The New Hampshire primary set for Tuesday seems to be shaping up as a contest for second place behind Mitt Romney who appears to be headed for a strong first place victory. I hate following conventional wisdom in stating that Romney appears to be the one to beat, however, in this case every poll agrees that his lead is anywhere from 15 to 30 points ahead of his rivals.
Report from WMUR:
MANCHESTER, N.H. — The top spot in the latest WMUR/University of New Hampshire poll still belongs to Mitt Romney, but the race for second and third place is very close.
Romney holds a commanding lead with 41 percent of those surveyed saying they'd vote for him in the primary.
Ron Paul is in second with 17 percent. The latest mover is Jon Huntsman, who has jumped four percentage points in the last couple days and is now tied for third with Rick Santorum at 11 percent.
Newt Gingrich is right behind with 8 percent.
Rick Perry and Buddy Roemer have 1 percent, and so does Michele Bachmann, who suspended her campaign last week.
The poll surveyed 461 randomly selected likely primary voters between Jan. 5 and Jan. 8. The margin of sampling error was +/- 4.6 percent.
"Two days left and this race is wide open, maybe not at the top, but certainly for the second slot," said Andy Smith from the UNH Survey Center.
Similar to Mike Huckabee in 2008, though Huckabee actually won, a near-win (tie?) in Iowa has created little movement for Santorum in New Hampshire where values voters are not as plentiful as the Hawkeye state. The real battle will be South Carolina where the top spot has shifted between Gingrich, Romney and Santorum in the past several days.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- nh polls 1-9-12
- nh polls 2012
- poll of new hampshire voters\ attitude towards obama administration
- poll 2bd place new hampshire
- last new hampshire poll
- what happened in new hampshire on 1/9/12
- what do the polls show right now in new hamsphire
- who came in second in the election on 1/9/2012
- poll new hampshire
- which new hampshire poll was most correct last week
- primary focus new hampshire votes poll: roemer at 2 percent
- random paragraph on 2012 presidential polls
People that will vote for anyone besides Ron Paul are so GULLIBLE! They discount and let what Ron Paul says "go in one ear and out the other". It's a shame that they don't understand "what's coming", and that NO OTHER CANDIDATE is "sounding the alarm" like Ron Paul is. But all they can "focus on" is promoting someone who can "beat Obama". They don't realize that no matter who is elected, NOTHING will Change.
34 Shocking Facts About U.S. Debt That Will Set America "On Fire" With Anger
We have all been lied to. For decades, the leaders of BOTH major political parties have promised us that they can "fix" our current system and that they can get our national debt under control. As the 2012 election approaches, BOTH Political Parties are making all kinds of "wild promises" once again. In order to get elected, the Politicians are saying to the GULLIBLE ELECTORATE "that America's BEST DAYS are still ahead of her." Well you know what? It is all a giant sham. The United States has gotten into so much debt that there will be no coming back from this. The current system is irretrievably broken. 30 years ago the U.S. debt was a horrific crisis that was completely and totally out of control. If we would have dealt with it back then maybe we could have done something about it. But now it is 15 times larger, and we are adding more than a trillion dollars to the debt every single year. The facts that you are about to read below will set America "on fire" with anger. What we are doing to our children and our grandchildren is absolutely nightmarish. Words like "abuse", "financial rape", "theft" and "crime" do not even begin to describe what we are doing to future generations. We were the wealthiest nation on earth, but it wasn't good enough just to squander all of our own money. We had to squander the money of our children and our grandchildren as well. America has been so selfish and so self-centered that it is hard to argue that we don't deserve what is about to happen to this country. We and the Politicians we've Elected, have "stolen" the future of America, and yet we "strut around" as if we are the smartest generation that ever walked the face of the earth.
All of this prosperity that we see all around us is just an "illusion". It is a false prosperity that has been purchased by the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world.
Did you know that if you added up all forms of debt in the United States and divided it up equally that every single family in the country would owe more than $683,000?
We are a nation that is absolutely "addicted" to debt, and the U.S. debt crisis threatens to destroy everything that our forefathers built.
Yes, everything may seem fine for the moment, but what do you think would happen if the federal government suddenly adopted a "Balanced Budget"? Sure, mentioning a "Balanced Budget" is a great "applause line" in a debate, but has anyone ever thought this through?
What would happen if we adopted a "Balanced Budget" is that 1.3 trillion dollars a year would be "sucked" right out of the economy and we would be looking at an "immediate economic readjustment" that would be "absolutely mind blowing".
Enjoy this false prosperity while you can, because it is not going to last.
Debt is a very cruel master, and our day of reckoning is almost here.
The following are 34 shocking facts about U.S. debt that will set America "on fire" with anger….
#1 During fiscal year 2011, the U.S. government spent 3.7 trillion dollars but it only brought in 2.4 trillion dollars.
#2 When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. national debt was less than 1 trillion dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt is over 15.2 trillion dollars.
#3 During 2011, U.S. debt surpassed 100 percent of GDP for the first time ever.
#4 According to Wikipedia, the monetary base "consists of coins, paper money (both as bank vault cash and as currency circulating in the public), and commercial banks' reserves with the central bank." Currently the U.S. monetary base is sitting somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars. So if you went out and gathered all of that money up it would only make a small dent in our national debt. But afterwards there would be no currency for anyone to use.
#5 The U.S. government spent over 454 billion dollars just on interest to the FED on the national debt during fiscal 2011. This money went directly "into the pockets" of the International Bankers who LEND us OUR money AT INTEREST!
#6 The U.S. government has total assets of 2.7 trillion dollars and has total liabilities of 17.5 trillion dollars. The liabilities do not even count 4.7 trillion dollars of intragovernmental debt that is currently outstanding.
#7 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.
#8 It is being projected that the U.S. national debt will surpass 23 trillion dollars in 2015.
#9 According to the GAO, the U.S. government is facing 34 trillion dollars in "unfunded liabilities" for social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. These are obligations that we have already committed ourselves to but that we do not have any money for.
#10 Others estimate that the "unfunded liabilities" of the U.S. government now total over 117 trillion dollars.
#11 According to the GAO, the ratio of debt held by the public to GDP is projected to reach 287 percent of GDP by 2086.
#12 Others are much less optimistic. A recently revised IMF policy paper entitled “An Analysis of U.S. Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: Who Will Pay and How?” projects that U.S. government debt will rise to about 400 percent of GDP by the year 2050.
#13 The United States government is responsible for more than a third of all the government debt in the entire world.
#14 If you divide up the national debt equally among all U.S. taxpayers, each taxpayer would owe approximately $134,685.
#15 Mandatory federal spending surpassed total federal revenue for the first time ever in fiscal 2011. That was not supposed to happen until 50 years from now.
#16 Between 2007 and 2010, U.S. GDP grew by only 4.26%, but the U.S. national debt soared by 61% during that same time period.
#17 During Barack Obama's first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.
#18 When you add up all spending by the federal government, state governments and local governments, it comes to 46.6% of GDP.
#19 Our nation is more addicted to government checks than ever before. In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.
#20 U.S. households are now actually receiving more money directly from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.
#21 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.
#22 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.
#23 In 1950, each retiree's Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 U.S. workers. According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now only 1.75 full-time private sector workers for each person that is receiving Social Security benefits in the United States.
