Two of my absolute favorite intenet personalities are "BrotherJohnF" who is a technical analyst and trader who has a channel on Youtube and a guy named Jeff Berwick, who runs an anarchocapitalist website called dollarvigilante.com .
BrotherJohnF has a delightful daily read on the silver and currency markets. EVEN IF YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN TRADING YOU SHOULD TUNE IN TO THIS GUY. You will learn more about "how the world operates" than a hundred courses on econ and sociology, and a gazillion scans of Huffpo or Slate or Drudge, CNN or Glen Beck. He does the absolutely delightful and fascinating thing of taking you through his charts and analysis of econ, and then segueing into some newsletter or blog to illustrate the point. He has been an amazing source of info to me, and hits tons of great resource people: zero hedge, golden jackass, seeking alpha, daily bell, lots of good and not well known sources of cultural and economic insight. Yesterday, he quoted an interview with Jeff Berwick, with whom I have had some brief personal interaction. FASCINATING guy. For your own protection, I would recommend you listening to the vid from yesterday.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Occupy Portland fears it has lost up to $20,000 in donations | OregonLive.com
Organizers of Occupy Portland say they fear as much as $20,000 donated to the group through a PayPal account has disappeared.
They also say the group's finance committee has hijacked the demonstration's Internet domain name and filed for incorporation against the wishes of the group's decision-making body.
The demonstrator who filed the papers with the state said Wednesday she did so to protect the protest, and she has received death threats as a result.
Jordan LeDoux, who works for the media, communications, public relations and web team of the demonstration, said Wednesday that since 8 p.m. Tuesday, Occupy Portland has not been able to get into its Internet page, occupyportland.org.Occupy Portland fears it has lost up to $20,000 in donations | OregonLive.com
They also say the group's finance committee has hijacked the demonstration's Internet domain name and filed for incorporation against the wishes of the group's decision-making body.
The demonstrator who filed the papers with the state said Wednesday she did so to protect the protest, and she has received death threats as a result.
Jordan LeDoux, who works for the media, communications, public relations and web team of the demonstration, said Wednesday that since 8 p.m. Tuesday, Occupy Portland has not been able to get into its Internet page, occupyportland.org.Occupy Portland fears it has lost up to $20,000 in donations | OregonLive.com
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Housing Market May Get Fed Aid - WSJ.com
Never before in the history of the world has a nation's monetary policy and the long term effects on gold and silver been so openly telegraphed. I am pounding the table here, again.
Buy it, hide it and (if you can) get some of it out of the country. The speed with which the dollar is going to come unwound here will be proportional to the strength it has shown in defiance of all common sense.
Housing Market May Get Fed Aid - WSJ.com:
'via Blog this'
Buy it, hide it and (if you can) get some of it out of the country. The speed with which the dollar is going to come unwound here will be proportional to the strength it has shown in defiance of all common sense.
Housing Market May Get Fed Aid - WSJ.com:
'via Blog this'
NFL Analysts: Tim Tebow Hated Because of His Faith
Outspoken Christian athlete Tim Tebow, now the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos, has been widely criticized by many in the media. NFL analysts are starting to admit that criticism, in large part, has been because of his faith.
''Inside the NFL'' analyst and former Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Cris Collinsworth concluded that much of the hatred against Tebow was based on his religious beliefs. Responding to a question from fellow host James 'JB' Brown, Collinsworth showed his disgust for Tebow's treatment: ''It's unbelievable, though, JB, that one of the best kids - just pure kids that's ever come into the NFL - is hated because of his faith, because of his mission work, because of the fact that he wears it on his sleeve, because of the fact that he lives his life that he talks about.''
This isn't the first time the issue has come up. Many sportswriters and fans have mocked Tebow and hoped to see him fail - in large part, his defenders have argued, because of his strong Christian beliefs. Other football analysts are starting to agree with that assessment.
