Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Didn't Know I Was a NeoCon Till I Stopped Being One

Submitted by Merry Mom on Sat, 08/11/2012 - 23:32
Ron Paul 2012

To the Person in Chat Who Asked Me In May If My Views Had Changed:

I came over here from the Santorum team the night that Santorum sent an email endorsing Romney. Someone asked me in chat three days later if my views had changed since I'd been here. I told them that my views hadn't changed, but my priorities had.

I can't remember who that person was, but I need to update my answer. My views now have changed so radically that I can't even believe that it took me four decades to get to where I was and then only three months to get to where I am now. It has been quite a journey "down the rabbit hole" as they say.

Back then the most important issue to me was abortion. While I still believe that slaughtering the unborn is wrong, realizing that I voted twice for a president who slaughtered thousands on 9/11/01 and thousands more in illegal wars has made me repentant for my blindness (If you don't get this yet, watch the film "Loose Change" or read anything by David Ray Griffin and then get back to me). I realized the irony of the fact that I was teaching a high school Physics class when I found out about the Twin Towers and watched the collapse on CNN (the irony being that it only takes an understanding of basic high school Physics to realize that the government's conspiracy theory is a lie).

Then further in my research I found out that the blast in Oklahoma City could in no way have been produced by a truck bomb parked outside the building, and that this incident (including all the dead children in the day care center) also was orchestrated by the Federal Government. (If you don't get this yet, watch the film "A Noble Lie" and then get back to me).

This is only a sampling of the truth I have forced myself to realize. It makes me ill.

To think that 3 months ago, I actually believed that if the American people voted for a presidential candidate that wanted to return to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, that this person could actually get elected. We are so far gone into a Police State, I no longer no what it will take to turn it around.

I was elected as a precinct delegate last week, by the way. Thanks for the encouragement of everyone here who helped inspire me to get on the ballot. So I'll keep on as if by some miracle we can eventually make meaningful change from within. I'll keep homeschooling my kids and saving seeds. I thought I had lost my naivete, but I keep shedding more and more of it. I had no idea what we were up against, but now that I do, I will not give up.

By the way, I hope my story will encourage you to keep trying to inform others. It is tempting to think that everyone already has all the information they need. But truly I had heard no 911 Truth real evidence until April of 2011 and didn't read anything in depth about why people kept insisting that it was an "inside job" until this year. I was well-programmed and didn't even know it. So please keep trying to get the word out about the truth in our world.

Didn't Know I Was a NeoCon Till I Stopped Being One | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

Guest Post: Mitt Romney's Selection Of Paul Ryan Is A Sign Of Desperation




Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/12/2012 15:00 -0400

• Medicare
• National Debt
• Obamacare
• TARP

Via RightCondition blog

Mitt Romney's Selection Of Paul Ryan Is A Sign Of Desperation

Many folks were surprised last night as rumors began leaking that Romney tapped Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, for the prestigious VP slot. The surprise came largely because many were expecting a more mundane pick like Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman. The reactions from the GOP base is positive overall, although the story is still fresh and drawing conclusions is difficult. The reactions from the Democrat/Liberal base are predictable and I am guessing that the Obama campaign is licking its lips over the prospect of skewering Ryan like a kabob. I have a slightly different take, my feeling is that this pick is an indication that the Romney team is struggling and sees the prospect of winning in November diminishing with each passing day. People like Pawlenty and Portman is the equivalent of swinging for a base hit - the selection of Ryan is swinging for the fences. It is desperation and an attempt to shake things up substantially in the hopes of energizing a splintered and unimpressed Conservative base.

However I prefer to focus on the economics of politics, not the politics of politics - so lets take a look at what exactly makes Ryan such a risk.

Paul Ryan, to be sure, is an impressive politician. He has a perfect pedigree, is good looking and probably considered to be the premier fiscal wonk of the Republican party. His budget is considered by many to be the boldest and most courageous attempt at tackling America's most pressing issues, entitlements. Of course there is always more than the shiny facade pimped by party loyalists and for those that have bothered to investigate Ryan's record the picture becomes a bit murkier.