#24 The U.S. government now says that the Medicare trust fund will run out five years faster than they were projecting just last year.
#25 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.
#26 If the U.S. government was forced to use GAAP accounting principles (like all publicly-traded corporations must), the U.S. government budget deficit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 trillion to $5 trillion each and every year.
#27 If you were alive when Christ was born and you spent one million dollars every single day since that point, you still would not have spent one trillion dollars by now. But this year alone the U.S. government is going to add more than a trillion dollars to the national debt.
#28 If right this moment you went out and started spending one dollar every single second, it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend one trillion dollars.
#29 A trillion $10 bills, if they were taped end to end, would wrap around the globe more than 380 times. That amount of money would still not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.
#30 If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 470,000 years to pay off the national debt.
#31 If Bill Gates gave every penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for 15 days.
#32 According to Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, the U.S. is facing a "fiscal gap" of over 200 trillion dollars in the future. The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article that he did for CNN….
The government's total indebtedness — its fiscal gap — now stands at $211 trillion, by my arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the difference, measured in present value, between all projected future spending obligations — including our huge defense expenditures and massive entitlement programs, as well as making interest and principal payments on the official debt — and all projected future taxes.
#33 If you add up all forms of debt in the United States (government, business and consumer), it comes to more than 56 trillion dollars. That is more than $683,000 per family. Unfortunately, the average amount of savings per family in the U.S. is only about $4,735.
#34 The U.S. national debt is now more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.
But do our leaders care about statistics such as these?
No.
In fact, Barack Obama says that we need to raise the debt limit by another 1.2 trillion dollars.
The absurdity of raising the debt limit when we are already in so much debt is beautifully illustrated by the video posted below….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE&feature=player_embedded
I just thought that video was so well done.
The "huge cuts" that Congress has agreed to are absolutely meaningless when compared to how rapidly our debt is exploding.
Calling those cuts "pocket change" would be an insult to pocket change.
But it is not just U.S. debt that is the problem. The European debt crisis threatens to completely unravel in 2012 and Japan actually has the highest debt to GDP ratio in the entire industrialized world.
In 2012, a total of 7,600,000,000,000 dollars of debt must be rolled over by the G-7 nations, Brazil, Russia, India and China.
That doesn't even count new borrowing. That number just represents old debts that are coming due that must be refinanced.
Anyone out there that insists that this debt bubble can be fixed under our current system is LYING!
A massive amount of financial pain is coming.
It is time for Americans to "wake up" from their television-induced comas.
It is time for Americans to get very very angry.
Your future has been "destroyed" and the future of your children and grandchildren has been "destroyed".
You better take action while you still can.
It's pretty much hopeless to wake those up from their tv induced comas. You're either a thinker, or not.
Agreed Harold. Some of us have natural bull**** filters and others don't. All we can do is keep trying to wake people up and hope to god it is in time.
Everything you say maybe true, Ron Paul maybe "dead on" right on every issue. But talk is meaningless unless it can actually be converted into real change. Most people understand this, and that is why most people have not, and will not, vote for Paul. It's nothing personal, but Ron has a record of big talk, but changing nothing. Yes, like most Americans, I'm fed up with Washington's corruption,(regardless of party affiliation) but if you listen without bias you will find that all of the GOP candidates agree on 90% of the issues. I would be happy to give up 10% to get 90% change. So far, Ron's strategy of asking for 100% or nothing has yielded 0%. We need change not talk.
"all the GOP candidates agree on 90% of the issues" ????
You must be looking at a much smaller list of issues than I.
How do you figure that 90%?
Hoggy Bear
I have to disagree with you that the "talk" is all "meaningless". I also have to STRONGLY disagree with you that "most" people "understand this". That's the problem. Most people DON'T understand much of anything economically; let alone what "real change" actually means.
Frankly, MOST people in America are so completely "dumbed-down" to what their Government has become, that they CAN'T EVEN BEGIN to "understand" what Ron Paul is saying. Oh….but sadly…they eventually they will. Ron Paul is and has been "sounding the alarm bells" for a long time now, but the "Establishments" (Republicans and Democrats) and the Media just IGNORE what he's saying. They "play" on the voter's Ignorance, KNOWING that they will only vote for the "best-looking, smooth-talking" Politician out there. It's quite sad, because Americans won't ever see or experience any REAL Change for the GOOD. But they will see and experience REAL Change for the WORSE.
And with all due respect, Hoggy Bear, you can be "fed up" all you want, but being "fed up" just won't cut it. And from the "tone" of your post, perhaps maybe you don't "fully understand" WHAT'S COMING either. May I suggest you watch a short video called "How much is a Trillion" by Chris Martenson. It's a section of a "non-biased, economic series" which explains the "Exponential Function" and where we are today in relation to our Debt. If you watch it and it peeks your interest, watch the entire series. It's quite an Education.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-11-how-much-trillion
Hoggy,….The "reason" Ron Paul's efforts resulting in
"not actually being converted into real change" is
a direct correlation to the attitude of the american
public, Just like "yours". You see a "principle" with which
you agree, but lack the courage and discipline to vote for
the senators and congressmen to "PASS" those bills.
You, and millions of others, are the cause of the destruction
of our nation, due to your "APATHY" and "PLACATION". You have
revealed a world of ignorance in your statement.
YOU ARE VOTING FOR "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING" !
That WMUR poll is not the only one showing these trends..
Here is a snippet from the "7 News / Suffolk University" poll, just released today:
1/9/2012
For the fifth day in a row, Mitt Romney has fallen in overnight tracking, but lack of movement by second place Ron Paul has insulated a likely Romney victory, according to the latest two-day Suffolk University/7News tracking poll of likely voters in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary.
Romney dropped 2 more percentage points overnight but still holds a 13-point lead at 33 percent. The former Massachusetts governor has dropped a full 10 points from five days ago, when he had 43 percent of likely GOP voters.
Romney is followed by Paul (20 percent), Jon Huntsman (13 percent), Newt Gingrich (11 percent) and Rick Santorum (10 percent), while Rick Perry and Buddy Roemer combined for 3 percent with 12 percent undecided.
Yesterday, they had Perry and Roemer at 1% each. Now, they combine for 3%. One of those two guys is SURGING!
I completely agree with Darryl's post on Jan 9. The US political system is comprised of republicans, democrats and independents but it is still ONE system. Unfortunatelly it works to meet the demands of special interest groups. The rest get the leftovers. RON PAUL is the ONLY candidate that proposes a system change. As governor Perry has stated "We better get is right this time". Mitt Romney may be highly experienced and charismatic, but he is sure the candidate of the establishment as he is not willing to stand against the Federal Reserve, the military complex special interest or anything that challenges the "status quo". What can I say about the rest, Gingritch, Perry, Sanctorum, Huntsman. They are middle way candidates. Only Ron Paul and Rick Sanctorum voted against the 2008 huge bailout to the Wallstreet power elite. America has to take its chances . . . I support R.Paul
Once again the Captain of the Ron Paul Propaganda Army [Darryl] visits 2012PresidentialElectionNews and insults anybody with a point of view different from his own. The first sentence in his post illustrates this beautifully: "People that will vote for anyone besides Ron Paul are so GULLIBLE!"