NBCsports.com commentator Jelisa Castrodale argued: “The NFL's other backup-turned-starters don't generate this type of negativity.” And CBS analyst and former 49ers offensive lineman Randy Cross blamed the media for anti-Tebow coverage: ''People, especially the media, root against him because of what he stands for.''
Showtime Sports' Oct. 12 edition of 'Inside the NFL' featured a nearly 5-minute segment on Tebow. Analysts Brown and Collinsworth were joined by former NFL stars Warren Sapp and Phil Simms discussing Tebow's faith - and the controversial reactions to it.
Brown teased the segment: ''This is a guy that you either love to have him or you hate to love him. What is it about him that folks are so polarized?''
Brown and Collinsworth concluded that much of the hatred against Tebow was based on faith. Brown pointed out: ''There's a number of guys who come into the league with a big marquee, fat paychecks, a lot of attention, and folks don't seem to hate them with the same intensity that they hate Tim Tebow.'' Collinsworth concurred with Brown: ''I couldn't agree with you more. And it's kind of a sad commentary, that, you know, if someone is out carousing every night, the Joe Namath thing, or whatever, they're American heroes, and Tim Tebow, who's working in missions in Asia somewhere, is a guy that we're going to vilify.''
Tebow has indeed been vilified for his Christian faith and beliefs. Commentators have taken aim at him because of his religion and pro-life stance. One sportswriter compared Tebow's confidence that he will start in the NFL to blasphemy. 'Daily Show' comedian John Oliver declared: ''I dislike Robert Mugabe. I hate Tim Tebow.''
The vitriol directed against Tebow is how religion and people of faith are often treated in the media, which often seeks to remove any mention of religion from public life entirely, including in sports.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2011/10/21/nfl-analysts-tim-tebow-hated-because-his-faith
NFL Analysts: Tim Tebow Hated Because of His Faith | NewsBusters.org
''Inside the NFL'' analyst and former Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Cris Collinsworth concluded that much of the hatred against Tebow was based on his religious beliefs. Responding to a question from fellow host James 'JB' Brown, Collinsworth showed his disgust for Tebow's treatment: ''It's unbelievable, though, JB, that one of the best kids - just pure kids that's ever come into the NFL - is hated because of his faith, because of his mission work, because of the fact that he wears it on his sleeve, because of the fact that he lives his life that he talks about.''
This isn't the first time the issue has come up. Many sportswriters and fans have mocked Tebow and hoped to see him fail - in large part, his defenders have argued, because of his strong Christian beliefs. Other football analysts are starting to agree with that assessment.
NBCsports.com commentator Jelisa Castrodale argued: “The NFL's other backup-turned-starters don't generate this type of negativity.” And CBS analyst and former 49ers offensive lineman Randy Cross blamed the media for anti-Tebow coverage: ''People, especially the media, root against him because of what he stands for.''
Showtime Sports' Oct. 12 edition of 'Inside the NFL' featured a nearly 5-minute segment on Tebow. Analysts Brown and Collinsworth were joined by former NFL stars Warren Sapp and Phil Simms discussing Tebow's faith - and the controversial reactions to it.
Brown teased the segment: ''This is a guy that you either love to have him or you hate to love him. What is it about him that folks are so polarized?''
Brown and Collinsworth concluded that much of the hatred against Tebow was based on faith. Brown pointed out: ''There's a number of guys who come into the league with a big marquee, fat paychecks, a lot of attention, and folks don't seem to hate them with the same intensity that they hate Tim Tebow.'' Collinsworth concurred with Brown: ''I couldn't agree with you more. And it's kind of a sad commentary, that, you know, if someone is out carousing every night, the Joe Namath thing, or whatever, they're American heroes, and Tim Tebow, who's working in missions in Asia somewhere, is a guy that we're going to vilify.''
Tebow has indeed been vilified for his Christian faith and beliefs. Commentators have taken aim at him because of his religion and pro-life stance. One sportswriter compared Tebow's confidence that he will start in the NFL to blasphemy. 'Daily Show' comedian John Oliver declared: ''I dislike Robert Mugabe. I hate Tim Tebow.''