For starters there is the very pressing and disturbing votes of the Bush legacy. Specifically Ryan's support of: TARP, Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). All three are wonderful examples of how the Republican party only fights for fiscal sanity when they are a minority party, the second they become the majority they expand Government programs at an alarming rate. NCLB is a monstrosity that gave the Department of Education teeth, Medicare Part D tacked on hundreds of billions (half a trillion as of today per year) to the debt and was passed in the House in a manner very reminiscent to ObamaCare and TARP is an egregious disregard of the free market system and should make any citizen sick to their stomach. While Ryan may be able to justify all these votes, there are Republicans in the House who did *not* vote for these programs and quite a handful.

Then of course there is the famous Ryan budget. A budget that reminds of me the great Oz.

It is daunting and impressive, but if you look behind the curtain there is a tiny little man pulling a whole lot of levers. This very budget (despite being all bark and no bite) was used to galvanize Obama and the liberal base. Remember how Ryan's policies inspired the idea that he would throw grandma off the cliff? Yet despite the proven record of the Left to make a mountain of a molehill team Romney decided to go all-in and select Paul Ryan. More importantly, for what?

In order to understand that Ryan's budget is nothing more than smoke and mirrors we turn to a detailed analysis of the budget. This interactive analysis lets you compare and contrast the Ryan and Obama budgets side by side and examine the projects for spending. Below is a series of images I selected, but I encourage to explore the interactive tool yourself.
Let us take a look:

First we got Medicaid. Clearly the difference is notable and appreciable. In fact based on this image alone it would almost invalidate all my criticism of the Ryan budget. Medicaid is pure welfare, as opposed to Medicare that is at least partially funded by FICA. Medicaid was always intended to take care of the downtrodden and unfortunate and has now ballooned into health care for all. ObamaCare functions and survives primarily on expanding the Medicaid rolls by shoving more people onto the public dime. Medicaid alone is now responsible for a quarter of many State budgets and continues to financially drain the Federal and State coffers at an alarming rate. Worst of all, it badly distorts the insurance market driving medical prices up for every single individual. So it is nice to see Paul Ryan tackle this egregious and disgusting program that does far more harm than good, but the courage and bravery amount to a spending freeze. By 2021 will be spending more on Medicaid again. Perhaps Ryan tackles the other entitlement programs better?

Next we have Medicare. What's this? Apparently Grandma is not going off a cliff, instead it would appear that she is being pushed up a hill! Ryan's plan spends MORE on Medicare than Obama. This is quite the shock considering that Ryan's plan is considered to be the most courageous entitlement reform evah! It is ironic that Obama and the Left are painting Ryan as the grim reaper chasing your granny, where instead he is slowing down Medicaid to HELP granny. Oh, you have to love politics - don't you?

Next up is Social Security. No, it is not a graphical glitch. Ryan's plan does absolutely nothing for Social Security. Yet conservative websites and pundits swoon over Ryan like he is the next coming of Barry Goldwater, more on that later.

Lastly, the national debt. This is probably not surprising, but after all the hoopla and all the bravado the end result is that the speed at which our fiscal apocalypse arrives is merely slowed down by a teeny weeny bit. Yet one would think that as grandma flies off the cliff with her belongings and rusty wheelchair bouncing off the jagged rocks that America is about to embark on the greatest age of austerity ever devised.

Not really. We have a budget from an individual who thought there was nothing wrong in forking over a blank check to Wall St, nothing wrong with expanding Medicare by half a trillion and nothing wrong with growing a department that Reagan's campaign promised to eliminate. We sure have come a long way, have we not?

Conclusion

So this of course begs the question, why did Romney do this? Why select a VP that will provide such easy ammunition for the Left with virtually no reward? The answer is quite simple. Romney and Ryan represent exactly the same problem even if one appears to be a moderate and the other appears to be an epic fiscal warrior. The Republican party fights for and pushes through the status-quo. The images you see up above and the Ryan record is the status-quo. No doubt about it.

Yet Romney is counting on the ignorance of Republican base to run with the facade of Ryan's conservatism. If that illusion holds then Ryan's image will invariably boost Romney's own image as many will view Romney's decision as courageous and bold despite Obama's willingness to distort Ryan's budget. In other words, you are witnessing a most fantastic and glamorous circus. A bad Hollywood movie, except that ending will be quite real and not something you can pause or turn off.

However we all know what happens when politicians threaten the sacred cows of entitlement spending. They get destroyed. Barry Goldwater was America's last libertarian-Republican candidate and he was obliterated because he dared to speak up against Social Security. Barry's loss paved the way for the great society and the invention of Medicare and Medicaid. How ironic. Poll after poll shows that Americans refuse to accept changes to entitlement programs, despite their clamoring for someone to fix our debt.

