re not relying on that obscure and oft misinterpreted rule-38 of the RNC; no, we’re relying on election-laws, and I am sure Rence Priebus is wondering what he, also, did wrong.

    It’s been an extremely exciting 24 hours in Austin, Texas. In Steve Muniesteri, GOP Chairman of the (great) state of Texas, actually said he, “welcomed the suit”.

    What a day we’ve had and it is simply the start– of something very big.

    The R3VOLution lives on.

    Vive le Revolutione!



    Doug Wead on Iowa | 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)

  4. #5484
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    There’s a new winner of the Iowa Caucus and it’s Ron Paul

    Ladies and Gentlemen, once more we must announce the winner of the Iowa Caucus. And it isn’t Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney afterall, it is Ron Paul. Today, delegates duly elected to represent the GOP at their state convention, gave the Texas congressman 21 of the 25 contestable delegates to the RNC in Tampa. They will all be unbound, able and willing to vote for Ron Paul for president.

    This ends a process that began with the Iowa Cavalcade last summer, when Ron Paul came within a few votes of winning the Straw Vote, and handily defeated Romney, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich and Pawlenty. Dr. Paul’s strong showing was virtually ignored by the main stream media whose executives apparently felt threatened by his call for transparency in the actions of the Federal Reserve, a prime support system for their corporate advertisers and, in some cases, their own parent holding companies.

    The following January, Dr. Paul finished third in the Iowa Caucus presidential preference poll but swept the precinct caucuses which elected delegates that led to the state convention triumph this weekend.

    Interestingly enough, even tonight, the New York Times and the Associated Press still cling to their marvelous fiction that Ron Paul has won only a single delegate from last January’s Iowa Caucus. According to their chart, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have each won 13.

    But now the facts are in and as we have been telling you since last January, Dr. Paul won a clear majority of the delegates. He won 10 of 13 delegates elected at today’s state convention in addition to having won 11 of 12 delegates elected at last night’s district conventions, for a weekend total of 21 of 25 contestable delegates, all unbound.

    Dr. Paul’s victory in the Hawkeye State affirms his delegate-attainment strategy and it has the added benefit of having occurred in the first-in-nation voting state, also a swing state.

    “We thank the many Iowa Republican activists for working tirelessly toward this meaningful victory, in particular the work they performed in the service of constitutional government and personal liberty. This win is a real validation for our campaign and its many supporters in Iowa and across our great nation,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

    “We look forward to bringing the Ron Paul delegation to Tampa and to making a significant, positive contribution to the 2012 Republican Party Platform,” added Mr. Benton.

    Had the media accurately reported events in Iowa it is likely that Dr. Paul’s campaign would have benefited substantially in subsequent contests. But its incomplete coverage of Iowa turned out to be a harbinger of things to come. The national television networks routinely marginalized his speaking times in the presidential debates and virtually excluded him from their national coverage.

    Nevertheless, the final tally in Iowa reflects the ongoing transformation of the Republican Party as it brings in more youth, Hispanics and independents who support Dr. Ron Paul’s vision of an end to corruption in Washignton, a return free markets and constitutional government.

    There’s a new winner of the Iowa Caucus and it’s Ron Paul « Doug Wead The Blog
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 06-17-2012 at 02:23 AM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5485
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #5486
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Guest Post: Does America Face An Election Between Two Moderates?


    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/15/2012 22:16 -0400

    Submitted by James Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada

    Does America Face An Election Between Two Moderates?

    This weekend the runoff election will be held in Egypt to decide who will be the next president. The country’s first democratic election in decades comes one year after former President Hosni Mubarak was ousted during a massive civilian protest. Despite decades of financial support from supposedly democracy-friendly U.S. and Western governments, it’s was widely acknowledged that Mubarak’s constant reelection was the product of ballot rigging.

    He aggressively held power for years by censoring and controlling the media along with suppressing political dissent. Mubarak was shielded from most opposition by the fact that he used his office as a tool of political corruption and was the quintessential Western puppet of a dictator.

    At the beginning, most journalists in the West were celebrating the Egyptian revolution as a victory for democratic governance. They saw the possibility of untainted elections as the best way for Egyptians to adopt their values. With the first presidential runoff ballot since Mubarak just around the corner, the good feelings have begun to wear off. Many prominent media publications are dismayed that this weekend’s contest is looking like a battle between two radical candidates.

    The Globe and Mail reports:

    If this is what democracy is like, maybe we’re better off without it, many Egyptians voting in their first-ever truly free presidential election must be thinking.