Gullible? Wow! Did you learn this tactic in a persuasive speaking class?
Insulting people who simply disagree with you is not the most persuasive method to help them see your brilliance.
Do you work a job? Because I can't imagine anyone who has such a disdain for a large percent of the population could ever get along with other people.
The reality is your style is similar to most of the Ron Paul supporters I've seen in all online forums.
Voter
Perhaps the "Gullible", wouldn't be so "Gullible", if they REALLY "knew and understood" just WHAT their Candidates stood for. It certainly isn't for PEACE. "Peace" is NEVER mentioned during the debates, is it?
So now, all the GOP candidates, except Ron Paul, want to go to War with Iran and Syria. The Great "Empire America" is now deploying 1000's of Troops into Israel, as I write this. But of course, you and your Plutocrat GOP candidates see absolutely nothing wrong with this, do you? You just sit back, "make fun" of Ron Paul's Economic and Foreign Policies, call him and his supporters "kooks", while innocent people are going to SUFFER and DIE overseas.
Yeah, Voter. It's called being "Gullible". Gullible to a Foreign Policy that will invariably create more and more Terrorism; as well as being Economically Gullible to the TRILLIONS of Dollars we are accumulating in DEBT every year. We're all still waiting for another candidate, besides Ron Paul, to show us some "common sense" leadership, instead of just more of the Status-Quo.
Disdain? The only people I disdain are the candidates who promote "Unconstitutional Wars of Aggression" and "turn-a-blind-eye" the EVER increasing, EVER mounting DEBT being foisted upon the "Gullible" American People.
They call this video below the "Humanitarian Bombing" of the people of Libya. Maybe you should watch this video, Voter. (that is, if you've got the stomach for it). More to come, I'm sure, when we start bombing Iran…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzOM6wkS89A
May God forgive US.
"be not conformed to this world"……………
…….."but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2)
I is the religious zelots in America that are doing this. Screw Christianity.
I wish I could say may God have mercy on our souls for this, but I don't see us having any mercy for others. God will laugh when we ask.
VOTER, I "sense" a hint of DEFENSE in your rebuke of Darryl,
that being, an attitude of not wanting to be objective. At least
Darryl has spent the "time" and forethought to "ELABORATE" his
position "VERY SUCCINCTLY", which is congruent with the style
of "RON PAUL".
I'd like to suggest, and further "persuade you",…..to remove
your emotions, and analyze "THE FULL CONTENT" of BOTH yours'
and Darryl's post.
WHICH ONE, yours' or Darryl's,……..has substance and facts.
Of the two,………which one is more informative ??????
I've read your post,……I'm at a loss, and tactfully must
say that you've given us "no information", just an attitude !
Do you realize how "OUT OF CONTEXT" you've positioned Darryl's
first sentence ?
Were you "not" to analyze and ponder the information, then
YOU ALSO,……will fit the WEBSTER DEFINITION of "GULLIBLE" !
george,
You are guilty of being "gullible" by your own definition. One of Paul's supporters biggest errors in judgment is your dogmatism and a false-conception that Ron has ownership of all things right. Yours and his angry words are what have caused people to not listen because, for the most part, you are SCREAMING at the choir you are supposed to be singing in.
Tired,……..Not worthy of reply,……you have eyes, and have chosen "not to see", and
having ears, you have chosen "not to hear"……..
"not worthy of reply", yet you did… symbolic.
Running around like chicken little and thinking the rest of us do not see or know what is going on; getting on your soapbox and preaching old information that equally concerns every patriot, which obviously includes you; then pretentiously assuming we do not care, IS the Ron Paul mantra as viewed by those of us who agree with and appreciate the core of his message, but do not agree with his his incompetent methods to make them efficacious. Your hubris would be laughable if it were not so insulting, divisive and tragic.
Ron Paul and his supporters need to take their place in the choir, agree to disagree, for now, on subjects that are currently impossible to solve and stop this false-condescension to people who are really their equals in most respects.
George,
I wanted to clarify that it is obvious to me that you are a patriot; I did not mean to make it appear otherwise.
Tired,………….I can only say this as bluntly
as is grammatically possible:
—-YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT—-
This is clarified by your statement "Those of us who agree with and
appreciate the core of his message, (BUT) DO NOT AGREE WITH
HIS INCOMPETENT METHODS to make them efficacious"………
This man (RON PAUL) has been predicting the current state of affairs
for years and years, he alone is fighting against the downfall
of our countries founding principles,……and can't get
anything done, due to the system that dumbs down most
Americans, ie, the populous gullibility.
To say that you disagree with his methods is
simply lacking an understanding of objectivity.
HE HAS NO METHODS !!!!!
HE CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT ANY methods, and has
been vehemently MARGINALIZED for decades.
That's analogous to faulting a ball player for not
helping out his team, all the while being forced to
stay on the bench !
It appears that your inability to see the ELEPHANT IN THE
LIVING ROOM, is greatly contributing to the ballplayer
being forced to stay on the bench !
I am not "PRETENTIOUSLY ASSUMING" that you do not care.
It is glaringly obvious in your admitted personal
contradiction of beliefs vs. action : "THOSE OF US WHO AGREE WITH AND APPRECIATE
THE CORE OF HIS MESSAGE",…and then proceed to "rationalize"
your apathy, and CHOICE NOT TO support your shared values,….by blaming the very
messenger with whom you agree.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE : def. A condition of conflict resulting from inconsistency between
one's beliefs and one's actions…………..
P.S. : Honest rebuke is a far cry from HUBRIS.
George,
That contradiction only applies to your perception of right and wrong, not mine. We have a difference of opinion on methodology, which corrupts the overall objective (how it is said and done IS PART OF what is said and done).
RP is not nearly as prophetic as Pat Buchanan, but no one listens to him because of his incapacity to sweeten the message (this is really sad).
RP has been marginalized because he is too obstinate and rigid… He could have come off the bench if he played by the rules of the whole rather than demanding everyone else play by his.
The reality of politics demands that you get bloody hands to get what you want. Those are the rules and if RP can change them in a manner that generates a majority compliance, then he has my blessing, short of some of the dangerous ideas he has in reducing the debt. Otherwise, he will simply remain a noisemaker that tells the truth, but does nothing to change what he is yelling about. WE ALL KNOW what he is yelling about and want the changes as badly as he does… however, it is better to change something for the better than to simply yell at the top of your lungs with no mechanism to solve anything.
YOU are on the bench until you can play your way! I am invested in the process of having some productive change at least.
Tired
I'm "sorta" getting where you're coming from… (maybe) Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You believe that in order to get things done, or in Ron Paul's case, to get his message across - he should of been a "player" WHILE serving in Congress. Is that what it means when you say "getting your Hands Bloodied"? In other words, it's "the ends should always justify the means" philosophy?
And because he didn't "play" that way (getting his Hands Bloodied), he acquired the nickname of "Dr. No" from many of the Washington Insiders (Lobbyists). Which, from many accounts, makes a lot of sense, seeing that when other Congresspeople had Washington Lobbyists "standing in line" outside their office doors, Ron Paul had very few visits from Washington Lobbyists because they "already knew" how he would come down on the matter. Thus, not only was he nicknamed "Dr. No" by the Washington Establishment, he is NOW being "graciously ordained", by you, with the mantle of being "too obstinate and rigid", instead of "The Man with Bloodied Hands".