Romney and Ryan will lose in November and the image of the heartless Conservative killing granny will resonate with America, the tragedy of course is that neither Ryan or Romney are willing to actually cut anything! The tragedy will become even more amusing as we will witness a nasty and partisan fight further dividing Americans as they fight and defend differing policies with the exact same results.

Romney's campaign is ignoring the lessons of Barry Goldwater and going all-in on an individual that has consistently voted for awful legislation and whose budget is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

A move that can be summarized in one word: desperation.


Guest Post: Mitt Romney's Selection Of Paul Ryan Is A Sign Of Desperation | ZeroHedge

Guest Post: Paul Ryan's Budget


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/11/2012 10:40 -0400

• Budget Deficit
• Congressional Budget Office
• Federal Tax
• Gross Domestic Product

• Unemployment
• United Kingdom

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Paul Ryan's Budget

So Romney has picked Paul Ryan for Vice President; a man with a remarkably similar “deficit-reduction” strategy to that of George Osborne here in the UK, where unemployment and budget deficits have soared, and GDP remains well off its peak.

If Ryan or his Democratic rivals really understood the budget deficit, they would understand that its huge size is a result coming primarily out of a depression brought on by excessive total debt:



As debt soared from the 80s to the 90s, tax revenues soared as the economy boomed on borrowed money. But as the debt continued to grow relative to income, the costs of the debt mountain meant that income that might once have been invested in businesses and consumption went toward debt service instead. And so once we hit the point at which debt repayment exceeded new debt acquisition, we were flung into a depression. This has had a relatively severe impact on growth; since the deleveraging hit in 2008, GDP growth fell considerably from its long-term trend (nominal potential GDP):



So with the private sector (not to mention state and local governments) who acquired so much debt in the boom now deleveraging, Federal revenue has dramatically fallen, producing the huge Federal budget deficits we see today. Of course, Federal spending was on an unsustainable trajectory before that. But without a serious plan to get America out of the deleveraging trap (there are three routes out — liquidation, inflation and debt forgiveness) all talk of reforming entitlements is meaningless.

So, does Ryan’s plan address the problem of excessive debt?
No. Ryan completely misses the point of excessive total debt, and instead paints a portrait of the problem being one of excessive public debt:



Oh no! What a scary chart! But Ryan claims he is going to make public deficits disappear! How?

Ryan intends to cut taxes; reducing corporate taxes from 35% to 25%, and introducing two new income tax brackets; one of 10%, the other of 25%.

But here’s Federal tax revenues compared to the weight of total debt:



To get private debt to a sustainable level via tax cuts, Ryan would have to cut taxes to zero for a very long time (and hope that people use their tax cut to pay down debt instead of spending it at Chipotle and the Apple Store).

The biggest problem with that? Over 75% of Federal spending is mandated by law, and so US public debt — which Ryan believes is the real problem — would soar (as has happened in Britain). Ryan might seem worried about the future possibility of massive public debt (as opposed to the current reality of massive total debt), but his plan could conceivably result in much higher public debt — after all the OMB and CBO have gotten it all very wrong before, just twelve years ago foreseeing massive tax surpluses of $48 and $87 billion respectively in 2012.

So does he have any real plan to significantly raise revenues?

Ryan intends by 2022 to have to closed enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a lot of money. So which loopholes does Ryan claim that he will be able to close?

In his entire 98-page manifesto, Ryan doesn’t name any — but he has ruled out taxing capital gains as income, surely the biggest tax loophole of all, and one that has seriously benefited his running mate.

Ryan might talk tough on public deficits, but his own figures show that even if he can raise the revenue he claims to be able to raise (very dubious), the deficits won’t be gone for twenty years. Meanwhile, he has not even approached the subject of excessive total debt, which is the real problem.
The only policies likely to return the US to strong organic growth are those that would produce some form of debt jubilee. Neither of the major parties has any plan for that.