    With a choice between a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand and a former air-force commander and prime minister for Hosni Mubarak on the other, not only do these virgin voters have to choose between two political extremes, but the majority of Egyptians don’t want either of them to win.

    New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman equates the runoff election with “having to choose between two diseases.”

    From the mainstream, corporate media perspective, this isn’t how elections are supposed to play out. In America, the Democrat vs. Republican paradigm forces both parties to appease centrists and independent voters.

    The nominees must campaign not as extremists, but pragmatic moderates who embody the level headedness of the people. The victor in November is thus given an electoral mandate from the voters to carry out their collective will.

    This is also the election process taught in public schools and universities.

    But while the American public has been duped into believing such a process gives rise to pragmatic and temperate leaders, quite the opposite is true.

    With former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney now the presumptive Republican nominee, campaign season is now fully underway. Romney is being portrayed as the free market loving, social conservative choice to Barack Obama’s cool, calm, and collected liberalism.

    Instead of falling victim to the stereotype of being a fragile leftist, Obama’s ramping up of the War on Terror has been applauded by the right as a step toward the center.

    Weekly Standard editor and all around warmonger Bill Kristol declared the President a “born again neo-con.” And in spite of initially supporting a public option within his key legislative achievement of health care reform, Obama opted for the less extreme alternative of the individual mandate that the conservative Heritage Foundation once endorsed.


    As for Romney, he was portrayed by his opponents as Obama-lite due to his pioneering the President’s health care scheme during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts.

    Romney has gone on record stating “I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year” as it would “cause our economy to shrink [and] would put a lot of people out of work.” Of course his logic only works if you believe the money stolen and spent by the government actually creates wealth despite the expenditures never having to compete in the open market.

    Statements like these are what leads to Romney being called a “closet Keynesian” by Paul Krugman and the “Massachusetts moderate” by Newt Gingrich.

    Though the November election will be hyped as two opposites squaring off against each other, both candidates are considered rather moderate compared to who could have been the nominees.

    The question is, are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney really that moderate?

    Let’s account for the similarity in policy of both.

    –Both are large supporters of the military industrial complex. Romney has vowed to increase defense spending and wants the Navy, which is larger than the navies of the next 13 nations combined, to ramp up production of warships.

    Numerous times the former governor has vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon even if it means offensive military action.

    For Obama, as the New York Times recently revealed, the President spends every Tuesday morning playing God by picking out drone targets on what could be mistaken for baseball cards. His unlawfully ordered death strikes are based on flimsy evidence and incredibly vague criteria for determining who the enemy is.

    And then there are the hundreds of civilian casualties that have been a result of the unaccountable killing spree. The drone war won’t end in a second Obama administration and military aggression will likely escalate under a Romney presidency.

    This policy does absolutely nothing to keep the U.S. safe and everything to put the public in harm’s way.

    –Both show no opposition to the Federal Reserve System and the banking cronyism it has institutionalized.

    Both supported the Wall Street bailouts and the unprecedented bout of money printing that took place during the financial crisis.

    While Goldman Sachs was Obama’s biggest private donor in the last election, the investment firm is currently Romney’s largest donor.

    This election is shaping up to be more of the same as Wall Street is bankrolling both candidates.

    Seeing as how the whole banking system operates under the veil of solvency due to fractional reserve lending, it is in the elite money lender’s interest to use their easy access to the printing press to keep the house of cards from collapsing.

    –Neither candidate has made a peep out of ending the needlessly expensive and socially degenerating drug war.

    In fact, the Obama administration has increased spending on drug enforcement and has cracked down on medical marijuana distributors more than any other president before him.

    Romney hasn’t taken a position on the drug war but considering his socially conservative talking points, it’s extremely unlikely he will allow others the freedom of putting what they want in their own bodies.

    In short, both candidates are supporters of the prohibition on dry plants and the seedy and dangerous black market it has created.

    –And then there is the drug of which all of Washington is addicted to: spending and borrowing.

    Neither Obama nor Romney have presented budgets that have actually brought expenditures in line with revenues.

    The national debt would balloon under both their proposals.

    Being that, as Lew Rockwell identified, pork barrel spending is the “entirety” of the federal government’s budget, denying the welfare dependents of their food stamps, the elderly of their Social Security checks, farmers of their subsidies, green energy companies of their taxpayer loans, Wall Street of its implied bailouts, dictators of their foreign aid, and military contractors of their lucrative deals has become electoral suicide.

    Those opposed to the above polices are typically referred to as radicals.

    This is especially so for the independent minded who see politics as a game played by well dressed mobsters and the state as an institution of pure thievery.