So, let me get this straight on what it "actually means" to have "Bloodied Hands" as a "player" in Washington…
While Dr. Paul (Dr. No) was "Representing" the People of his District in accordance to his Oath of Office of a United States Congressperson (which he takes very seriously), many of his colleagues (down the hall), were getting their "Hands Bloodied" by getting their "pockets lined" with cash and their political "war chests" bolstered with money from the Washington Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups. Not to mention, the myriad of "promises" to "deliver-the-votes" for an upcoming election.
And while Dr. Paul (Dr. No) was "standing up" (almost alone) AGAINST unbalanced budgets, unconstitutional wars and an unconstitutional FED, some of his colleagues (down the hall), were REALLY getting their "Hands Bloodied" from being introduced to the "High Rollers" which the Washington Lobbyists represent - all so they could be "stuffed" into the back pockets of these "High Rollers" when it comes to Government Regulations and Subsidies.
And while Dr. Paul (Dr. No) was busy trying to "represent" his Constituency in Washington, some of his colleagues (down the hall) were REALLY, REALLY getting their "Hands Bloodied" by acquiring Insider Stock Trading information on the Stock Market to make for "themselves" MILLIONS of Dollars "on the side". But…if the average person (without the Bloodied Hands) did this, they would go to jail.
Is that what it means to have "Bloodied Hands"?
OK, Tired. Enough of the "Bloodied Hands" sarcasm. But I'd like you to further expound on the "short of some of the dangerous ideas he has in reducing the debt" comment.
Tired,……….had to ponder your 5:00pm response for some
time,..as I found it to be skillfully crafted and wordy,
which I enjoy !
YOU'D MAKE A GREAT POLITICIAN !
However, my intuition and oft desire to "cut to the chase"
has me , once again , being blunt.
Your perspective, attitude, (whatever you want to define it), in trying
to further a belief, value system, or set of circumstances, is suspect.
IN OTHER WORDS: In order to affect a "CHANGE" to further your position,
or any certain political agenda, or "ANYTHING IN LIFE", are you or
are you not in agreement with the following :
"LET YOUR YES BE YES,..AND YOUR NO BE NO" ???
Your statements have the flavor of "compromising", in order to appease.
The words, "I am invested in the process of having (some) productive change "AT LEAST",..
mirrors the "lukewarm" ineffectiveness which is fraying apart our country's fabric, which
was fearfully and powerfully fought for. Your words remind me of studying the attempts of reason and compromise
which our founding fathers struggled with, to NO AVAIL. Consistent attempts were spat upon
and mocked by our oppressors, to the degree of severe bloodshed.
What would your interpretation be, for the following:
"do not be unequally yoked together,…for what fellowship has righteousness
with lawlessness,….what communion has light with darkness" ???
George and Darryl,
Before I respond, please know that I admire and agree with your purpose and passion; if I did not, I would not respond to you. You see things in black and white and my soul longs for the members of this Nation to realize and embrace MOST of what you profess… it is truly "what's wrong with America". I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that I live to at least the same standards as you do in the realm of the things I am in control of. If you do not recognize that in my writing, then I am wasting your time.
I will respond later, as I honestly do not have time right now, but I felt it urgent that I make that point.
Tired
I recognize that you share the same standards as I do. However, your suggested "methods" of "change" is what's troublesome.
For years, the American people have had to "settle" for the "lesser of 2 evils" and it always came down to "who" the "Establishment" chose for us to vote for as a Candidate.
It's so refreshing to finally have a candidate who is polling strong and who has a record of NOT "going along". His platform is Liberty. And in the age of "Government Over-Reach", We-The-People FINALLY have a VOICE in Ron Paul!
My point is analogous to to a dam that is about to break (Water represents debt):
RP is yelling about the fact that the dam is going to break and how he told everyone that this was going to happen and they should have never put that dam there.
Current Repubs are putting rolled up $100 bills in the holes to slow down the inevitable destruction.
dems are diverting other rivers into the failing dams' containment basin so they can have more water.
Everyone is at fault when it finally fails and destroys the innocent citizens down river (grandkids).
Saving the dam should be the priority and mission of all involved and if they joined forces, got a little dirty and used a tube and a half of elbow grease, they could do it… But the price of communing with "the enemy" is too high because it would confuse the voters.
Tired
I like your "dam" analogy. But with all due respect, I have one simple question for you? Just one…
Have you've been listening to what Ron Paul has been saying when asked "how" he would implement his Plan with a Congress in Gridlock?
He just said it AGAIN just 3 weeks ago at the FOX Debate where is was given only 30 seconds to answer. He's said it MANY MANY TIMES during other interviews. Even his son, Rand Paul, reiterated it AGAIN during Frank Luntz's Focus Group in New Hampshire. Here's "how" Ron Paul will get people "working together" on the "Dam". (It's quick - he only had 30 seconds to answer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LI13DQe2mk
Tired,…………where'd ya go?
The "damn" analogy was non pragmatic.
Elaborating on our debt and monetary debacle
is actually straight forward economics,…I am
at a loss as to why you'd chosen such an
intangible storyline.
I'll yield to any and all Paul's videos on
economics, banking, fiscal policy, etc.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE !
Have you chosen to avoid my former
2 questions ?
Darryl,
I like it. However, that is a standard tactic used in Washington today and the time and quality of the responses are proportional to what they can get away with.
George,
Not sure where I went… you are right. rereading the analogy I now realize it could have been better. It felt good when I wrote it but I have been rushed the last few days and it shows. You have to admit that part on the dems was pretty funny though (even though the repubs are close to equally guilty on increasing our debt).
I thought I answered your questions. I LIKE RP. I just wish he could find a way to get in a more populated choir (I am happy that he is gaining ground and would prefer that this Nation would get on board, but unbridled greed, selfishness and false entitlement prevent the masses from seeing the truth). I try to live my life the way he lives his, which is usually above reproach in the things I have control of; and paying for my mistakes when I am capable of doing so.
I have been leaning toward Romney (when I commit, I will donate to the campaign I believe best matches my belief in who can beat Obama and make things better; until then, I am okay with being lukewarm so I can keep a clear head in properly evaluating who is best), but I need to get to the bottom of the Bain / healthcare mandate situations. I want to believe that most of the ammunition his rivals are using against him comes from past compromises.
Please remind me of the questions I missed. I have read all of your posts a number of times.
Tired
I know you're still undecided, so let me run by you a few things about Romney.
First and foremost - Romney is a Wall Street Financier - a "Money Guy" who will ONLY take care of his "Money Friends". You can't spell "Romney" without "Money". But I digress…
Anyway, when you "drill-down" on Romney "Politically", he's actually a "Liberal to Moderate" Politician. That may not matter to some, but it DOES MATTER to Conservatives and the Tea Party. Romney has very strong ambitions to become President, but I believe they are VERY selfishly motivated. The main reason he's "Flip-Flopped" on the Issues is because he has seen the "writing-on-the-wall" and he realized that the People are "upset" with Government. Thus, he has now "Flipped" to being a Conservative out of "Political Expediency", but he's a Liberal/Moderate at his Core.
Keep in mind, he has ABSOLUTELY ZERO "Experience" in Foreign Policy. He has NEVER "Served" in the Military. And his sons didn't sign up to join the Military. That makes him an unabashed PLUTOCRAT!
He gets up in front of the Republican/Conservative "Sheeple" and provides them with a "Laundry List" of what he's FOR and AGAINST. But really, WHO CARES what he "says" he's FOR or AGAINST! It's all just "stuff" that Conservative/Republicans "want-to-hear". If he gets in, he's NEVER going to Govern that way. It'll be like Obama and the "Blame-Game" all over again.
And TRUST me on this (even though you don't know me), the Democrats WANT Romney to be the Republican nominee. And the Media is there - "waiting in-the-wings". They will be like "starving sharks" ready to "pounce" to absolutely "rip him to shreds". Why do you think Mitt Romney DOESN'T DO "Interviews" with the Main Stream Media or appear on the Sunday Talk Shows? It's because his "Handlers" are telling him NOT to. They KNOW he's vulnerable…VERY vulnerable. They tell him to "keep fooling the People" by "pretending" to be a Conservative by doing "Town Hall Style Meetings" - GET THE NOMINATION - and then we'll "Go Negative" on Obama right out of the Gate. The Republican "Establishment" is "banking" on this Strategy, but it will eventually Backfire. Obama will "eat him alive" in a debate because it'll be "negative vs. negative" and Romney has much more negatives; especially because it will effect his Political Base. The Conservatives and the Tea Party will realize that "they've been had" (Again).
Ron Paul is the ONLY Candidate who genuinely can and will BEAT Obama. Why? Because Ron Paul will Debate by "Defending the Constitution and Personal Liberty"! The People "get that". Obama wouldn't have a Leg-to-stand-on if he debated Ron Paul, even if Ron's Foreign Policy was attacked. Ron would "crush" that argument completely and the people would THEN see that they've been "manipulated" and "lied to" by the Media.
The Debate between Paul and Obama could be likened to the Praying-Mantis, when it devours it's Prey, it eats the Head FIRST, while the Prey is still alive. All you'll see is Obama's arms and legs "flailing", as Ron Paul gets "in-his-Head". It won't be pretty, but it would be so "fun" to watch!
Tired,………..
I'd suggest you consider how self denigrating
and internally conflicting your words are.
"I LIKE RON PAUL", "I'M HAPPY THAT HE IS GAINING GROUND, AND
WOULD PREFER THAT THIS NATION WOULD GET ON BOARD"….and proceed
to advocate Romney.
….or….
"I HAVE BEEN LEANING TOWARDS ROMNEY"
"I'M OK WITH BEING LUKEWARM",..and you proceed to admit
that your value system lies in "BEATING OBAMA" instead of
voting "FOR" a candidate.
I'd persuade you to take a stand for "WHO YOU ARE" in life,
even if that would mean voting for ROMNEY.
I'll run the risk of offending you, However, that
is vehemently not my intention, and as I discontinue these posts
between us, it is clear that you can not clarify yourself.
I'M TRYING TO OPEN YOUR EYES INWARDLY !
It seems to me that a person with those qualities is a person
that "needs" a government to control their decisions.
Therefore I'd suggest you bypass ROMNEY and solidify those
character traits even more, by voting for OBAMA.
I personally choose to vote "FOR" a candidate that supports
my own person hood, and one whom forces me to look inward
at myself, take personal responsibility, and "RUN MY OWN LIFE".
Were I to be running a campaign myself, I'd honestly "NOT" want
you to support me,….I'd be taking too much of a risk, due
to your lack of "CLARITY OF PURPOSE".
This "I CAN HONESTLY SAY",….you DO seem to be quite reflective
and "contemplative".
You DO seem to possess a discerning and patient demeanor, NEVER LOSE THAT !
……….a house divided "against itself" shall not stand…………
I tried to make the point, but you are not getting it. Neither of you know Romney because you are too passionate about RP.
I am almost certain that Romney has my vote, but I still have time, as my vote may not matter by the time we get around to my state.
I believe the both of you have not carefully gotten to know the candidates and have misinformed opinions about their intentions… in fact it is clear to me in your writings. EVERY candidate has some selfish motives for becoming president, but some of your reasoning for discounting their viability are shallow and under-researched at best.
RP's value is his all or nothing mentality, but it is not usable right now because not enough people agree with him AND too many of his policies are dangerous.
It has been nice chatting with you guys and please know your efforts here have clarified incorrect views I had about RP. You would do well to allow more positive thinking about the other candidates. I would be MUCH happier with any of the remaining four over Obama.
Tired
I'm quite surprised at you. If anything, this past weekends debate should have told you that we Ron Paul Supporters were ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about Mittens Romney. Mittens came RIGHT OUT WITH IT that he would have signed the Unconstitutional NDAA Bill into Law, just as Obama did.
I'm afraid it is YOU, my friend, who has not researched (or vetted) your candidate (Romney) properly.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between Romney and Obama. They BOTH wish to "RULE" the People with an Iron Fist and "bypass" the Will and "Rights" of the People. I'm waiting to see if Romney supports SOPA and PIPA, too. (He'll probably wait for Obama to sign them first)
Tired, I am a long-time RP supporter, and I certainly do not believe that he has ownership of all things right. But I do know that he has, by far, most of the right fundamental ideas. Our country was founded based on a high-level idea (that a moral people could govern themselves morally without oppressive dictatorial whims and laws restricting and appropriating their liberty and their wealth. But a lot of those people disagreed, even on some of the most basic ideas about the implementation of that government. We don't have to all be right, but we do have to be all be willing to put everything on the table for discussion and be willing to be held to account under the law for every law, every program, every decision. Gingrich, Romney, Perry, Santorum, are all willing to simply set aside the law when it goes against their personal desires, rather than mount a proper (and legal) effort to change the law. That means that they are unqualified to lead our nation.
We are not preaching, or SCREAMING, to the choir. We ARE the choir. We are screaming "we are, and you should be, as mad as you-know-what about the tearing down of our nation, and none of us should be willing to take it anymore!" Where you ever got the idea that it was appropriate to take this message to the choir is beyond me - it is not the healthy that need a physician, but the sick.
Well said, Neville.
Integrity is the ability to conduct yourself in a manner that does not defy your own definition of your own morals. Since no two individual moral codes are exactly alike (like DNA), it is impossible to agree on everything… especially when it is also impossible to have the fully exhaustive and correct information on every subject.
Compromise is the art of recognizing that our moral compasses can point in slightly different directions, but, if our integrity is in equality with our constituents, it is right and proper to make course corrections in order to bring along as many people as possible… The more people in your constituency, the more capable the voice and message is in reaching the most amount of people and turning their hearts toward a more productive course.
RP, although fundamentally correct in most of his assertions, is too absolute for me, and your message above indicates that you need a new choir when the current, more populated one, has most of the same music and message. The RP agenda, mixed with the mainstream conservative one has created a cacophony that has not yet been productive, and admittedly, for reasons that are hard for me understand, RP supporters continue to appear to be blind to that fact.
All or nothing leads to nothing, which, by default maintains the current evolution of decay that will ultimately end in an unrecoverable catastrophe. Who is right is not nearly as important as what is right and no one candidate is right.
Neville
Absolutely! Your analysis is spot on. To be "veering away" from the Message, corrupts the Message. This will lead to what the other GOP Candidates are currently facing…Inconsistency and Lack of Trust.
Tired
Your analysis is also very well written, however, there are some fatal flaws in your argument.
You state that "it is impossible (for people) to agree on everything… especially when it is also impossible to have the fully exhaustive and correct information on every subject."
On the surface, this opening paragraph may contain "some" truth, however, you make the "hint" that you may be trying to drive the conversation toward a debate which sounds a lot like "Moral Relativism". Perhaps I'm wrong, but again you state further on that Ron Paul is "is too absolute for me". Now, I'm perplexed.
If you don't mind, I'd like to make an analysis on YOUR analysis, followed by my argument as to "why" Ron Paul SHOULD BE the Candidate "promoted" by Intellectual Americans.
As I'm sure you know, Moral Relativism cannot exist. It's a self-refuting argument which, when you follow it through, commits "Intellectual Suicide". For example: If MY "Moral Code" says that it's OK for me to break into people's homes and steal their TV's, could the "Moral Relativist" say that it's "WRONG" for me to break into THEIR home and steal THEIR TV? The answer of the Moral Relativist would have to be "No". It's NOT "WRONG" for me to break into THEIR home and steal THEIR TV. He/she would then have to "allow" me to steal THEIR TV because they believe "Morality is Relative". (Now, I'm NOT saying that YOU are a Moral Relativist, by any means.)
But still, the Moral Relativist would have to answer "No" - it's NOT wrong. So, by following through with the Moral Relativist "train of thought", one would have to conclude that the Moral Relativist "believes" that there is NO "Absolute" WRONG and NO "Absolute" RIGHT. Thus, committing "Intellectual Suicide".
This leads me to pointing out the fatal flaws in your statement regarding Ron Paul and "why" he SHOULD BE the Candidate "promoted" by Intellectual Americans, while all the other candidates "fall far short".
Because "Moral Relativism" has been debunked, one has to conclude 2 things, "absolutely":
1) There are "absolutes". You can "choose" not to believe that there isn't, but there ARE absolutes as to "right" and "wrong" behavior; especially within a society.
2) Because society has recognized these "absolutes of wrong behavior" will inevitably have an adverse (or negative) effect upon society, society has created and/or formulated LAWS to deter, constrain, and to punish those who break these LAWS.
Ron Paul has stated over and over, that the CONSTITUTION, when viewed through the Lens of Liberty, are the VERY LAWS which "constrains" Government from "removing" Liberty from the People. The Constitution has within it, RULES that our Leaders MUST Follow or….as it is even stated in the Constitution….that the PEOPLE "could abolish" the Government, if it becomes tyrannical against the People.
So, why then, should Ron Paul "Compromise"? Should he "Compromise" the Constitution? If Ron Paul's Platform is for "promoting" Constitutional Freedoms and Liberties FOR THE PEOPLE, while at the same time, "calling for" Constitutional Restraint AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT - why is this such a bad thing? It's NOT a bad thing for the People, but it's DEFINITELY a bad thing for the Status-Quo.
Your concluding paragraph stated "All or nothing leads to nothing, which, by default maintains the current evolution of decay that will ultimately end in an unrecoverable catastrophe."
My contention to that is this: If we don't "return" to the Principles outlined in our Constitution, we'll devolve (or decay) into a Totalitarian Nation ruled by Oligarchs and NOT by the People. Shouldn't We-The-People be DEMANDING "All or Nothing" from our Elected Leaders when it comes to the Obedience to the Constitution???
Darryl,
Even within your constituency, there are differences of opinions. I cannot accept that you are all automatons. Your moral relativism point does not apply here in my view because our differences are not that polarized. We stand to lose our voice and viability if we remain divided (Newt has explained this best, but was ignored, and rightfully so due to the climate of the competition).
The reason we have lower courts, is because of common consent to allow judges and lower court juries discretion in straying from the constitution. This bothers me too, but, unfortunately, the constitution is not alive enough to adapt to properly respond to every plea for justice AND we do not have enough trustworthy, competent population to properly interpret the constitution in every scenario, so we get corruption without even meaning too. The argument about rights and privileges alone is an aberration.
You simply cannot expect to have success in making change when you refuse to allow equally painful changes that do not perfectly meet your agenda… MOST of the time, bills become law because the authors and voters choose a middle ground that both sides are equally unhappy with.
Having said that, I like the fact that RP is getting more attention and I hope those many portions of his agenda I agree with will continue to rise in importance and consequential accountability. I also hope that the olive branch Mitt gave him in the debate was appreciated and understood as genuine. Our Heavenly creator endowed us with the ability to find what we are looking for and we need to spend more time looking for the good or we will find ourselves surrounded by evil.
Tired,
Since the lower (federal) courts are a creation of Congress, the reasons for their (lower courts) existence is recorded in the Congressional Record (modulo the heinous practice to "revise and extend" after the fact). Do you really think you can find in there any such reason as you have suggested?
I am speculating here, but I suspect it is actually because that's how Jethro taught Moses to do it, and it worked very well until Israel came down with Canaanite-envy and insisted Samuel give them a king instead. We tossed out the King model back in 1776, and given the clear basis that the Bible formed for the governing structure of the new country, it seems only natural to adopt what worked after throwing out what didn't.
Tired
You sound surprised that there are differences of support within the Ron Paul Constituency. Sure. People will support different positions of ANY potential Candidate. Some positions they agree upon, some they disagree upon. The Intelligent Voter will usually choose a Candidate which mirrors what's closest to their Value System.
However, you do make a point as to what truly "motivates" most Ron Paul supporters. (automatons, as you say) That would be the Constitution. Why? Because a VERY STRONG argument can be made that if our leaders would have addressed most of ISSUES which faced our Country in the "past" by following the Principles and Precepts outlined in our Constitution, then many of these ISSUES wouldn't have turned into PROBLEMS. (Problems that are now becoming almost unsolvable) This is undeniable. In fact, because hind-sight is 20/20, we have the "unique" ability to COMPARE the current "Unconstitutional" Policies, along with their consequences, to the Constitutional "Positions" which our Founders would have taken and would have expected our current Leaders to take.
We have veered-away from our Constitution that would have maintained the Stature and "Greatness" of the United States of America as remaining the most prosperous nation on the Planet. But now, that's quickly coming to an end. At one time, we were the most Egalitarian Nation on Earth, but now we are divided, divisive and a Country at WAR with much of the World!
Newt is only half-right. Yes. We stand to lose our voice and viability if we remain divided, but the "division" is between those who want a Constitutional Government and those who would not (Status-Quo). Besides, there isn't much of a distinction between the Political Classes. The Democrats and Republicans are both the same. We are "supposed" to have a "Representative Democracy", but the Political Class "represents" the "Special Interests" which give them the MOST money through either Campaign Contributions, "Bribes" or Insider Trading Information. The System is totally Broken and Corrupt…and it has been for a long time.
So, tell me Tired, are you willing to unify behind a "corrupt" candidate just to defeat another "corrupt" candidate? Or are you willing to take a chance on Ron Paul?
You stated: "Our Heavenly creator endowed us with the ability to find what we are looking for and we need to spend more time looking for the good or we will find ourselves surrounded by evil."
So, what would Our Heavenly Creator do? Compromise with corruption? Or Stand Up against corruption?
First of all, let me congratulate you on the success in New Hampshire! I am pleasantly surprised that RP fared so well and have to admit that these conversations with you and other RP supporters have caused me to partially enlist in the passion. You need to admit that your intonation is much more polite than the standard RP supporters (you could reduce the mudslinging and the intellectual compressing a bit still though)… I hope this behavioral change becomes contagious; it is effective!
Our Heavenly creator is omniscient; we do not have that luxury. He would either teach or reprimand us with a perfect awareness and understanding that we do not have available to us in the slightest degree. I do not believe that we have the power to know God's will to he extent you suggest and I believe this is by divine design. My Number one concern is the fact that the competitive nature of these races promote blindness and division (Matthew 18:18-20 encourages us to agree and unify; the reward of which is incomparable). The blindness earned by not seeking agreement and unification prevents the whole from seeing the viable and appropriate aspects of each candidate and makes it nearly impossible for the candidates, and more importantly their followers, to adjust their course to include the righteous principles their counterparts' might be more aware of than they are.
There is a paradigm to your corruption statement: A regular occurrence in mortality is the fact that we can do everything right and still fail. Much of corruption has to do with well intended and innocent efforts that generate unintended consequences. There are a lot of people in jail and a lot of evil legislation that started out with the right reasons, but transformed into the devil's instrument… The pursuit of, and the cry for justice often elicits a disproportionate injustice, and the remaining citizenry are left to absorb the consequences (I realize that this is an RP battle cry).
In some principles, there are people who have a greater vision specific to what are currently potential unintended consequences for ideas that RP wants to convert into standard operational procedures. He and his base need to be educated on some of the ones that will create bigger problems than the ones he is trying to solve, i.e., shutting down the department of Interior is unthinkable.
Tired,
I'm very glad to hear that you are "pleasantly" surprised re. RP's finish in New Hampshire (and losing only 1 or 2 delegates, net, to Romney). But I am curious about the "pleasantly" part. I wasn't expecting that. Can you elaborate?
Also, re. "shutting down the department of Interior is unthinkable". I suspect that what you really think is that not taking care of the federal lands would be unthinkable. I agree, that would be bad stewardship of a resource. But I'm quite sure that Dr. Paul would want the national parks handed off to the states in which they lie, and other responsibilities of Interior would be similarly parceled out, if they actually needed to be retained. He has said that he would move around some functions that needed to be preserved.
If Congressman Paul were to make it to the Whitehouse, he may bring with him the most reasonable fiscal policy ideas for our needs. To say he has a "record of big talk, but changing nothing" is misleading as he has but one vote in Congress which is usually out-numbered by the wave of lobbyist enriched neo-con cattle.
Having said that, it is also clear that as President, very few if any of his sane policies would even get enacted. But that doesn't make him wrong, it just sends the message that we should clear congress every election until a less jaded group of both parties could perhaps act as a representative to it's constituents over corporations.
A little back story on who has raised our debt the most would make the lead story's disparaging linkage to blaming Obama solely just a bit dubious. Nat'l debt tripled under Reagan (who also had Carter's solar panels removed from the Whitehouse) as he borrowed from foreign nations to pay for his oil boom years. But Bush Jr. has by far ensured this spiraling vortex of unrecoverable debt. But to be balanced, it is clear that Obama's fervor to invade Iran will surely be the finishing blow that leads us to their North American Union.
From what I see, there is no viable candidate for this broken and controlled system of election. Though I am surprised the GOP hasn't figured out that candidate Paul would draw a massive amount of support away from Obama's disillusioned supporters. It will be close enough to steal with Romney, but there won't be very many cross-over votes for him.
Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original)
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
.
I think without putting a "tag" on anyone,that there is more to the government besides the President.That is why I am discouraged.The lines of each branch of government have been blurred.You have the President doing unconstitutional acts and yet where is the outcry from the Republican House? Why are they not filing articles of impeachment? Is it a racial thing? Are the pols. afraid of riots.when Obama impeachment begins? I don't know the answers to a messed up system,but let me say one thing of libertarianism.It as a political party.I believe began around 1978-1980 possibly as a response against Ronald Reagan.I know the first candidate was Lyndon LaRouche for President and got minimal % of the vote. The party is still in the dumps because its ideas are not what the U.S. is about.Now.Ron Paul is a Libertarian as far as I know.He's running Republican because as a Libertarian he would be "laughed" at.He is not a Conservative and I will agree with what one person said(maybe more) that most people are not leaving messages at the end of stories,such as this one.The plain FACT is 1. The morals of this country would have to back-up a few years to return to greatness.2.If a President(no names) does not try to convey this moral degeneracy (fixing it)that has come upon this country,you can fix the economic,business and multicultural ends and refine them into complete harmony(which as a plan for election sounds great)if the people's morals are still the same or most likely worse,none of the rest of this stuff you mention are going to matter.
johnnyangel10
You stated "You have the President doing unconstitutional acts and yet where is the outcry from the Republican House? Why are they not filing articles of impeachment? Is it a racial thing? Are the pols. afraid of riots.when Obama impeachment begins?"
The answer should be quite obvious. THEY KNOW WHAT'S COMING!
There are many Congresspeople and people within the Obama Administration, "retiring" because they were (and are) part of creating this MESS. They also KNOW (all-to-well) that they will be "Blamed" (and rightly so) for "usurping" the Constitution and governing AGAINST the Will of the People.
The Government is "preparing" for when the People "Rise Up" AGAINST them. With Congress passing and Obama signing the "Unconstitutional" NDAA legislation which allows the US Military to "illegally" Detain and also gives permission for the Assassination American Citizens (even on American Soil), essentially the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments in the Bill of Rights will have become Null and Void. FEMA Camps are already "IN-PLACE" to house anyone that "bucks" the System.
Eventually, Congress will pass and Obama will sign SOPA, which allows the Government to "censor" and shut-down the Internet to quell the Uprisings and Civil Unrest. The SOPA legislation will essentially make the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights become Null and Void.
The Bottom Line is that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Republican and Democrat Party "Establishments". They are working "In-Concert" together to protect themselves. It's going to get UGLY this Spring/Summer, especially after the Euro collapses. People will be "taking to the streets", as Austerity takes hold and as the Government will eventually no longer be able to "provide" for it's people (Entitlements) because of the INCREDIBLE DEBT that they've created. Their ONLY answers for them will be to "Take us to War" (Again) and to "Print More Money", which will invariably create Inflation.
It's sad, isn't it?
OBAMA GOES AFTER THE THE MEDIA!
Homeland Security Given Green Light To Monitor American Journalists!
Posted in "The Blaze" January 9, 2011
Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that emerged from the Department of Homeland Security in November, Washington has written permission to collect and retain personal information from journalists, news anchors, reporters or anyone who uses “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”
According to DHS, the definition of personal identifiable information can consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.”
RT adds:
Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency.
Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.
The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.
According to RT, the website “Fast Company” reports that the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been in play since at least early-2010 and that the data is being shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.
Darryl,
What are the sources you use to get info for US debt? I think you have gathered very interesting and useful information and I need to memorize some numbers on this issue. Our national debt will be with us for generations. Many voters do not know how to work with simple mathematics. As you have pointed out the numbers on debt show clearly there is no way out, but candidates and congressmen pretend to ignore this fact and are very stubborn on printing money permanently. Only Ron Paul's candidacy makes sense and I hope more Americans wake up to reality. Times of great prosperity await our nation if we just go back to real free markets and end the long history of favoritism to special interest / power elite groups.
Enrique Nafarrate
This video is over 2 years old and as you will see when you view it in relation to what has happened 2 years later - "Time Gets Short" - prices go up RAPIDLY. (price of gold, etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZA0qNsf4m0&feature=related
This series of videos is called "The Crash Course" by Chris Martenson. When I say "Time Gets Short" is best explained in the Section "Compounding is the Problem".
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
This series of videos is called "The Most IMPORTANT Video you'll ever see". It's over 4 1/2 years old and it's presented by Dr. Albert Bartlett. His contention is that the Greatest Failure of the Human Race is to understand the Exponential Function.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Then of course, you could always then become "mesmerized" by watching the National Debt Clock as our National Debt increases in Real Time. Ha! There are many many more sources.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
9:30 A.M PCT
Rush Limbaugh has been on the air for 30 minutes and I haven't heard one mention of this travesty:
Homeland Security Given Green Light To Monitor American Journalists!
Posted in "The Blaze" January 9, 2011
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/homeland-security-monitoring-journalists/
It has been decided - While maintaining a vote count similar to his pole numbers Ron Paul will finish 3rd very closely behind second. One of the others, Huntsman, Gingrich or Santorum will have their numbers "pushed" to accomplish that outcome.
If you folks can stomach another really long post, here is one for you (if you prefer to go read it at the source, here is the link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/opinion/rosen-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 )
========
[Editor's note: Barry Rosen was the last U.S. press attaché to Iran. He was one of the 52 Americans held hostage by Iran for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981. He is currently the spokesman for the Borough of Manhattan Community College/CUNY.]
(CNN) — By Barry Rosen — For most of my life, I've had a relationship with Iran, mostly good, but which included a long period in which Iran hurt me and other foreign service officers greatly.
I was the press attaché at the United States Embassy in Teheran in 1979, and one of 52 Americans held hostage for 444 days during the Iranian Revolution. I cannot forgive the youthful Iranians who imprisoned us and the regime that legitimized their cruelty, but I try to be as objective as possible as an observer of Iran's situation today.
Let's be frank. Iran's intransigence with its nuclear intentions and the West's efforts, led by the United States, to undermine Iran's economy and, perhaps, its legitimacy, are moving both sides further from a war of words and closer to a hot war.
This war would easily draw in Israel, and perhaps even some of the Arab nations that are showing their Islamist side since the "Arab Spring." It could well close the Strait of Hormuz and the drive the price of oil to impossible highs, prolonging a worldwide economic funk. And it would once again put the United States front and center in a third protracted war since 2001.
But, let's not jump to conclusions that war is inevitable or react reflexively to Iran's saber-rattling, the way some of the Republican presidential candidates have been doing to score points on the campaign trail. They seem to think that this war would be surgical and quick. That's the same bad thinking that got us into Iraq.
I'd rather step back a moment and focus on Iran's strained domestic political situation as the real reason for its confrontation with the U.S. and the West. While I don't want to sound like an apologist for the authoritarian Islamic Republic, I also don't want us to be naïve about what's driving Iranian intentions.
First, Iran's "civilian" nuclear program reaches back to the pre-revolutionary days of the Shah of Iran, and there is no proof, whether from the International Atomic Energy Agency or the U.S., that Iran is actually building a bomb.
Second, it's widely reported that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are in open conflict today, not only politically but also theologically.
While this rift is esoteric to Westerners, Tehran takes it very seriously. It comes down to Ahmadinejad trying to change the entire foundation of Iran's theological-political infrastructure by asserting that he, not Khamenei, has a direct relationship with the Shi'ite Mahdi, or messiah. Khamenei has responded by condemning Ahmadinejad and his followers as the "deviant stream."
Since May 2011, this domestic conflict has shaken the regime's stability. It may have much to do with Tehran's flailing foreign policy as the sanctions do.
The regime also has its hands full with upcoming parliamentary elections in March. It likes to say that the elections are both a model and inspiration for the new surge of democracy in the Arab world. It also sees these elections as a test of legitimacy.
Remember, only two years ago, Iran was convulsed with a popular uprising that opposed the outcome of presidential elections. The reform movement was brutally crushed by the regime thugs. Major reformist leaders are still under house arrest.
Whether the regime is able to market itself to its neighbors as a legitimate source of a Middle East revival is rather doubtful. More importantly, reformists have loudly and clearly stated that they are not going to participate in a rigged election. This will be the first time since the beginning of the Islamic Republic that any part of the electorate has bolted from the system.
Khamenei must see this reformist move as a profound crack in his authority and to the regime's legitimacy.
Finally, there are more domestic disasters. While Iranians of all political stripes see a nuclear program as a national status symbol, they are paying a dear price for it. The sanctions are truly hurting the average Iranian.
The hardships include high unemployment, inflation and commodity shortages. Last week, Iran's currency fell to a new low against the dollar. This situation is not going to endear the regime to the electorate.
Can we move away from the precipice of war? I think so.
Congress members should get out of the public relations business and stop making pronouncements about Iran that are simplistic and belligerent. It makes any chance of a negotiated settlement even more difficult.
The U.S. Navy's rescue of 13 Iranian fishermen from pirates in the North Arabian Sea was a surprising and awkward moment, and a chance for both sides to step back and breathe a little.
But the startling news that Iran's Revolutionary Court had sentenced an American, Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, to death, charging him with spying for the Central Intelligence Agency, says that Iran, once again, is up to the task of seeking revenge against the U.S.
We need to find a real structure for diplomacy to calm these new levels of tension. Just as Qatar is hosting a political office for the Taliban in an attempt to open direct talks to an end the Afghan war, a regional approach to Iran may help. Qatar has become the dynamic center within the Arab League and has been a respected go-between. Yes, it has close relations with the United States and hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, but its prime minister, Al-Thani, was not timid when he said in 2006, "Qatar talks to Iran as an equal, and this is important."
The Gulf Cooperation Council could play a greater role in softening Iran's relationship with the Sunni Arab world by drawing it closer to its regional neighbors, as well as serving as a liaison between Iran and the West.
==================
Ron Paul's foreign policy is naive and borders on being senile.
Tired…
You don't have to entirely agree with RP. The most important question is… do you trust that he will not sell out for personal gain like too many others? I strongly feel he can't be bought.
Us RP "bots" trust him. His record is SOLID. Available to anyone not already manipulated, is a wealth of video of Paul in action. When you see and hear him faithfully representing the right things for decades, you will have an unbiased opinion of him and his positions. He is one of us, and that is unfortunately too rare. I personally believe he would truly represent us properly at home and abroad.
the Establishment and the media use what they can to keep RP out only because he's a threat to all the corruption going on. Why don't more people see that…