Guest Post: Paul Ryan's Budget | ZeroHedge

Guest Post: Moral Relativism And Patriotism As Weapons Of The State


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/10/2012 20:55 -0400

• Afghanistan
• Guest Post
• Ludwig von Mises
• Middle East
• Mises Institute
• national security
• President Obama
• Quakers

Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

Over the weekend, a suicide bomber suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda struck a funeral in Yemen, killing forty five individuals. The funeral was attended predominantly by members of a militia which aided the Yemeni Army in recapturing a town held by Al Qaeda. The attack was rightfully condemned by major media outlets. Viciously killing mourners at a funeral is the very definition of terrorism as it sends a message that no time or place is off limits from a surprise attack. It shows a complete lack of respect for the sanctity of life. Al Qaeda has become known for these attacks in recent years. American national security officials and politicians have reacted by denouncing such attacks as a sign of the utter savagery of the terrorist group.

Yet Al Qaeda is not alone in this tactic. The CIA’s not-so-secret drone campaign is also guilty of targeting funerals attended by civilians. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, drone attacks have been responsible for the deaths of “dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals.” As of February of this year, at least 535 civilians have been killed by drone strikes since President Obama took office; 20 of which were killed while attending funerals. Last June, a gathering of mourners was targeted for a strike in Pakistan. The 10 people killed in that attack had come together to grieve over the death of a “brother of a militant commander” killed just a day before in another drone strike.

There is little denouncement of the civilian casualties that are a product of the U.S.’s foreign policy. The narrative presented by Washington lawmakers and the press is that of a struggle between the forces of good and evil. The terrorists of the Middle East are ruthless barbarians while the troops and Pentagon officials are goodhearted protagonists trying to liberate an oppressed people. The blood of innocent women and children on the hands of Al Qaeda is damming evidence of their depravity. That same blood on the hands of the U.S. defense establishment is a sign of triumph. It is moral relativism on a national scale; slaying of the innocent is terrible on one hand while honorable on the other. As LRC columnist Laurence Vance notes in regard to how atrocities committed by private individuals are perceived differently than those committed by the military:


I don’t know if there are theaters in Afghanistan, but if U.S. soldiers enter a building in Afghanistan and kill twelve and wound fifty-eight – like James Holmes allegedly did in Colorado – they are lauded as heroes.


Military officials frequently go on television and tell not just Americans but the rest of the world that they are making a sacrifice for maintaining safety and freedom around the globe. They invoke patriotism to justify their actions. Taxpayers forced into picking up the tab for the endless warfare repay the favor by unquestioningly handing their respect over to crusaders of state-sanctioned mass murder. From the perspective of enhancing and enlarging the central state, it’s the prefect scheme. Force feeding the concept of “patriotic duty” is a great way to get people to accept the otherwise deplorable actions of government officials. It is why Randolph Bourne aptly recognized war as the “health of the state.”

Today, the conduct committed by state enforcement officials, whether they be imperialistic endeavors or the negation of human liberty at home, are rationalized by the way of apologetic relativism. This relativism stands in opposition to absolute moral principles. Theft, murder, eavesdropping, lying, issuing threats, and beating upon others are all actions looked down upon by sensible individuals. They lead society astray from an amicable coexistence.

The state, by the doings of its executors and administrators, embodies everything you were told was wrong as a child. Children are usually taught straightforward rules of acceptable behavior at a young age. As they grow older, they are bombarded with propaganda from school, television, and even their own parents that attempt to remove the government away from basic considerations of right and wrong. These efforts are part of an ongoing agenda to convince the public what they see as morally repugnant behavior is justified when done under the refuge of government authorization. The institutional predation of the state is supported by a kind of war on reason fought by those seek most fervently to maintain the exploitive status quo. The objective is enough consent on the part of the people to overwhelm any high-spirited protest. While independent and intellectual criticism is the state’s worst enemy, unthinking acceptance is its greatest ally.

The ruling establishment sees little danger in violent uprising.

What they fear most is the turning of public opinion against their legitimacy.

They fear losing consent above all things because soon after, their lordship must come to an end.

Support among the people is what keeps tyranny alive; not a violent clenching down upon personal freedom.

Though the American Revolution is frequently evoked as a display of this truth, a better example exists in colonial Pennsylvania nearly a century before the Declaration of Independence was penned. Upon being granted the lands of Pennsylvania by King Charles II in March of 1681, William Penn proceeded to establish a colony governed over by a constitution of sorts. The positions of governor and proprietor were created along with an elected Council that saw to executive and judicial functions. An appointed Assembly was also formed which had the authority to levy taxes and veto laws passed by the Council. Because of the liberties guaranteed in the new colony, the low tax burden, and Penn’s selling of land at cheap prices, immigrants flooded into Pennsylvania in its formative years. Penn would eventually return to England in 1684 but upon doing so found that the colonists were refusing to pay taxes including the land taxes he counted on to maintain a hefty profit. The Council, which was elected by the people and had the sole authority in executing laws, refrained from collecting taxes and left the colony autonomous. Penn would eventually appoint a commission to restore his lost opportunity of compensation through force.