    In modern American discourse, peace is now the policy of ignorance. The right to do what you want with your self and property must come second to the will of the ruling class. Being in favor of free markets and not the crooked capitalism which politicians love means wishing to see workers starving in the streets. True liberty is only of value to the dimwitted and unpatriotic.

    Texas Congressman Ron Paul was a steadfast supporter of sound money, nonintervention, the unfettered market, and significantly axing government spending before a now guaranteed financial collapse. His reward was being treated like a senile uncle and his presidential campaign being subjected to an incredible amount of voter fraud.

    He was deemed too much of a threat to the establishment.

    In the end, Paul and others who are disgusted at the utter cronyism that is the state aren’t the extremists.

    What’s extreme is a blind adoration of government power. Paul isn’t a radical; he is practically the only politician in Washington who isn’t a closet socialist or fascist on an egotistical power trip.

    With such radicalism deeply entrenched in the U.S. government, the best hope the country has is for this fall’s election turnout to be the lowest on record.

    Like Egypt, the choice is between two radicals seeking to use the state’s apparatus of violence to help their political buddies and mold society to their liking.

    Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil and immoral.

    The freedom to not vote is still available to Americans. They would be best to exercise it before it’s too late.

    Guest Post: Does America Face An Election Between Two Moderates? | ZeroHedge
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 06-17-2012 at 07:41 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #5487
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Romney promises to seek immigration reform law

    By Michael O'Brien


    Mitt Romney would pursue some type of comprehensive, long-term reform to America's immigration system, the former Massachusetts governor and his supporters said on Sunday.

    Republicans accused President Obama of playing politics on Friday when he announced that the government would no longer seek the deportation of immigrants who were illegally brought to the U.S. as children, under certain conditions.

    "What I would do, is I’d make sure that by coming into office, I would work with Congress to put in place a long-term solution for the children of those that have come here illegally," Romney said Sunday on "Face the Nation."

    A top surrogate of Romney's, Arizona Sen. John McCain, went slightly further. Romney was "certainly willing to address that issue and immigration reform in a comprehensive way," McCain said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

    Obama administration won't seek deportation of young illegal immigrants

    The Obama administration's announcement on Friday has had immediate reverberations on the presidential campaign trail. The shift in policy was seen as a bid toward energizing Latino voters, who could prove a decisive voting bloc in certain swing states, behind Obama's candidacy.

    Romney, whose conservative rhetoric on immigration during the primary prompted worries about turning off Latinos, sidestepped a question about whether he should specifically undo Obama's order. He said that question would be rendered moot — "overtaken by events," he said — by the long-term solution he would instead put in place.

    For its part, the Obama administration denied that the announcement was motivated by electoral considerations.

    "It wasn't about politics," White House adviser David Plouffe said on NBC. "We're absolutely confident … this is well within our powers to do."

    Romney wants 'long-term' solution for illegal immigration

    Plouffe said he expected the election to be a close on regardless, but nonetheless acknowledged the administration's new policy toward young immigrants could give Obama a leg-up among Latinos in swing states.

    "We're going to have to fight for every vote," Plouffe said, "but there's no doubt our strength with Latino voters helps in Nevada, Arizona, Florida."

    Republicans, though, said that they viewed Obama's move with skepticism, accusing the administration of acting with an eye toward November.

    "This was obviously a way to divert attention from very bad news the president has received the last tree or four weeks," McCain said.

    Romney argued that the "timing is pretty clear," saying that Obama could have acted sooner in his administration to address immigration had he wanted to. Mobilizing Latinos, Romney argued, was "certainly a big part of the equation."

    The new immigration proposal tracks closely to a plan that had been developed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, which Romney had said he was studying. Rubio is thought to be on the short list of candidates to become Romney's running mate this fall. Romney said on CBS that he had expected Rubio's proposal to be unveiled shortly, before Obama acted.

    Rubio the VP favorite at conservative conference

    Neither Romney nor McCain offered any specific outline of what the presumptive Republican nominee's alternative immigration plan would accomplish. The term "comprehensive" has long been a buzzword among conservatives who who oppose a process toward citizenship — or even some sort of legal status — for illegal immigrants, which they view as "amnesty."

    McCain had long been a proponent of a variation of comprehensive immigration reform that offered a pathway toward citizenship. He admitted that conservative opposition was a "major factor" in felling past attempts at that kind of reform, but he also blamed Democrats' insistence on other measures opposed by Republicans as a factor.

    Romney promises to seek immigration reform law - First Read
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #5488
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES

    by Tom DeWeese
    June 17, 2012
    NewsWithViews.com

    I originally issued this article four years ago, just after John McCain had wrapped up the Republican nomination, and while Obama and Hillary were still slugging it out.

    Today, four years later, it’s the same feeling of dissatisfaction from our choices – just different names. How do we assure next time it will be any different? How do we take our country back? Here is a possible solution, but we’ve got to start the process now for 2016.
    TAD

    Hillary Clinton. John McCain. Barack Obama. Those are our choices for the next president of the United States. Are you happy with that selection? If not, what is your alternative? As the saying goes, “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”

    Beyond the presidential race we have congressional candidates, governors, state legislators, county commissioners, mayors, and city council candidates. Are you happy with whom the parties have chosen to offer for election? If not, what's your alternative?

    The real issues of the day are not even being addressed in the campaigns. The falling dollar that will render our money worthless; the rising gas prices that grab the last of our worthless money; the invasion of illegal aliens that are changing our society; the globalization of our economy; assaults on our private property; the loss of American jobs to foreign countries; and now the threat of food shortages.

    These are real problems facing every American, yet it is apparently politically incorrect to discuss them. There are no questions concerning these issues during debates, on Sunday morning political talk shows, or anywhere in the news media in relationship to the candidates. It's not there. Not to be discussed. The powers in charge are picking the issues – no matter how frustrated the electorate is.

    Is it any wonder that there are millions of Americans who don't vote or participate in our nation's debate because they think it doesn't matter anyway. The “average voter” increasingly feels that the decisions have been made for them.

    College students, just starting out in the world, wide eyed and ready to make a difference, end up just shrugging their shoulders at the selection of candidates and stay home.

    Those who hold conservative points of view that our nation should live within the Constitution now believe socialism is inevitable, so why bother going to the polls.

    And the poor think they are simply pawns in a vice grip between big money and special interests which control the elections. Why bother? Helplessness now rules the world's greatest representative democracy. As people stay home or trudge to the polls to unenthusiastically vote to the next lesser of two evils, 93% of incumbents are routinely returned to office – year after year after year.

    The instant a candidate is elected and joins the ranks of the incumbents he/she begins the dance. Get the money for the next campaign. How? Special interests groups, corporations and foreign interests flood into their offices to make deals, promote their personal agendas and show the way to fame, fortune and perpetual office – if only the incumbents will go along. They have the whole process well in hand. Campaigns become little more than big PR projects, promoted in positive platitudes, specifically designed to assure nothing negative sticks. Just get through it and keep the gravy train running.

    Above all, do not talk about controversial subjects like dollar values, global trade or immigration; just stick to issues like health care and the environment – coincidentally, two issues bought and paid for by the special interests. See how it works?

    So year after year we officially hold elections and politicians pontificate about how our going to the polls is a revered right; a valued tradition; the underpinning of a free society. And they wonder why there is such division in the nation. How did we end up in such a mess? We voted for these guys. But did we enjoy it? Are we satisfied with the results? Would we like to demand a do over?

    Don't despair. Don't give up. There is a logical, effective way out of this. But it won't happen by depending on political parties to lead the way. We have to take things into our own hands. We need an effective, binding form of protest to say NO to bad candidates. There is such a way.

    Imagine going into the voting booth and looking down the list of offered candidates. None really appeal. None seem to offer satisfaction as an answer to the issues that concern you. If only there was something else you could do. A write in won't help. It would take such a difficult, expensive effort. It rarely works.

    Then you look further down the ballot.

    Something new. It says “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” It's a final choice after the candidates – after the candidates in every category, from president, to congress to city council. What does it mean?

    It means you have the power to decide who will hold office – not the power brokers. When the votes are tallied, if “NONE OF THE ABOVE” gets a majority of votes over any of the candidates listed, then “NONE OF THE ABOVE” wins. And that means none of those candidates will win the office. The election will have to be held again and new candidates will have to try to win the public's support.

    Fixing the election process could be that simple. You, the voter, would be completely in the driver's seat with the power to reject candidates, forcing a new election with new choices. The political parties would be forced to provide candidates the people want — or face being rejected. They would have to talk about real issues – or face being rejected. Incumbents would have to answer for their actions in office – or face being rejected.

    “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” Period. power of labor unions and international corporations would be broken.

    Think of the consequences.

    No longer would voters have to settle for the lesser of two evils.

    If all the candidates are bad – none would be able to force their way into office.

    It would mean that powerful special interests could no longer rely on their money to buy elections.

    They could buy all the ads they wanted, spend millions on “volunteers” going door to door, and sling their dirt, but if the voters aren't buying, none of it will save their candidate from being rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”

    Moreover, the power of entrenched incumbents who have been unbeatable because of their massive war chests and party ties would be broken. Picture Harry Reid unable to run for office because he was rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”

    However, in order to work, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” would have to be binding. It would have to have the power of law behind it. It cannot be just a “protest” vote that has no other meaning.

    “NONE OF THE ABOVE” is completely non- partisan.

    There is no way to control its outcome.

    There is no need for a massive campaign chest to support “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” although it could certainly be done. But the option, once permanently placed on the ballot, would always be there. America's representative system would be restored.

    To get the job done, activists in every state would have to begin a campaign to demand that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” be given a permanent spot on the ballot. It would have to be done state by state. Some states have ballot referendums and initiatives using petition drives to get an issue on the ballot so the people can decide. It's difficult and expensive to do, but popular ideas have a chance.

    In other states, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” advocates would have to find a friendly state representative or senator to introduce the idea before the state legislature and then get enough votes to pass it in both houses and then signed by the governor. And if the effort is successful then every one of those legislators is an incumbent who will have to face “NONE OF THE ABOVE” or the ballot for their re-election.

    They probably won't be too excited about the idea. Of course, one of their main objections to the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” idea would be the requirement for holding a new election should it win.

    Too expensive, our responsible public servants would say as they dismissed the idea. The fact is, such a need would probably not arise often once political power brokers began to understand that they must offer candidates acceptable to the people rather than to the special interests. That's all they really have to do. It's all we want.

    The fact is, the idea of “NONE OF THE ABOVE” has been around for a long time. Over the years, most states have had some kind of legislation introduced supporting the concept. Nevada actually has it on the ballot – but it is not binding. It doesn't force a new election. It is just a measure of protest. That's not good enough to make it effective.

    One of the reasons it has not been successful is because there has never been a serious national drive to promote the idea. However, with the growing dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the quality of candidates running for public office, particularly in the presidential campaign, perhaps there has never been a better time to start a national discussion on the issue.

    The best part is that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” isn't a conservative or liberal idea. It's not a Republican of Democrat proposal. In fact, Republican leadership might see it as a good way to break the back of big labor's influence over elections. Equally, Democrats could see it as a way to stop the power and influence of the Republican's big business money. However they want to look at it, the bottom line is that the voters win.

    So as we sigh and moan over the choices of Obama, Hillary and McCain, let's start the debate and as Larry the Cable Guy says, “let's get-er done.” Perhaps by the next election cycle we won't have to take it anymore!

    © 2012 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

    Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

    A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report

    For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
    The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911

    E-Mail: admin@americanpolicy.org

    E-Mail: ampolicycenter@hotmail.com

    Website: www.americanpolicy.org

    Tom DeWeese -- What to Do When You Don’t Like Any of These Candidates
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 06-17-2012 at 09:47 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #5489
    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's Message To Supporters: Let's Do Our Job Right | Rally In Tampa 8/26

    Submitted by Joη on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 19:54
    Ron Paul 2012





    Full email:

    The Republican National Convention begins on August 27, and you and I have some critical work to do to get ready.

    As I shared last week, my campaign will have as many as 200 bound delegates and several hundred more on the convention floor who support our issues.

    To stand with my delegates, I will be holding an important rally in Tampa on Sunday, August 26th. Everyone is welcome to attend. In fact, I'm hoping we'll have a wonderful crowd.

    The goal of this rally is to kick off the week for our delegates, set the proper respectful and positive tone, and prove to the GOP establishment that you and I are the future of the Republican Party - and that we stand behind our beliefs 100%.

    Today, I shot a video sharing my thoughts on my campaign's successes and how we will advance our ideas in Tampa. I do hope you'll take a moment to watch it.

    Of course, my campaign is still competing in several state conventions still yet to come. And we have a lot of planning to do to prepare for the convention.

    If you are a delegate, please stay tuned for communications from my staff laying out our plans and offering assistance.

    If you are not a delegate but would like to come celebrate with us, you will hear more details in the coming weeks.

    There is no doubt that you and I can win the future.

    Tampa is an important step toward restoring liberty in our country and setting the stage for victories yet to come.

    I hope I can count on you to join us.

    For Liberty,
    Ron Paul

    Ron Paul's Message To Supporters: Let's Do Our Job Right | Rally In Tampa 8/26 | 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. #5490
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Tom DiLorenzo: How Totalitarian Is the US?

    June 17, 2012
    Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 17, 2012 09:57 AM

    Tom DiLorenzo is interviewed by Bob Wenzel



    Charleston Voice: Tom DiLorenzo: How Totalitarian Is the US? *vid*
    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
  •