The vitriol directed against Tebow is how religion and people of faith are often treated in the media, which often seeks to remove any mention of religion from public life entirely, including in sports.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2011/10/21/nfl-analysts-tim-tebow-hated-because-his-faith
NFL Analysts: Tim Tebow Hated Because of His Faith | NewsBusters.org
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Should I laugh.... or cry
This poor cretin is the object of much mirth among those who are looking for something to mock in the Occupy Wall Street festivities.
I must be a bleeding heart. I feel sorry for this kid. He is an imbecile, but I do feel sorry for him.
Kids today know something is fundamentally wrong at the core of our culture and economy. They just are so flamingly ignorant that they not only do not know what it is, but they don't even have any categories to put it in. As a result they are easy marks and shills for wicked people who should know better, but use them like pawns (Michael Moore and Al Sharpton come to mind, but there are myriad). Such appalling stupidity and naivete driving a zeal and idealism are bound to put the whole contraption in the ditch.
However, I can understand his moral confusion, as the "other side" has embraced idiocies every bit as clear and glaring and obvious as the howling nonsense proffered by the left. The "conservatives" in America piously announce that if you would just turn back to the constitutional principles on which we were founded, all would be well. While this is true, no one is more hostile to a true return to the principles of freedom and liberty than the mainstream Republican right wing. They embrace a big government moralism and foreign military/state affairs which would have horrified the founding fathers.
I will say it again. The root of these problems is a case study in simplicity. The older I get, the more I understand why the founding fathers continuously (no, MONOTONOUSLY ) hearkened back to what they called "first principles" and demanded we start there.
The root of our problems are all simple. The problems themselves are amazingly complex, as men have creative minds and an astounding capacity to screw things up, but the root issues are always simple: honest money, respect the rights of others (defined in the DOI), don't let power aggregate. Every single one of the howling messes we have today are results of violating these basic precepts.
The arguments for violating them are always the same, btw. It comes in a screeching hand wringing lugubrious summons to "do something" about this or that emergency. Some well meaning soul is always panting breathlessly that "People are" (choose one or several:) dying, starving, wasting in poverty, being oppressed, subject to tyranny, drinking polluted water, in danger from the exploiters, suffering under communism, suffering under islam, suffering under nazi-ism, suffering under capitalism, raping the children, raping the women, raping the goats, killing the seals, wanting to kill us, selling us drugs," and on and on. Many of these things are quite wicked. However, the siren cry is always to usurp power and violate liberties because (wait for it)......... WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS! (and we can be trusted!).
The founding fathers had no illusions about the wicked and depraved nature of the world. They were not naive men...., even about their own abilities to abandon freedom after they argued for it. Some of them, like John Adams and Patrick Henry, were aghast and horrified at the slave trade and the moral injustices we had here in the fledgling republic designed first and foremost to protect individual liberty. Jefferson violated the Constitution in the Louisiana Purchase, and Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion. They were not angels nor perfect men. However, they knew something that modern men have forgotten, either deliberately or conveniently. They knew that the very Creator who had endowed ALL MEN with inalienable rights had not appointed the USA to rule the world and enforce those rights. They knew that the argument of "doing good" may in fact do temporary good (!) but that the long term results would be tyranny.
I really wish there were an alternative for this poor befuddled feckless dolt to see. What I perceive is just two groups of people who pet and groom their own monsters of big government, and who primp them up and put makeup on them to "purtify" them once every couple of years when they want election results.
EDIT: Turns out this guy is Edward T Hall III and is a trust fund baby! lol.
I must be a bleeding heart. I feel sorry for this kid. He is an imbecile, but I do feel sorry for him.
Kids today know something is fundamentally wrong at the core of our culture and economy. They just are so flamingly ignorant that they not only do not know what it is, but they don't even have any categories to put it in. As a result they are easy marks and shills for wicked people who should know better, but use them like pawns (Michael Moore and Al Sharpton come to mind, but there are myriad). Such appalling stupidity and naivete driving a zeal and idealism are bound to put the whole contraption in the ditch.
However, I can understand his moral confusion, as the "other side" has embraced idiocies every bit as clear and glaring and obvious as the howling nonsense proffered by the left. The "conservatives" in America piously announce that if you would just turn back to the constitutional principles on which we were founded, all would be well. While this is true, no one is more hostile to a true return to the principles of freedom and liberty than the mainstream Republican right wing. They embrace a big government moralism and foreign military/state affairs which would have horrified the founding fathers.
I will say it again. The root of these problems is a case study in simplicity. The older I get, the more I understand why the founding fathers continuously (no, MONOTONOUSLY ) hearkened back to what they called "first principles" and demanded we start there.
The root of our problems are all simple. The problems themselves are amazingly complex, as men have creative minds and an astounding capacity to screw things up, but the root issues are always simple: honest money, respect the rights of others (defined in the DOI), don't let power aggregate. Every single one of the howling messes we have today are results of violating these basic precepts.
The arguments for violating them are always the same, btw. It comes in a screeching hand wringing lugubrious summons to "do something" about this or that emergency. Some well meaning soul is always panting breathlessly that "People are" (choose one or several:) dying, starving, wasting in poverty, being oppressed, subject to tyranny, drinking polluted water, in danger from the exploiters, suffering under communism, suffering under islam, suffering under nazi-ism, suffering under capitalism, raping the children, raping the women, raping the goats, killing the seals, wanting to kill us, selling us drugs," and on and on. Many of these things are quite wicked. However, the siren cry is always to usurp power and violate liberties because (wait for it)......... WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS! (and we can be trusted!).
The founding fathers had no illusions about the wicked and depraved nature of the world. They were not naive men...., even about their own abilities to abandon freedom after they argued for it. Some of them, like John Adams and Patrick Henry, were aghast and horrified at the slave trade and the moral injustices we had here in the fledgling republic designed first and foremost to protect individual liberty. Jefferson violated the Constitution in the Louisiana Purchase, and Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion. They were not angels nor perfect men. However, they knew something that modern men have forgotten, either deliberately or conveniently. They knew that the very Creator who had endowed ALL MEN with inalienable rights had not appointed the USA to rule the world and enforce those rights. They knew that the argument of "doing good" may in fact do temporary good (!) but that the long term results would be tyranny.
I really wish there were an alternative for this poor befuddled feckless dolt to see. What I perceive is just two groups of people who pet and groom their own monsters of big government, and who primp them up and put makeup on them to "purtify" them once every couple of years when they want election results.
EDIT: Turns out this guy is Edward T Hall III and is a trust fund baby! lol.
Faber gets in on why there is wealth inequality
World economies are complex but the root of economic problems are really simple.
One huge problem is the shift in wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. It is trendy and panders to the worst parts of our natures to channel Michael Moore and blame the rich. However, this is also foolish, unless you are going to claim that "the rich" are behind the huge expansion of money supply (some of them actually are, but you very seldom hear the OWS crowd chanting about that):
Marc Faber explains
"We cannot blame Wall Street and well-to-do people for the mishap, for this ratio to have exploded on the upside. We have to blame essentially expansionary monetary policies that favor assets. So you have low consumer price inflation, you have no wage inflation."
"In fact, the problem in America is that real wages, real compensation has been down since the 1970s. But at the same time, asset prices, equities, real estate and so forth have gone up dramatically, and that favors people who have these assets. And so the ratio expanded and you have now a record wealth inequality, and income inequality," he told Bloomberg Surveillance.
Bingo
Marc Faber says Americans need to tighten their belts, save more and work more for lower salaries
One huge problem is the shift in wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. It is trendy and panders to the worst parts of our natures to channel Michael Moore and blame the rich. However, this is also foolish, unless you are going to claim that "the rich" are behind the huge expansion of money supply (some of them actually are, but you very seldom hear the OWS crowd chanting about that):
Marc Faber explains
"We cannot blame Wall Street and well-to-do people for the mishap, for this ratio to have exploded on the upside. We have to blame essentially expansionary monetary policies that favor assets. So you have low consumer price inflation, you have no wage inflation."
"In fact, the problem in America is that real wages, real compensation has been down since the 1970s. But at the same time, asset prices, equities, real estate and so forth have gone up dramatically, and that favors people who have these assets. And so the ratio expanded and you have now a record wealth inequality, and income inequality," he told Bloomberg Surveillance.
Bingo
Marc Faber says Americans need to tighten their belts, save more and work more for lower salaries
Monday, October 17, 2011
Occupy Wall Street-- the cartoon
Click the image for a larger view. Too funny
Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir :: October 16, 2011 Archives:
'via Blog this'
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The free market is a moral system, not because it makes men moral, but
because it rewards those who serve others efficiently and penalizes
those who don't. - Gary North
lewrockwell.com/north/north1048.html
because it rewards those who serve others efficiently and penalizes
those who don't. - Gary North
lewrockwell.com/north/north1048.html
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Friday, October 07, 2011
The Battered Goldbug Hotline
VERY CUTE ARTICLE THIS A.M.
"The Battered Goldbug Hotline"
"The Battered Goldbug Hotline"
The Battered Goldbug Hotline by Bill Bonner
Our first call came in this morning:
“Is this the Battered Goldbug Hotline?”
“Yes…you’ve come to the right place.”
“Thanks…I need help. I’ve been battered by the nasty gold market.”
“You poor thing…go ahead…spill it out…here at BGH, we’re ready to help.”
“Well, I bought gold about 5 years ago. It was at $700. Then, it went up every year…year after year. I made a lot more money than all my friends. My stupid brother-in-law bought the banking sector instead. What an idiot.”
“Go on…”
“Well, the price went up and up…and I thought it was going to hit $2,500. I mean, it would have to get to $2,500 just to equal the rise in the ’70s. And we all know that things are much worse than they were then. But instead…sniff, sniff…it fell! I couldn’t believe it. And when I checked yesterday, it was down to just $1,616. And maybe it will head down now…and keep going down. I feel very battered. What can I do?”
“Wait a minute…haven’t you more than doubled your money, from $700 to $1,600. What’s wrong with a 100% gain?”
“Well, nothing, but I thought it was going to $2,500.”
“What would you have done if it had hit $2,500?”
“Well, I guess I would have waited for it to go up some more. I would have held onto it. I’m a long-term investor.”
“But you’re holding onto to now, right?”
“Well, now I don’t know. It looks like it might be going down.”
“You mean, you would hold at $2,500 but sell at $1,600?”
“Well, yes…”
“Then, do me a favor. Call your brother-in-law. Tell him he’s talking to a moron. You’re supposed to sell high, and buy low…not the other way around. Click.”
And you, dear reader, do you have a question about gold? Would you like some advice? Do you feel battered? Just call our Battered Goldbug Hotline. Another helpful service brought to you by The Daily Reckoning. (Calls will be billed at $1 a second…and we will put you on hold while we read the newspaper. Check your personal horoscope. And have a glass of wine.)
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Good Article by Lawrence Vance
from Lew Rockwell. Nailed it dead on.
Although I am a theological and cultural Christian conservative, I am not a member of the Religious Right and never have been. Adherents of the Religious Right are oftentimes more wrong than they are right. And they have never been more wrong than in their lies about Ron Paul.
The lies about Ron Paul uttered by the media, the Republican Party, the political establishment, conservative talk show hosts, and rank and file Republicans and conservatives who blindly parrot their leaders, and even some libertarians are legion. However, when it comes to Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Religious Rightists that have no problem draping the cross of Christ with the American flag, there are basically five lies that are continually told about Congressman Paul, all recycled from the last time he ran for president.
Lie number one: Ron Paul is not pro-life. That is, he doesn’t support a federal law or constitutional amendment banning abortion since that is entirely up to the states.
The subject of abortion is one that Ron Paul is uniquely qualified to talk about. In addition to being a member of Congress, Ron Paul is a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology who has delivered over 4,000 babies. In forty years of medical practice, Dr. Paul says, "I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." He believes "beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." But unlike many Republicans in Congress, Representative Paul also believes in consistently and strictly following the Constitution in all matters. Therefore, as he simply states:
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
Dr. Paul is also consistently pro-life. Many pro-life Religious Rightists are cheerleaders for the killing of innocents outside of the womb in senseless foreign wars. Ron Paul believes in the sanctity of all human life.
Lie number two: Ron Paul supports drug use. That is, he doesn’t support the unconstitutional federal war on drugs.
The $41 billion a year war on drugs is a failure in every respect. It has reduced neither the demand for nor the availability of drugs. It has failed to keep drugs away from kids and addicts. It has made criminals out otherwise law-abiding Americans – over 1.5 million Americans are arrested on drug charges every year, with almost half of those arrests being just for possession of marijuana. The war on drugs encourages violence, unnecessarily swells the prison population with non-violent offenders, destroys civil liberties, attacks personal and financial privacy, and corrupts and militarizes the police. But not only do the costs of the drug war greatly exceed its benefits, it is clearly an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows full well the harmful effects of illicit drug use. But he also recognizes the dangers to liberty, property, and limited government that the war on drugs poses. It is perplexing and hypocritical that Religious Rightists don’t likewise support a war on alcohol since every negative thing – and more – that could be said about drug abuse could also be said about alcohol abuse.
Lie number three: Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. That is, he doesn’t support looting the American taxpayers and giving the money to a foreign government.
Since World War II, the U.S. government has dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid in a variety of forms to over 150 countries. Foreign aid is further camouflaged as U.S. support for the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other globalist organizations. Foreign aid now costs the American taxpayer over $40 billion a year. Egypt received over $1.5 billion in foreign aid last year. Israel received over twice as much. Since their peace accord in 1979, Egypt and Israel have been the top two recipients of U.S. foreign aid, accounting for about one-third of all foreign aid spending. Foreign aid is really foreign government aid that enriches the leaders of corrupt regimes and their privileged contractors. Foreign aid further entrenches the U.S. government bureaucracy, increases the power of the state, fosters dependency on U.S. largesse, and lines the pockets of U.S. corporations whose products are bought with foreign aid money. Following the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who advocated "honest friendship with all nations" and "entangling alliances with none," Representative Paul sees neutrality as the best foreign policy for the United States: "The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily."
Lie number four: Ron Paul is weak on defense. That is, he doesn’t support perpetual, senseless, and immoral foreign wars.
Most of U.S. military spending is not for defense, but for offense. Most of what the military does is outside of the country and in some cases thousands of miles away: providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, advising armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, opening markets, maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars. The proper use of the military – as envisioned by Ron Paul – is in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not bombing, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States – its land, its shores, its skies, its coasts, its borders – perverts the purpose of the military. The United States is not and cannot be the world’s policeman.
Lie number five: Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is, he doesn’t support a global empire with 1,000 foreign military bases and troops stationed in 150 countries.
The Department of Defense has more than 500,000 facilities on more than 5,500 sites totaling approximately 29 million acres. There are over 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries – plus over 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus tens of thousands of contractors. The word isolationist is a pejorative term of intimidation used to stifle debate over foreign policy. A noninterventionist foreign policy – like that espoused by Ron Paul – is a foreign policy is a policy of peace, diplomacy, and neutrality that includes trade, cultural exchanges, travel, immigration and emigration, and foreign investment. No invasions, threats, sanctions, embargoes, commitments, meddling, entangling alliances, or troops and bases on foreign soil.
So why the lies?
Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-family values, pro-religious liberty, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-free market, pro-sound money, pro-defense, pro-liberty, pro-peace, pro-privacy, and pro-property. Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really anti-UN, anti-tax increases, anti-taxes, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-unconstitutional government spending, anti-birthright citizenship, anti-amnesty, anti-New World Order, anti-foreign aid, anti-government subsidies, anti-foreign wars, anti-welfare, anti-socialized medicine, anti congressional pay raises, anti-congressional pensions, anti-government-paid junkets, and anti-centralization of power in the federal government.
I say really because Ron Paul is and has always been for and against these things on a philosophical level. He doesn’t just say he is for or against these things to get elected. He doesn’t change his message depending on the crowd he’s addressing. He has a track record of consistency unmatched by anyone who has ever been in Congress or run for president. Why would any member of the Religious Right not embrace Ron Paul as their ideal candidate even as they run from the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?
So why the lies?
I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent.
But not all Religious Rightists are ignorant. Some are just deliberate apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, and its foreign policy. If they were honest, then they would have to say that they believe in the centralization of power in Washington DC, in a police state that inconsistently criminalizes peaceful behavior, in swearing allegiance to a foreign government and looting other taxpayers that don’t share their allegiance, in endless foreign wars and military interventions, and in maintaining an empire of troops and bases around the world and meddling in the affairs of other countries.
The last time Dr. Paul ran for president, I concluded that he would not be the candidate of choice of the Religious Right because they love centralization more than federalism, political power more than liberty, war more than peace, politicians more than principles, faith-based socialism more than the free market, and the state more than God Almighty. The Religious Right’s embrace of candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and non-candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee leads me now to the same conclusion.
http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance260.html
Although I am a theological and cultural Christian conservative, I am not a member of the Religious Right and never have been. Adherents of the Religious Right are oftentimes more wrong than they are right. And they have never been more wrong than in their lies about Ron Paul.
The lies about Ron Paul uttered by the media, the Republican Party, the political establishment, conservative talk show hosts, and rank and file Republicans and conservatives who blindly parrot their leaders, and even some libertarians are legion. However, when it comes to Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Religious Rightists that have no problem draping the cross of Christ with the American flag, there are basically five lies that are continually told about Congressman Paul, all recycled from the last time he ran for president.
Lie number one: Ron Paul is not pro-life. That is, he doesn’t support a federal law or constitutional amendment banning abortion since that is entirely up to the states.
The subject of abortion is one that Ron Paul is uniquely qualified to talk about. In addition to being a member of Congress, Ron Paul is a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology who has delivered over 4,000 babies. In forty years of medical practice, Dr. Paul says, "I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." He believes "beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." But unlike many Republicans in Congress, Representative Paul also believes in consistently and strictly following the Constitution in all matters. Therefore, as he simply states:
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
Dr. Paul is also consistently pro-life. Many pro-life Religious Rightists are cheerleaders for the killing of innocents outside of the womb in senseless foreign wars. Ron Paul believes in the sanctity of all human life.
Lie number two: Ron Paul supports drug use. That is, he doesn’t support the unconstitutional federal war on drugs.
The $41 billion a year war on drugs is a failure in every respect. It has reduced neither the demand for nor the availability of drugs. It has failed to keep drugs away from kids and addicts. It has made criminals out otherwise law-abiding Americans – over 1.5 million Americans are arrested on drug charges every year, with almost half of those arrests being just for possession of marijuana. The war on drugs encourages violence, unnecessarily swells the prison population with non-violent offenders, destroys civil liberties, attacks personal and financial privacy, and corrupts and militarizes the police. But not only do the costs of the drug war greatly exceed its benefits, it is clearly an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows full well the harmful effects of illicit drug use. But he also recognizes the dangers to liberty, property, and limited government that the war on drugs poses. It is perplexing and hypocritical that Religious Rightists don’t likewise support a war on alcohol since every negative thing – and more – that could be said about drug abuse could also be said about alcohol abuse.
Lie number three: Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. That is, he doesn’t support looting the American taxpayers and giving the money to a foreign government.
Since World War II, the U.S. government has dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid in a variety of forms to over 150 countries. Foreign aid is further camouflaged as U.S. support for the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other globalist organizations. Foreign aid now costs the American taxpayer over $40 billion a year. Egypt received over $1.5 billion in foreign aid last year. Israel received over twice as much. Since their peace accord in 1979, Egypt and Israel have been the top two recipients of U.S. foreign aid, accounting for about one-third of all foreign aid spending. Foreign aid is really foreign government aid that enriches the leaders of corrupt regimes and their privileged contractors. Foreign aid further entrenches the U.S. government bureaucracy, increases the power of the state, fosters dependency on U.S. largesse, and lines the pockets of U.S. corporations whose products are bought with foreign aid money. Following the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who advocated "honest friendship with all nations" and "entangling alliances with none," Representative Paul sees neutrality as the best foreign policy for the United States: "The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily."
Lie number four: Ron Paul is weak on defense. That is, he doesn’t support perpetual, senseless, and immoral foreign wars.
Most of U.S. military spending is not for defense, but for offense. Most of what the military does is outside of the country and in some cases thousands of miles away: providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, advising armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, opening markets, maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars. The proper use of the military – as envisioned by Ron Paul – is in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not bombing, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States – its land, its shores, its skies, its coasts, its borders – perverts the purpose of the military. The United States is not and cannot be the world’s policeman.
Lie number five: Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is, he doesn’t support a global empire with 1,000 foreign military bases and troops stationed in 150 countries.
The Department of Defense has more than 500,000 facilities on more than 5,500 sites totaling approximately 29 million acres. There are over 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries – plus over 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus tens of thousands of contractors. The word isolationist is a pejorative term of intimidation used to stifle debate over foreign policy. A noninterventionist foreign policy – like that espoused by Ron Paul – is a foreign policy is a policy of peace, diplomacy, and neutrality that includes trade, cultural exchanges, travel, immigration and emigration, and foreign investment. No invasions, threats, sanctions, embargoes, commitments, meddling, entangling alliances, or troops and bases on foreign soil.
So why the lies?
Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-family values, pro-religious liberty, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-free market, pro-sound money, pro-defense, pro-liberty, pro-peace, pro-privacy, and pro-property. Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really anti-UN, anti-tax increases, anti-taxes, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-unconstitutional government spending, anti-birthright citizenship, anti-amnesty, anti-New World Order, anti-foreign aid, anti-government subsidies, anti-foreign wars, anti-welfare, anti-socialized medicine, anti congressional pay raises, anti-congressional pensions, anti-government-paid junkets, and anti-centralization of power in the federal government.
I say really because Ron Paul is and has always been for and against these things on a philosophical level. He doesn’t just say he is for or against these things to get elected. He doesn’t change his message depending on the crowd he’s addressing. He has a track record of consistency unmatched by anyone who has ever been in Congress or run for president. Why would any member of the Religious Right not embrace Ron Paul as their ideal candidate even as they run from the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?
So why the lies?
I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent.
But not all Religious Rightists are ignorant. Some are just deliberate apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, and its foreign policy. If they were honest, then they would have to say that they believe in the centralization of power in Washington DC, in a police state that inconsistently criminalizes peaceful behavior, in swearing allegiance to a foreign government and looting other taxpayers that don’t share their allegiance, in endless foreign wars and military interventions, and in maintaining an empire of troops and bases around the world and meddling in the affairs of other countries.
The last time Dr. Paul ran for president, I concluded that he would not be the candidate of choice of the Religious Right because they love centralization more than federalism, political power more than liberty, war more than peace, politicians more than principles, faith-based socialism more than the free market, and the state more than God Almighty. The Religious Right’s embrace of candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and non-candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee leads me now to the same conclusion.
http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance260.html
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)