The colonists simply ignored the commission which led to its collapse.

Penn then instituted a deputy governor to ensure for the collection of taxes but that effort was also came to be in vain. As Murray Rothbard summarizes


William Penn had the strong and distinct impression that his “holy experiment” had slipped away from him, had taken a new and bewildering turn. Penn had launched a colony that he thought would be quietly subject to his dictates and yield him a handsome profit. By providing a prosperous haven of refuge for Quakers, he had expected in turn the rewards of wealth and power. Instead, he found himself without either. Unable to collect revenue from the free and independent-minded Pennsylvanians, he saw the colony slipping gracefully into outright anarchism—into a growing and flourishing land of no taxes and virtually no state.


The peace-loving Quakers and colonists were able to dissolve an intrusive government by their sheer unwillingness to recognize its legitimacy. They properly regarded the various attempts at governance and taxation imposed upon them as thuggish means of exploitation. In short, they saw through the facade of the state being above moral considerations.

Rejecting state rule did not make them bad citizens but admirable in the sense that they ended up living harmoniously with each other in its absence. As Penn would lament in the midst of Pennsylvania’s brush with halcyon anarchism, he and his appointed rulers had lost “their authority one way or another in the spirits of the people.” The idea that men are born to be free instead of in shackles was enough to overcome government compulsion.

The first step toward liberty is to see through the masking fog the state engulfs itself in to carry out its deeds of conquest. It is the realization that murder is murder no matter if it is committed by a street thug or an army captain piloting a remote controlled aircraft armed with hellfire missiles. It is the realization that debasing of the currency by a select few central bankers is no different from the shysters of old who would shave off small portions from gold bullion so that it would appear to retain the same weight. Finally, it is the realization that glorifying war in the name of “loving thy country” is a grand swindle used to deceive the simple-minded into falling in line like a herd of sheep soon be slaughtered.

Using reason to discover absolute truths is an essential part of determining how one should live their life in accordance with sound ethics.

Relativism denies this. It can deny that evil is committed by the state and that reprehensible acts are perfectly okay when done by individuals with guns and badges. All it takes to reverse such destructive thinking is the realization that state authority deserves no pass in moral scrutiny.

Withdrawing consent comes next on the path to a free society.

Guest Post: Moral Relativism And Patriotism As Weapons Of The State | ZeroHedge

Paul Ryan has 71-year-old man and others arrested for asking questions

Lou Colagiovanni
The Examiner
Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:15 CDT
© Buzzfeed.com

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney recently named Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate for Vice President of the United States. As such, the bright lights and prying eyes of the media have now befallen the congressman.

Video from 2011 has surfaced of several of his constituents being arrested for speaking out of turn at a public luncheon. In one instance, with video provided on the left side of this article, a 71-year-old man was thrown to the ground by police and placed in handcuffs. Moments after the incident Paul Ryan joked, "I hope he has taken his blood pressure medication."

Actually the man was asking how he would be able to afford his medication, but this nuanced difference seems to be lost on the millionaire congressman.



The incident took place September 2011 in Klemmer's Banquet Hall, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Those who were admitted paid $15 each, but the congressman refused to take questions from anyone in the audience. Instead he opted to have anyone who asked a question to be removed from the vicinity. It has been detailed by politicsusa.com that Ryan had 5 people removed, and 3 arrested.

You may watch the more comprehensive footage, including protests outside the event, here.

Paul Ryan has 71-year-old man and others arrested for asking questions -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 8/13/12: Legalize Competing Currencies!

Submitted by richybear on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 00:59
Ron Paul 2012

Wouldn't it be nice if the nation adopted this idea.



Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 8/13/12: Legalize Competing Currencies! | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

Sunday, August 12th, 2012 | Posted by Gordon Duff

Foreign Cash Disqualifies Romney from Presidential Bid


Romney’s Faces Prosecution for Campaign Finance Violations

…by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

No other American presidential candidate has ever left the US to garner campaign contributions from foreign citizens.

There is a reason for this, one Romney and his staff seem oblivious to and the mainstream media has ignored.

Using foreign contributions in any American election is a felony.

If you go outside the US, if you stay inside the US, if your contributor is living in the US but not a citizen, any money you get can mean years in jail.

For Romney, he went the whole way, outside the US, foreign citizens, and while traveling humiliated himself and his country with his ignorance and his attempts to trade illegal cash for promises of illegal war. One could hardly break more laws if one wanted.

Romney raised millions in foreign cash at fundraisers across Israel. One table alone gave him a million in cash. None was from American citizens. Fewer than 10% of Romney’s contributors in Israel are estimated to be “dual citizens.”

A real question many might ask, why would a presidential candidate travel outside the US to seek campaign money at all? As the Supreme Court points out, in the decision Bluman, et al., v. Federal Elections Commission, no foreign cash, especially collected overseas, can ever be used in an American campaign.

Here is what the New York Times reports on recent court decisions that disqualify Romney as a candidate:

January 9, 2012, 3:34 pm

Supreme Court Retains Ban on Foreign Campaign Donations

By JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR.

In a terse four words, the Supreme Court on Monday issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections.

The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions. On Monday the Supreme Court, upholding a lower court’s decision in Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, refused to extend its reasoning in Citizens United to cover foreigners living temporarily here.

Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections.

The Supreme Court’s order did not discuss the merits or suggest that there was any dissent among the justices.

The iconic photo below, from the Washington Post, hands Romney out to dry:

A man with some real problems to wail about; “Please g-d, don’t let them catch me…”

Here is what the Washington Post reported on Romney’s illegal fundraising efforts inside Israel:

JERUSALEM — Mitt Romney held an intimate breakfast fundraiser here Monday with some of his campaign’s biggest benefactors, telling them about the spiritual impact his trip to Israel had had on him.

Seated around a U-shaped conference table with roughly 40 donors, with Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson immediately to his left, Romney said he was “overwhelmingly impressed with the hand of providence.”

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was expected to raise more than $1 million from the donors, who each were required to raise or donate $25,000 to $50,000 to attend the event. All of the donors are U.S. citizens, and many of them flew here from the United States to be with Romney during his 36-hour visit to Jerusalem.

Many of those in attendance at the posh King David Hotel are major bundlers for Romney’s campaign, raising tens of thousands of dollars from their business associates and friends.

Adelson, for instance, has personally committed to giving tens of millions of dollars to a pro-Romney super PAC.

He sure has a big smile on his face

The problem stems with bad legal advice Romney received from his campaign finance staff.

The Romney campaign had been laundering money through corporations, money moved into the US under the “Citizen’s United” decision of the US Supreme Court.

Romney figured he could then go anywhere in the world, peddle foreign policy, promise war, play president and collect cash from foreigners though this is specifically prohibited by US law.

In doing so, he is no longer qualified for office and, if challenged by Ron Paul, has no standing at the Republican Convention. With such a clear violation of law, not just blatant but massive, Romney could face years in prison.

The Romney/Bain legal team was not available for comment.

It is now for Romney to prove that not one cent of contributions collected from thousands in Israel was actually collected from Israel. We wish him good luck with that.

Related Posts:

• Nuclear Whistle Blowers Appeal Denied, Israels Nuclear Apartheid and The Real Deal About Iran
• To: President Obama, New York Corporate News Desks and my Cyber-Attackers
• At the Crossroads of War: Do NOT Say You Were NOT Warned
• US-Israeli Spring Will Bring Deployment of Thousands of US Soldiers
• Stranglehold Afghanistan: How Politics and Lies Is Destroying an Army

Foreign Cash Disqualifies Romney from Presidential Bid | Veterans Today

A ‘Tribute Video’ to Ron Paul at the RNC

So Ron Paul can’t speak at the Republican Convention, but the neocons will air a tribute video about him that will portray him pretty much as the hangers-on themselves have always tried to portray him: as a good budget-balancer who wants transparency at the Fed.

Writes Lew Rockwell:

The video will talk about Ron as a wonderful family man who delivered 4,000 babies; a long-term fighter for lower spending, a balanced budget, and Fed transparency, just like Romney and Ryan; a great congressional baseball player; and a super guy.

Austrian economics? War? Interventionism? The CIA? Militarism? The police state? Corporatism? Torture? Concentration camps? Sound money? Sound banking? Secret arrests and imprisonment? What are those? Oh, and Ron, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

When we find out who negotiated this pathetic deal, maybe we ought to criticize this person, instead of pretending for the gazillionth time that it’s all part of a secret plan to win the nomination, and that those of us on the outside should keep our mouths shut, since we’re not privy to all the inside information, etc.

A ‘Tribute Video’ to Ron Paul at the RNC | Tom Woods

What Rabid GunGrabbers don't want you to know: Austria has HIGHER Crime rate than US! Oh, and they kill w/Grenades in UK!

Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 01:06
2nd Amendment

Yes, you read correctly: a grenade murder in UK, where handguns are completely banned, and of course grenades, too.

But hey, Brady Gungrabbers Inc. love trotting out UK as a model for gun confiscation. Think it still works?

So um... when's the last time you've heard of a person in America being assassinated by a grenade, this year?

Clayton gun and grenade murder: Man arrested

A man has been arrested on suspicion of murder, after a man was killed in a gun and grenade attack in Greater Manchester.

BBC 12 August 2012 Last updated at 10:11 ET

David Short, 46, was found dead in Folkestone Road East, Clayton, on Friday after shots were heard.

A 37-year-old was arrested late on Saturday in the Salford area and is currently being questioned by officers.

Police said their main priority remains to speak to Dale Cregan from Droylsden in connection with the murder.

************************************************** ************
NOTE: For those who love winning arguments, and sticking it to 'educated idiots,' please bookmark the following, because you're certain to use it, again, and again, and again!

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.

By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent
7:00AM BST 02 Jul 2009

...It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

UK: 2,000 crimes recorded (NOT counting unreported ones!) per 100,000
US: 466 crimes recorded per 100,000.

Told ya we were peaceful and loving people. Sure, 'our' corporatist Wall St. Mil. Ind. Complex-owned govt and their Ruling Class overlords maybe a psychotic sociopathic guild of murderous pricks, but We the FREE People? Not so much.

And, We the Peaceful, FREE People just happen to own the largest privately held armories in the whole-wide world! Yeah? So? Got a problem with that? LOL.

What Rabid GunGrabbers don't want you to know: Austria has HIGHER Crime rate than US! Oh, and they kill w/Grenades in UK! | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

Romney Supports Stealing Your Tax Dollars for Big Oil Companies

Submitted by myajace on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 09:17
Current Events

In 2011, the top five oil companies (BP, Chevron, Conoco, Shell, Exxon Mobil) posted a combined profit of $137 billion. In the first quarter of 2012, these companies earned a combined $33.5 billion. Last year, these fossil fuel companies got $11 billion in government subsidies.

The fossil fuel industry receives nearly six times more in government subsidies than the renewable energy industry. This creates significant entry barriers for the renewable energy industry and stifles competition. Why is it that oil and gas companies are allowed to deduct up to 80 percent of the costs of drilling? Why do loopholes allow corporations like BP to deduct costs incurred from cleaning up spills and paying damages? How can we expect oil companies to prevent spills if they can rely on taxpayers to pay for cleanup?

Mitt Romney probably doesn’t pump his own gas, but he definitely has some friends who are oil executives. They’ve got his ear and they’ve lined his pockets, and they are counting on him to maintain their precious tax breaks. It’s time for Romney to stop dancing around the issue and admit that he wants taxpayers to subsidize his Big Oil friends who are making billions off of skyrocketing gas prices. Romney’s chief energy advisor, billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm, has vocally urged Congress to maintain the tax breaks he enjoys.

Four questions for Romney's chief energy advisor, Harold Hamm:

1. If you still need special tax breaks after your stock nearly tripled in value in three years, when would your billion-dollar company not need taxpayer help?

2. Given that you are one of the world's top 100 wealthiest people, do you defend tax subsidies so you have more money to give to Super PACs?

3. Are the billions in subsidies you already receive not enough for you to act to prevent toxic oil spills?

4. Can you identify which position on the Forbes Billionaires list a wind executive would have to obtain before he or she should be eligible for a tax credit?

http://realrepubs.com/content/four-questions-harold-hamm-rom...

Romney Supports Stealing Your Tax Dollars for Big Oil Companies | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution