It doesn’t matter who you vote for, it’s HOW you vote. Category: News and Politics
It takes very little observation to note that a rift has formed in the Ron Paul revolution. Even though this may be true, it still doesn't make us any less determined to champion the cause of LIBERTY. Ron Paul may not be running for president anymore, but his ideals are.
They are in the doctrines of dozens of pro-constitution candidates currently running for state and local office and yes, some third party presidential candidates. Supporting these people on every level is not only our NEW responsibility, but it is exactly how we will push Ron Paul's ideals well into the next presidency.
We may not control the oval office, but we have the power to elect enough members of congress and the senate over the next four years to put the president's balls in a vice. Therefore, regardless of who you plan on voting for today, we need to make one thing clear:
WE HAVE A VOICE AND WE ARE GOING TO BE HEARD!!!!
It doesn't matter who you vote for, it's HOW you vote. Vote 3rd party. Voting for any of the two major candidates will only absorb your cry for liberty into the void, never to be heard from again. Is that what you want, after all that we've fought for to get our message out?
No. We will not be silenced. We will not be taken down, punished, or otherwise. If you are allowed to write in Ron Paul's name on the ballot, or vote for him, then do so. If you have another choice, then vote for him or her.Make your voice be heard! Leave the two major parties UNCHECKED, and we will ensure that they will be kept IN CHECK.
~ LIVE FREE OR DIE
~ I'D RATHER DIE ON MY FEET THAN LIVE ON MY KNEES
~One.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Before you defend COAL, Learn about ASTROTURF!!
It is mindboggling to think about the sheer amount of common sense it takes to discover what "Astroturf marketing" is. When you discover what it truly means, and how it's being used to deceive you, it may come as a shock.
So what is Astroturf marketing?
Astroturf Marketing, also known as "Astroturfing," is the artificial creation of a grassroots buzz for a product, service or political viewpoint. Commercially-motivated astroturfing is called "Astroturf marketing." Astroturf marketing has a negative connotation, primarily because disreputable marketers have used deceptive tactics to build their buzz by taking advantage of the anonymity the internet provides.Source.
Astroturf Marketing is generally supported by lobbyists in Washington working alongside corporate interests (or vice versa.) Essentially, the corporations, eager to get rid of a "bad rap" they have received for a product or service, will hire Astroturf marketers to create misleading, sometimes deceitful ads and campaigns designed to put a company, product, or service in a more favorable position. It is also used by lobbyists to help support ill-intentioned legislation.
The overall design of an Astroturf campaign is to make it look as if it were organized entirely by grassroots organizations. This means hiring actors, creating front organizations, and even obtaining false or misleading scientific research to back up their claims. If you are an avid watcher of CNN, FOX, or any other major news networks, you may notice the sheer bombardment of Astroturf campaigns you may be exposed to on a regular basis.
The reason behind such exposure is due to the almost limitless influx of cash being routed into these fake grassroots organizations. This is because, unlike real, traditional grassroots movements, cash is not coming from people like you and me – they are instead being fed by large, multinational corporations. Once exposed, the interests of these organizations are obvious.
Take the "Clean Coal" movement. Aside from the fact that the ads themselves state that in "10 or 20 years" they will obtain the technology to burn "low emission" coal, the ads tend to give people the impression that we already have the technology to burn coal cleanly.
Now why would we get that impression?
Because that's exactly what they want you to believe. So even though coal is one of the most life threatening, heaviest pollutants on the planet, these advertisers want you to "deal with it" for now while the coal companies search for the "holy grail" of clean coal production, which may or may not happen.
What they are not telling us is about strip mining operations that are taking place in search of coal, or the dangers miners and their families are facing, or the cancer agents present in burning the coal (just look at china), or a myriad of other issues for that matter.
What they have you doing is defending an industry that yes – provides thousands of jobs for Americans, but is just as bad as the oil industry. Hundreds of thousands of people have fallen victim to this sort of marketing effort, and it's time to expose it for what it truly is – B.S.
We are so concerned over the lives and welfare of thousands of Americans whom are employed by the coal industry, when we should be concerned about the alternative energy sources that would likely provide not only more jobs than the coal industry, but would aid in saving the lives of millions of people throughout the world on a yearly basis.
So you see – many of you are supporting an oxymoronic industry. I hear you attacking Obama for saying that he'll bankrupt coal companies, not realizing that in truth this needs to be done if we are to do something about global warming – that is if you are a believer in global warming.
Don't be slaves to groupthink. Make up your own minds and do your own research. Don't think for a second that anyone who claims they would do it for you will be entirely honest.
For more research, click on the following links:
http://www. prwatch. org/taxonomy/term/105
http://www. sourcewatch. org/index. php?title=American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity
http://energysmart. wordpress. com/2007/12/19/astroturfing-the-political-discussion/more-423
Stay educated, and you will stay strong...
~One.
So what is Astroturf marketing?
Astroturf Marketing, also known as "Astroturfing," is the artificial creation of a grassroots buzz for a product, service or political viewpoint. Commercially-motivated astroturfing is called "Astroturf marketing." Astroturf marketing has a negative connotation, primarily because disreputable marketers have used deceptive tactics to build their buzz by taking advantage of the anonymity the internet provides.Source.
Astroturf Marketing is generally supported by lobbyists in Washington working alongside corporate interests (or vice versa.) Essentially, the corporations, eager to get rid of a "bad rap" they have received for a product or service, will hire Astroturf marketers to create misleading, sometimes deceitful ads and campaigns designed to put a company, product, or service in a more favorable position. It is also used by lobbyists to help support ill-intentioned legislation.
The overall design of an Astroturf campaign is to make it look as if it were organized entirely by grassroots organizations. This means hiring actors, creating front organizations, and even obtaining false or misleading scientific research to back up their claims. If you are an avid watcher of CNN, FOX, or any other major news networks, you may notice the sheer bombardment of Astroturf campaigns you may be exposed to on a regular basis.
The reason behind such exposure is due to the almost limitless influx of cash being routed into these fake grassroots organizations. This is because, unlike real, traditional grassroots movements, cash is not coming from people like you and me – they are instead being fed by large, multinational corporations. Once exposed, the interests of these organizations are obvious.
Take the "Clean Coal" movement. Aside from the fact that the ads themselves state that in "10 or 20 years" they will obtain the technology to burn "low emission" coal, the ads tend to give people the impression that we already have the technology to burn coal cleanly.
Now why would we get that impression?
Because that's exactly what they want you to believe. So even though coal is one of the most life threatening, heaviest pollutants on the planet, these advertisers want you to "deal with it" for now while the coal companies search for the "holy grail" of clean coal production, which may or may not happen.
What they are not telling us is about strip mining operations that are taking place in search of coal, or the dangers miners and their families are facing, or the cancer agents present in burning the coal (just look at china), or a myriad of other issues for that matter.
What they have you doing is defending an industry that yes – provides thousands of jobs for Americans, but is just as bad as the oil industry. Hundreds of thousands of people have fallen victim to this sort of marketing effort, and it's time to expose it for what it truly is – B.S.
We are so concerned over the lives and welfare of thousands of Americans whom are employed by the coal industry, when we should be concerned about the alternative energy sources that would likely provide not only more jobs than the coal industry, but would aid in saving the lives of millions of people throughout the world on a yearly basis.
So you see – many of you are supporting an oxymoronic industry. I hear you attacking Obama for saying that he'll bankrupt coal companies, not realizing that in truth this needs to be done if we are to do something about global warming – that is if you are a believer in global warming.
Don't be slaves to groupthink. Make up your own minds and do your own research. Don't think for a second that anyone who claims they would do it for you will be entirely honest.
For more research, click on the following links:
http://www. prwatch. org/taxonomy/term/105
http://www. sourcewatch. org/index. php?title=American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity
http://energysmart. wordpress. com/2007/12/19/astroturfing-the-political-discussion/more-423
Stay educated, and you will stay strong...
~One.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
How Supporting McCain is Like Performing Self Lobotomy
Supporting McCain and Palin is the same as stabbing yourself in the eye while simultaneously jamming your thumb up your ass.
Why do I sound so crude? Because it is true. Unless you are a fan of 1,000 years of war, tax breaks for the rich, orwellianism, socialism, fascism, and complete and utter lack of privacy, (amongst 1,000 other things) then the above statement will apply to the aforementioned supporters.
I constantly urge anyone with any sort of attention span to pay attention. This doesn't mean dabbling in the news of the day, forgetting about it, and then dabbling in the news of next week; on the contrary, it means actually remembering certain statements, situations, political positions, votes, and other such activities relative to the person whom you would consider voting into office.
After all, what use is the news cycle without any sort of memory of its occurrence? If McCain stated that he would keep America at war for 1,000 years and you're voting for him but you're against the war, then you're obviously an idiot. There's no nicer way to put it.
After all the evidence that has mounted against the Bush Administration concluding that the war in Iraq was neither justified nor warranted, therefore stating that we had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to send our own people into harm's way to help serve corporate interests –Why is it that when McCain states that "The Surge is Working," or "I support our Troops," people cheer?
Is that not the bastion of stupidity? In other words,
McCain: "I voted and supported sending troops to Iraq, and continue to support the effort to this day, and will continue to do so into my administration."
McCain Supporter: "I'm voting for him!!"
Educated bystander: "Have you been lobotomized?"
McCain Supporter: "You are a terrorist and an enemy of America!!"
Furthermore, McCain supporters have to be the most ignorant motherfuckers ever born!! McCain himself stated "OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM!!" And yet his own supporters CONTINUE to state, vehemently, that Obama is a Muslim!!!
Einstein stated that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Frankly, if I was voting for someone who had supporters as ignorant as McCain's, I would either tirelessly work to help wake them up or just let the lemmings jump off the cliff. I would not waste my vote or my time on such an individual.
In conclusion, please, for all that is good and fair, stop being so goddamn ignorant!! PAY ATTENTION!! DO YOUR RESEARCH!! LEARN THE TRUTH!! Those three alone will put you one step ahead of everyone else on Election Day. We have three days left. Please do at least some of your homework, otherwise this country will fail.
~One.
P.S: For the record, I am not an Obama supporter.
Why do I sound so crude? Because it is true. Unless you are a fan of 1,000 years of war, tax breaks for the rich, orwellianism, socialism, fascism, and complete and utter lack of privacy, (amongst 1,000 other things) then the above statement will apply to the aforementioned supporters.
I constantly urge anyone with any sort of attention span to pay attention. This doesn't mean dabbling in the news of the day, forgetting about it, and then dabbling in the news of next week; on the contrary, it means actually remembering certain statements, situations, political positions, votes, and other such activities relative to the person whom you would consider voting into office.
After all, what use is the news cycle without any sort of memory of its occurrence? If McCain stated that he would keep America at war for 1,000 years and you're voting for him but you're against the war, then you're obviously an idiot. There's no nicer way to put it.
After all the evidence that has mounted against the Bush Administration concluding that the war in Iraq was neither justified nor warranted, therefore stating that we had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to send our own people into harm's way to help serve corporate interests –Why is it that when McCain states that "The Surge is Working," or "I support our Troops," people cheer?
Is that not the bastion of stupidity? In other words,
McCain: "I voted and supported sending troops to Iraq, and continue to support the effort to this day, and will continue to do so into my administration."
McCain Supporter: "I'm voting for him!!"
Educated bystander: "Have you been lobotomized?"
McCain Supporter: "You are a terrorist and an enemy of America!!"
Furthermore, McCain supporters have to be the most ignorant motherfuckers ever born!! McCain himself stated "OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM!!" And yet his own supporters CONTINUE to state, vehemently, that Obama is a Muslim!!!
Einstein stated that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Frankly, if I was voting for someone who had supporters as ignorant as McCain's, I would either tirelessly work to help wake them up or just let the lemmings jump off the cliff. I would not waste my vote or my time on such an individual.
In conclusion, please, for all that is good and fair, stop being so goddamn ignorant!! PAY ATTENTION!! DO YOUR RESEARCH!! LEARN THE TRUTH!! Those three alone will put you one step ahead of everyone else on Election Day. We have three days left. Please do at least some of your homework, otherwise this country will fail.
~One.
P.S: For the record, I am not an Obama supporter.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Who is Chuck Baldwin, and Why Should We Vote For Him?
I've been considering this question for some time now, while many Americans have been themselves dealing with the issue of who will win their vote. It has become apparent that those who've made up their minds to vote for either McCain or Obama are only doing so whilst consciously fighting the urge to vomit.
This Presidential election cycle has been an incredible learning experience for many of us, including myself. I, for one, had quite a hatred of politics in general before I got involved in this particular election. The same can be said for many whom I've run into on this journey. If you have been living in a cave or willfully ignorant over the last few years, here's a quick dose of truth for you:
Got that?
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that you are constantly being lied to. And no matter what direction the candidates are leaning, be it left, right, or center, they are still resting upon the same lie. The problem is that the sheer size and scope of this lie is so great that it would be impossible for me to sum it up in a simple bulletin or blog. As usual, I encourage you to do your research.
I will also forewarn you: If you have made up your mind to vote for either McCain or Obama, please do so knowing that you are consciously allowing the very country upon which you stand to destroy itself from within. But also be mindful that you did not start this process- you are merely perpetuating and accelerating it.
This is not about race, gender, creed or religious faith. This is about you. Yes, you. You are being manipulated into making a decision that in reality you have little or no control over. If you vote Democrat or Republican, it won't truly matter, because in the end you are supporting the same ideals.
This only one amongst a bevy of items you may not be aware of. And what of the mainstream media? Why haven't we heard about these supposed "Third Party" candidates?
The answer is shockingly simple. Anyone familiar with Ockham's Razor will see the logic behind this and understand why.
That's it. It's all about the bills and who pays them. There may be a million different excuses as to why the major and minor networks decide to play the game, but the real answer is: "Why should we give a damn about you?"
And that's where you come in. You might ask yourself, "Why should I waste my vote?" - That would be a great question.
There is no doubt that we are facing off against the twin Goliaths of our age - The Democratic and Republican parties. We have little or no voice in the media and we are grossly outnumbered, not to mention out financed. Let us not forget though that one Ralph Nader became the pariah in the eyes of the media because the attention he received in 2000. And he did this before the advent of social networks.
I am a firm believer in the butterfly effect - and I will therefore cast my vote for Chuck Baldwin in 2008 with the firm hope that others do the same. It is not about whether we win or lose - it is about letting our voices be heard.
Now let's get to know who Chuck Baldwin is.
Who Is Chuck Baldwin?
Please follow this link to view a selection of videos that will better inform you about Chuck Baldwin.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=266311062&blogID=444678629
Thank you.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Dear Richard Viquerie, & all other "conservatives"
Dear "Conservatives,"
Lately, I've found myself doing a great deal of head scratching. I understand that this so-called election is down to the chosen 2 and soon it will come down to the final game. This being true, there is absolutely ZERO excuse to forget the past.
I must admit that as a staunch Ron Paul supporter, I trusted many of you to help guide us into a future where the ideals of Freedom and Liberty would be the pervasive argument amongst our most important politicians. Yet, as a Liberty supporter, I have been betrayed.
Never will I forget not only the sins, but the stupidity of the past in order to see things the way you wish us to see them in the future. This is the heart and soul of ignorance. By aligning yourselves behind John McCain, you have fundamentally slapped the Liberty movement and this country in the face.
Therefore, I hereby proclaim on this day, that NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER, will I cast my vote for John McCain or any other "Republican" masquerading as a conservative. NOR will I ever vote for any candidate that continues perpetuating the lies we have been fed as truths, nor will I ever believe in the deceitful, gratuitous, and ignorant rhetoric that is spewed by the mainstream media. I will NEVER vote for a candidate simply because you tell me so, and I will NEVER believe in DOUBLESPEAK, or any other self-contradictory nonsense I am simply supposed to believe.
This country is in the midst of an implosion that is perpetuated by the very system Ron Paul has vehemently fought to both reveal and destroy. We will NEVER forget that his words FOREWARNED us of this impending disaster, and furthermore that he continues to state that WE ARE ON THE WRONG PATH.
ARE WE NOT LISTENING? Yes, we are. Yet here you are, trying to convince us that the wolf is truly a sheep. Only the foolhearty fall for such trivial nonsense. Is it simply because you have made some sort of "NAME" for yourselves that we are supposed to believe that your words are wise? What Astroturf marketer is lining your pockets? Do you believe that we are blind? That we will stand by as our nation is robbed to pay the rich with the very money they use to enslave us?
Believe it or not WE HAVE A CHOICE. Ignore both the man behind the curtain and his illusion. When you VOTE this NOVEMBER, look beyond the presidential masquerade. Cast your vote instead for state and local LIBERTY MINDED representatives. If you don't know who, it's not too late to find out. If you need a place to start, look up Chuck Baldwin.
Don't give up the fight, fellow Liberty supporters. We need to take the system from the bottom up, not from the top down. Always remember that, and NEVER FORGET THE PAST.
Regards,
David Beltran,
Hispanics 4 Ron Paul.
~ One.
Lately, I've found myself doing a great deal of head scratching. I understand that this so-called election is down to the chosen 2 and soon it will come down to the final game. This being true, there is absolutely ZERO excuse to forget the past.
I must admit that as a staunch Ron Paul supporter, I trusted many of you to help guide us into a future where the ideals of Freedom and Liberty would be the pervasive argument amongst our most important politicians. Yet, as a Liberty supporter, I have been betrayed.
Never will I forget not only the sins, but the stupidity of the past in order to see things the way you wish us to see them in the future. This is the heart and soul of ignorance. By aligning yourselves behind John McCain, you have fundamentally slapped the Liberty movement and this country in the face.
Therefore, I hereby proclaim on this day, that NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER, will I cast my vote for John McCain or any other "Republican" masquerading as a conservative. NOR will I ever vote for any candidate that continues perpetuating the lies we have been fed as truths, nor will I ever believe in the deceitful, gratuitous, and ignorant rhetoric that is spewed by the mainstream media. I will NEVER vote for a candidate simply because you tell me so, and I will NEVER believe in DOUBLESPEAK, or any other self-contradictory nonsense I am simply supposed to believe.
This country is in the midst of an implosion that is perpetuated by the very system Ron Paul has vehemently fought to both reveal and destroy. We will NEVER forget that his words FOREWARNED us of this impending disaster, and furthermore that he continues to state that WE ARE ON THE WRONG PATH.
ARE WE NOT LISTENING? Yes, we are. Yet here you are, trying to convince us that the wolf is truly a sheep. Only the foolhearty fall for such trivial nonsense. Is it simply because you have made some sort of "NAME" for yourselves that we are supposed to believe that your words are wise? What Astroturf marketer is lining your pockets? Do you believe that we are blind? That we will stand by as our nation is robbed to pay the rich with the very money they use to enslave us?
Believe it or not WE HAVE A CHOICE. Ignore both the man behind the curtain and his illusion. When you VOTE this NOVEMBER, look beyond the presidential masquerade. Cast your vote instead for state and local LIBERTY MINDED representatives. If you don't know who, it's not too late to find out. If you need a place to start, look up Chuck Baldwin.
Don't give up the fight, fellow Liberty supporters. We need to take the system from the bottom up, not from the top down. Always remember that, and NEVER FORGET THE PAST.
Regards,
David Beltran,
Hispanics 4 Ron Paul.
~ One.
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain makes desperate plea for disgruntled Hillary supporters
This game has become so predictable nowadays that it’s somewhat boring. Today, John McCain chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential candidate. Who? Yeah, I said the same thing.
Essentially, McCain’s excuse for choosing someone with a far shorter political record than Sen. Barrack Obama was that she is a “uniter.” I’m sorry, but since when has McCain labeled himself a “uniter?” He’s been scrapping with Democrats since the day he was elected into his first post. Furthermore, using tactics such as quoting loosely the infamous Bush expression “I’m not a divider, I’m a uniter” won’t win you much in the way of votes. Except of course from the 28% in this country who still think he’s doing a “heck of a job.”
Now, McCain did make some headway after the Obama camp chose evil super villain and Zionist Joe Biden as their Vice-presidential candidate. But this headway, especially after last night’s speech by Obama in Denver, will be short lived.
So the thinkers behind McCain apparently seem to have realized that hey, this is an historic election. There is a black man, there was a woman, and on the Republican side there was just the same old geriatric white man. Furthermore they seem to realize that there is a large group of disgruntled Hillary supporters whom are crying foul and refusing to vote for Obama, so they’re willing to flush it down the drain.
So they chose Palin. They chose someone with virtually no experience, who is completely unknown, has few, if any credentials to be anywhere near the Presidency –but she is a WOMAN.
Someone commented today that this is a “hail Mary” on the side of the Republican Party. This person is right in more ways than one.
So what are you going to do, Hillary supporters? Do you want to bring Bush III back into office simply because they dangled a woman in front of you?
Don’t believe the hype.
~One.
Essentially, McCain’s excuse for choosing someone with a far shorter political record than Sen. Barrack Obama was that she is a “uniter.” I’m sorry, but since when has McCain labeled himself a “uniter?” He’s been scrapping with Democrats since the day he was elected into his first post. Furthermore, using tactics such as quoting loosely the infamous Bush expression “I’m not a divider, I’m a uniter” won’t win you much in the way of votes. Except of course from the 28% in this country who still think he’s doing a “heck of a job.”
Now, McCain did make some headway after the Obama camp chose evil super villain and Zionist Joe Biden as their Vice-presidential candidate. But this headway, especially after last night’s speech by Obama in Denver, will be short lived.
So the thinkers behind McCain apparently seem to have realized that hey, this is an historic election. There is a black man, there was a woman, and on the Republican side there was just the same old geriatric white man. Furthermore they seem to realize that there is a large group of disgruntled Hillary supporters whom are crying foul and refusing to vote for Obama, so they’re willing to flush it down the drain.
So they chose Palin. They chose someone with virtually no experience, who is completely unknown, has few, if any credentials to be anywhere near the Presidency –but she is a WOMAN.
Someone commented today that this is a “hail Mary” on the side of the Republican Party. This person is right in more ways than one.
So what are you going to do, Hillary supporters? Do you want to bring Bush III back into office simply because they dangled a woman in front of you?
Don’t believe the hype.
~One.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Huckabee & the Republican Party’s self-burial
Get the coroner, call the funeral parlor, and make arrangements with your fellow republicans. The slow and painful suffering of the Republican party will soon be coming to an abrupt and agonizing end.
Before you get into this bulletin, I'd just like to say that I was completely astounded by the sheer ignorance of every individual on that stage (except Ron Paul, of course) last night.
The display of madness both in calling the war a "Good idea, worth the price in both blood and treasure," and insisting that we were justified in attacking Iraq was mind boggling.
To take it a step further, many of them insisted that Weapons of Mass destruction that we sought in the outset of this war are still out there somewhere. Huckabee even insisted that they may have been moved to Jordan.
Let me make a few things perfectly clear:
1) The "weapons of mass destruction" scenario was based on what was later proven to be bad and forged intelligence. No evidence whatsoever was found that Saddam Hussein had any materials he was accused of having.
2) The weapons he did use against the Kurds in the 1980's, aside from not being nuclear, and having a short shelf life, were given to him by the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Look it up for yourselves.
Therefore, referring to this useless and utterly rediculous set of accusations which were aired out and put away, then stating that "Bush was right" on perhaps the biggest mistake of his entire administration, has set the entire Republican Party up for failure.
That is exactly what is happening. These candidates, whether they know it or not, are purpousefully throwing the race. There is absolutely no way that a Bush-talking republican is going to win in '08, not after the disastrous administration we just went through.
Unless Ron Paul's message can resonate with the rest of America, the Republican Party is screwed. We need to get the message out there and we need to get the Republican Party back on track. Tell your republican friends "Just come home."
~One.
----------------- Bulletin Message ----------------- From: juan Date: Jan 25, 2008 3:04 PM
The Huckster's Take on Neocon Lies: Saddam Moved WMD to Jordan
Think Progress
January 25, 2008
During the Republican presidential debate last night, Mike Huckabee suggested that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, but that they were moved prior to the war. In making this observation, Huckabee compared Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to an Easter egg hunt:
Everybody can look back and say, oh well we didn't find the weapons. Doesn't meet that they weren't there. Just because you didn't find every Easter egg didn't mean it wasn't planted.
Chris Matthews pressed Huckabee on this point in an interview after the debate. "Do you believe there are WMD in Iraq that hasn't been found that would have justified the war had we discovered it?" he asked. Huckabee offered this response:
I think it's more likely that that weapons of mass destruction that we know that he at one time had, he used weapons against the Kurds, good chance they may have gone to Jordan. We don't know where they are.
Josh Marshall points out that, "if you keep up on right-wing moonbat orthodoxy," you'll know that it's Syria — not Jordan — where they allege the weapons were supposedly smuggled to.
The Bush-commissioned Iraq Survey Group, charged with determining the truth regarding Saddam's weapons programs, declared in its final assessment that "it was unlikely" that any such official transfer to Syria took place:
The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. … ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria. […]
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.
The ISG concluded that "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."
MSNBC, Mitt Romney cover up obvious cheating during last debate
This is obviously a cover up. The answers to the questions blatantly defy logic, and anyone who was watching knows that Mitt Romney was cueued by the mysterious voice heard on the video. THIS IS WHY WE DO NOT TRUST THE MEDIA!! If there is a simple explanation, meaning that Romney was obviously CHEATING, then why don't they investigate? Or were they in on it too... ?? I'm willing to suggest, until I'm proven otherwise, that there's a likelyhood Romney's deep pockets paid for both the lack of attention to this detail, and the warm reception he received after the debate.
It was obvious from the end of the debate based upon the post-debate punditry that they were trying to drum up Romney as the "winner" and the "most presidential," yet this blatant act of cheating should've frankly ruined his campaign and his credibility.
Is there a scandal here that will be investigated by no one but us? We need to start asking questions and getting answers. That's why we are the independent media.
Here's the clip in question:
and another more focused on the remark, and Romney's reaction. If you look at his body language, (particularly his sudden blinking outburst) you can tell that he was paying attention to the man behind the curtain:
*Update* There is yet another whisper that was caught by someone who was paying great attention to this debate. Check it out:
Published ..DowningStreet.org (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org)
ROMNEY WHISPER: More To It
By davidswanson
Created 2008-01-25 16:24
By David Swanson
This is a tale of our upside-down election world. Please read it from the bottom up.
UPDATE #4: I can't confirm this. It comes from Andrew Sullivan [1]:
Some people have enhanced the first "he raised taxes" whisper using audio technology and have discovered that there was actually more to it than just "he raised taxes". They've disconvered that more can be heard: "He raised taxes, I'm not gonna...". Listen to the full enhanced audio yourself. Go out and get a tape and enhance it yourself if you think this is wrong.
This is even greater proof that there is something going on here. If this is correct, then it's not just a microphone malfunction, but an ACTUAL answer to the question Romney was given: "He (Reagan) raised taxes. I'm not going to raise taxes."
UPDATE #3: Having ruled out the possibility that one of the other candidates was whispering to himself, MSNBC has added an update to its blog post [2] concluding that someone in the audience must have been whispering near an "open mic." This is apparently based on nothing other than MSNBC's inability to come up with any other explanation, other than the obvious one. This now reads like a report on an election result that varies wildly from the exit polls. Such a result (if in the United States, abroad the opposite would be true) clearly proves that the exit polls must have been wrong! How do you know? Why, by ruling out the possibility that it was caused by Huckabee whispering to himself. In case shame takes over and the latest MSNBC conclusion gets purged, here it is:
"After reviewing the tapes, NBC determined that an open mic picked up a whisper from the audience. It is unclear who it is that says it, but it was not said by any of the candidates, was not heard in the hall and, more importantly, not heard by the candidates."
How do we know it was not heard by the candidates (not even the one who appears to hear it and repeat it)? Why, because MCNBC tells us so.
Seriously, I can't prove Romney was prompted, but that's the far more likely conclusion than MCNBC's. Maybe if they hired OJ to find the real whisperer I'd take them seriously. If the next debate has strip searches and cavity searches prior to the opening bell, I'll consider even watching it.
UPDATE #2: MSNBC has posted a new blog post [3] acknowledging that people want to know what happened but not offering any explanation. The post claims that MSNBC does not know whose voice is heard whispering, and that MSNBC is reviewing tapes of each of the candidates in order to determine whether it was one of them. This would tend to suggest that MSNBC does not think it was one of their staffers in a control room, and does not think it was one of their staffers feeding ideas to Russert. (I'm still unable to find the readers' comments on this on the MSNBC blog, and if they were deleted the new post says nothing about restoring them.)
UPDATE #1: MSNBC has given Raw Story [4] an explanation that explains nothing, saying Romney's microphone was not working. That's funny: during the whisper, Romney's lips aren't moving. What difference would it have made in any way for his microphone to have been working or not working?
ORIGINAL POST: Romney's (or is it Russert's? or one of the other candidates'?) debate cheating [5] may finally force this collection of evidence of Bush's cheating [6] into the news. Why did MNBC delete its blog post about it (and the reader comments that preceded and were referred to in the blog post)? Please CONTACT THE MEDIA [7].
We know Bush cheated.
We know almost certainly that somebody just cheated in this latest debate.
We can be pretty sure the media questioners cheat, which - among other reasons - makes them reluctant to report on candidate cheating.
We can suspect that the person who cheated in the latest debate was Romney, but it could have been Russert or one of the other candidates. This blog [8] points out that the whisper begins mighty soon to be a prompt for Russert.
If there's an innocent explanation, such as a random person near an open mic, why the coverup on the blog and the nonsense explanation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source URL:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30432
Links:
[1] http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/romney-whispe-1.html
[2] http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/25/609835.aspx
[3] http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/25/609835.aspx
[4] http://rawstory.com/news/2007/MSNBC_blames_Romney_whisper_on_microphone_0125.html
[5] http://www.democrats.com/romney-cheats-with-an-earpiece
[6] http://www.democrats.com/earpiece
[7] http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=/media
[8] http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/great-romney-whisper-in-his-ear-puppet.html
It was obvious from the end of the debate based upon the post-debate punditry that they were trying to drum up Romney as the "winner" and the "most presidential," yet this blatant act of cheating should've frankly ruined his campaign and his credibility.
Is there a scandal here that will be investigated by no one but us? We need to start asking questions and getting answers. That's why we are the independent media.
Here's the clip in question:
and another more focused on the remark, and Romney's reaction. If you look at his body language, (particularly his sudden blinking outburst) you can tell that he was paying attention to the man behind the curtain:
*Update* There is yet another whisper that was caught by someone who was paying great attention to this debate. Check it out:
Published ..DowningStreet.org (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org)
ROMNEY WHISPER: More To It
By davidswanson
Created 2008-01-25 16:24
By David Swanson
This is a tale of our upside-down election world. Please read it from the bottom up.
UPDATE #4: I can't confirm this. It comes from Andrew Sullivan [1]:
Some people have enhanced the first "he raised taxes" whisper using audio technology and have discovered that there was actually more to it than just "he raised taxes". They've disconvered that more can be heard: "He raised taxes, I'm not gonna...". Listen to the full enhanced audio yourself. Go out and get a tape and enhance it yourself if you think this is wrong.
This is even greater proof that there is something going on here. If this is correct, then it's not just a microphone malfunction, but an ACTUAL answer to the question Romney was given: "He (Reagan) raised taxes. I'm not going to raise taxes."
UPDATE #3: Having ruled out the possibility that one of the other candidates was whispering to himself, MSNBC has added an update to its blog post [2] concluding that someone in the audience must have been whispering near an "open mic." This is apparently based on nothing other than MSNBC's inability to come up with any other explanation, other than the obvious one. This now reads like a report on an election result that varies wildly from the exit polls. Such a result (if in the United States, abroad the opposite would be true) clearly proves that the exit polls must have been wrong! How do you know? Why, by ruling out the possibility that it was caused by Huckabee whispering to himself. In case shame takes over and the latest MSNBC conclusion gets purged, here it is:
"After reviewing the tapes, NBC determined that an open mic picked up a whisper from the audience. It is unclear who it is that says it, but it was not said by any of the candidates, was not heard in the hall and, more importantly, not heard by the candidates."
How do we know it was not heard by the candidates (not even the one who appears to hear it and repeat it)? Why, because MCNBC tells us so.
Seriously, I can't prove Romney was prompted, but that's the far more likely conclusion than MCNBC's. Maybe if they hired OJ to find the real whisperer I'd take them seriously. If the next debate has strip searches and cavity searches prior to the opening bell, I'll consider even watching it.
UPDATE #2: MSNBC has posted a new blog post [3] acknowledging that people want to know what happened but not offering any explanation. The post claims that MSNBC does not know whose voice is heard whispering, and that MSNBC is reviewing tapes of each of the candidates in order to determine whether it was one of them. This would tend to suggest that MSNBC does not think it was one of their staffers in a control room, and does not think it was one of their staffers feeding ideas to Russert. (I'm still unable to find the readers' comments on this on the MSNBC blog, and if they were deleted the new post says nothing about restoring them.)
UPDATE #1: MSNBC has given Raw Story [4] an explanation that explains nothing, saying Romney's microphone was not working. That's funny: during the whisper, Romney's lips aren't moving. What difference would it have made in any way for his microphone to have been working or not working?
ORIGINAL POST: Romney's (or is it Russert's? or one of the other candidates'?) debate cheating [5] may finally force this collection of evidence of Bush's cheating [6] into the news. Why did MNBC delete its blog post about it (and the reader comments that preceded and were referred to in the blog post)? Please CONTACT THE MEDIA [7].
We know Bush cheated.
We know almost certainly that somebody just cheated in this latest debate.
We can be pretty sure the media questioners cheat, which - among other reasons - makes them reluctant to report on candidate cheating.
We can suspect that the person who cheated in the latest debate was Romney, but it could have been Russert or one of the other candidates. This blog [8] points out that the whisper begins mighty soon to be a prompt for Russert.
If there's an innocent explanation, such as a random person near an open mic, why the coverup on the blog and the nonsense explanation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source URL:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30432
Links:
[1] http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/romney-whispe-1.html
[2] http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/25/609835.aspx
[3] http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/25/609835.aspx
[4] http://rawstory.com/news/2007/MSNBC_blames_Romney_whisper_on_microphone_0125.html
[5] http://www.democrats.com/romney-cheats-with-an-earpiece
[6] http://www.democrats.com/earpiece
[7] http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=/media
[8] http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/great-romney-whisper-in-his-ear-puppet.html
McCain Sr. Helped overthrow John Bosch and bring Rafael Trujillo to power
McCain Sr. Helped overthrow John Bosch and bring Rafael Trujillo to power
Category: News and Politics
This is why we should say no to Tyranny and John McCain. It is insulting to know that there are hispanics, namely Dominicans, who support this man without the knowledge that I'm about do dispense here.
Be careful who you choose. McCain's family has been at war for decades, has no humanitarian intentions whatsoever, and wish to turn the United States of America into a "New British Empire."
Any and all Latinos should learn something very important from the following article: the only thing McCain can bring to you is more tyranny and greater suffering. He offers nothing to us but more war, and possibly a draft that will send our children into harms way for American Corporate Interests. Please vote wisely.
If you want to see what I mean, you may skip down and read the paragraph in bold.
** Here's a video to set the mood
John McCain: The Nuclear Candidate
source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-dont-be-fooled-by-the-myth-of-john-mccain-773072.html
Johann Hari: Don't be fooled by the myth of John McCain
Thursday, 24 January 2008
A lazy, hazy myth has arisen out of the mists of New Hampshire and South Carolina. Across the pan-Atlantic press, the grizzled 71-year-old Vietnam vet, John McCain, is being billed as the Republican liberals can live with. He is "a bipartisan progressive"", "a principled hard liberal", "a decent man" – in the words of liberal newspapers. His fragile new frontrunner status as we go into Super Tuesday is being seen as something to cautiously welcome, a kick to the rotten Republican establishment.
But the truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear. Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to dispense with Hillary or Barack.
McCain is third-generation navy royalty, raised from a young age to be a senior figure in the Armed Forces, like his father and grandfather before him. He was sent to one of the most elite boarding schools in America, then to a naval academy where he ranked 894th out of 899 students in ability. He used nepotism to get ahead: when he was rejected by the National War College, he used his father's contacts with the Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider. He then swiftly married the heiress to a multi-million dollar fortune.
Right up to his twenties, he remained a strikingly violent man, "ready to fight at the drop of a hat", according to his biographer Robert Timberg. This rage seems to be at the core of his personality: describing his own childhood, McCain has written: "At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious. When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out."
But he claims he was transformed by his experiences in Vietnam – a war he still defends as "noble" and "winnable", if only it had been fought harder. (More than three million Vietnamese died; how much harder could it be?) His plane was shot down on a bombing raid over Hanoi, and he was captured and tortured for five years. To this day, he cannot lift his arms high enough to comb his own hair.
On his release, he used his wife's fortune to run to as a Republican senator. He was a standard-issue Reaganite corporate Republican – until the Keating Five corruption scandal consumed him. In 1987, it was revealed that McCain, along with four other senators, had taken huge campaign donations from a fraudster called Charles Keating. In return they pressured government regulators not to look too hard into Keating's affairs, allowing him to commit even more fraud. McCain later admitted: "I did it for no other reason than I valued [Keating's] support."
McCain took the only course that could possibly preserve his reputation: he turned the scandal into a debate about the political system, rather than his own personal corruption. He said it showed how "we need to drive the special interests out of Washington", and became a high-profile campaigner for campaign finance reform. But privately, his behaviour hasn't changed much. For example, in 2000 he lobbied federal regulators hard on behalf of a major campaign contributor, Paxson Communications, in an act the regulators spluttered was "highly unusual". He has never won an election without outspending his opponent.
But McCain has distinguished himself most as an über-hawk on foreign policy. To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: at a recent rally, he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann". He says North Korea should be threatened with "extinction".
McCain has mostly opposed using US power for humanitarian goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia – but he is very keen to use it for great power imperialism. He learnt this philosophy from his father and his granddad Slew, who fought in the Philippine wars at the turn of the 20th century, where he was part of a mission to crush the local resistance to the US invasion. They did it by forcing the entire population from their homes at gunpoint into "protection zones", and gunning down anybody over the age of ten who was found outside them. Today, McCain dreamily describes this as "an exotic adventure" which his grandfather "generally enjoyed".
Then McCain's father, John, led the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, at a time when there was a conflict on the Caribbean island. On one side, there were forces loyal to Juan Bosch, the democratically elected left-wing President who was committed to land redistribution and helping the poor. On the other side, there were forces who had overthrown the elected government and looked nostalgically to the playboy tyranny of Rafael Trujillo. John McCain Snr intervened to ensure the supporters of the democratic government were crushed, bragging that it taught the natives "how to behave themselves". He saw this as part of a wider mission, where the US would take over Britain's role as a "world empire".
These beliefs drive McCain today. He brags he would be happy for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, and declares: "I'm not at all embarrassed of my friendship with Henry Kissinger; I'm proud of it." His most thorough biographer – and recent supporter – Matt Welch concludes: "McCain's programme for fighting foreign wars would be the most openly militaristic and interventionist platform in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt... [it] is considerably more hawkish than anything George Bush has ever practised." With him as president, we could expect much more aggressive destabilisation of Venezuela and Bolivia – and more.
So why do so many nice liberals have a weak spot for McCain? Well, to his credit, he doesn't hate immigrants: he proposed a programme to legalise the 12 million undocumented workers in the US. He sincerely opposes torture, as a survivor of it himself. He has apologised for denying global warming and now advocates a cap on greenhouse gas emissions – but only if China and India can also be locked into the system. He is somewhat uncomfortable with the religious right (while supporting a ban on abortion and gay marriage). It is a sign of how far to the right the Republican Party has drifted that these are considered signs of liberalism, rather than basic humanity.
Yet these sprinklings of sanity – onto a very extreme programme – are enough for a superficial, glib press to present McCain as "bipartisan" and "centrist". Will this be enough to put white hair into the White House? At the moment, he has considerably higher positive ratings than Hillary Clinton, and beats her in some match-up polls. If we don't start warning that the Real McCain is not the Real McCoy, we might sleepwalk into four more years of Republicanism.
j.hari@independent.co.uk
Category: News and Politics
This is why we should say no to Tyranny and John McCain. It is insulting to know that there are hispanics, namely Dominicans, who support this man without the knowledge that I'm about do dispense here.
Be careful who you choose. McCain's family has been at war for decades, has no humanitarian intentions whatsoever, and wish to turn the United States of America into a "New British Empire."
Any and all Latinos should learn something very important from the following article: the only thing McCain can bring to you is more tyranny and greater suffering. He offers nothing to us but more war, and possibly a draft that will send our children into harms way for American Corporate Interests. Please vote wisely.
If you want to see what I mean, you may skip down and read the paragraph in bold.
source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-dont-be-fooled-by-the-myth-of-john-mccain-773072.html
Johann Hari: Don't be fooled by the myth of John McCain
Thursday, 24 January 2008
A lazy, hazy myth has arisen out of the mists of New Hampshire and South Carolina. Across the pan-Atlantic press, the grizzled 71-year-old Vietnam vet, John McCain, is being billed as the Republican liberals can live with. He is "a bipartisan progressive"", "a principled hard liberal", "a decent man" – in the words of liberal newspapers. His fragile new frontrunner status as we go into Super Tuesday is being seen as something to cautiously welcome, a kick to the rotten Republican establishment.
But the truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear. Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to dispense with Hillary or Barack.
McCain is third-generation navy royalty, raised from a young age to be a senior figure in the Armed Forces, like his father and grandfather before him. He was sent to one of the most elite boarding schools in America, then to a naval academy where he ranked 894th out of 899 students in ability. He used nepotism to get ahead: when he was rejected by the National War College, he used his father's contacts with the Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider. He then swiftly married the heiress to a multi-million dollar fortune.
Right up to his twenties, he remained a strikingly violent man, "ready to fight at the drop of a hat", according to his biographer Robert Timberg. This rage seems to be at the core of his personality: describing his own childhood, McCain has written: "At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious. When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out."
But he claims he was transformed by his experiences in Vietnam – a war he still defends as "noble" and "winnable", if only it had been fought harder. (More than three million Vietnamese died; how much harder could it be?) His plane was shot down on a bombing raid over Hanoi, and he was captured and tortured for five years. To this day, he cannot lift his arms high enough to comb his own hair.
On his release, he used his wife's fortune to run to as a Republican senator. He was a standard-issue Reaganite corporate Republican – until the Keating Five corruption scandal consumed him. In 1987, it was revealed that McCain, along with four other senators, had taken huge campaign donations from a fraudster called Charles Keating. In return they pressured government regulators not to look too hard into Keating's affairs, allowing him to commit even more fraud. McCain later admitted: "I did it for no other reason than I valued [Keating's] support."
McCain took the only course that could possibly preserve his reputation: he turned the scandal into a debate about the political system, rather than his own personal corruption. He said it showed how "we need to drive the special interests out of Washington", and became a high-profile campaigner for campaign finance reform. But privately, his behaviour hasn't changed much. For example, in 2000 he lobbied federal regulators hard on behalf of a major campaign contributor, Paxson Communications, in an act the regulators spluttered was "highly unusual". He has never won an election without outspending his opponent.
But McCain has distinguished himself most as an über-hawk on foreign policy. To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: at a recent rally, he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann". He says North Korea should be threatened with "extinction".
McCain has mostly opposed using US power for humanitarian goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia – but he is very keen to use it for great power imperialism. He learnt this philosophy from his father and his granddad Slew, who fought in the Philippine wars at the turn of the 20th century, where he was part of a mission to crush the local resistance to the US invasion. They did it by forcing the entire population from their homes at gunpoint into "protection zones", and gunning down anybody over the age of ten who was found outside them. Today, McCain dreamily describes this as "an exotic adventure" which his grandfather "generally enjoyed".
Then McCain's father, John, led the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, at a time when there was a conflict on the Caribbean island. On one side, there were forces loyal to Juan Bosch, the democratically elected left-wing President who was committed to land redistribution and helping the poor. On the other side, there were forces who had overthrown the elected government and looked nostalgically to the playboy tyranny of Rafael Trujillo. John McCain Snr intervened to ensure the supporters of the democratic government were crushed, bragging that it taught the natives "how to behave themselves". He saw this as part of a wider mission, where the US would take over Britain's role as a "world empire".
These beliefs drive McCain today. He brags he would be happy for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, and declares: "I'm not at all embarrassed of my friendship with Henry Kissinger; I'm proud of it." His most thorough biographer – and recent supporter – Matt Welch concludes: "McCain's programme for fighting foreign wars would be the most openly militaristic and interventionist platform in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt... [it] is considerably more hawkish than anything George Bush has ever practised." With him as president, we could expect much more aggressive destabilisation of Venezuela and Bolivia – and more.
So why do so many nice liberals have a weak spot for McCain? Well, to his credit, he doesn't hate immigrants: he proposed a programme to legalise the 12 million undocumented workers in the US. He sincerely opposes torture, as a survivor of it himself. He has apologised for denying global warming and now advocates a cap on greenhouse gas emissions – but only if China and India can also be locked into the system. He is somewhat uncomfortable with the religious right (while supporting a ban on abortion and gay marriage). It is a sign of how far to the right the Republican Party has drifted that these are considered signs of liberalism, rather than basic humanity.
Yet these sprinklings of sanity – onto a very extreme programme – are enough for a superficial, glib press to present McCain as "bipartisan" and "centrist". Will this be enough to put white hair into the White House? At the moment, he has considerably higher positive ratings than Hillary Clinton, and beats her in some match-up polls. If we don't start warning that the Real McCain is not the Real McCoy, we might sleepwalk into four more years of Republicanism.
j.hari@independent.co.uk
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Why did Dr. Paul vote against the AMBER alert?
Saturday, October 20, 2007
I thought this was an interesting question, so I did some digging. What I found was that some people are so easily influenced by surface issues that they are generally unwilling to "scratch it." Therefore, blatant accusations are leveled and the final result is a blind, inept group attempting to influence public opinion.
I thought it was strange that Dr. Paul would vote against such a measure, so rather than immediately say "he doesn't care for kids," I literally spent several hours combing the internet and the Library of Congress for answers. What I found is not very easy to explain, so I provided the document specific to my reason in my blog, and you can download it here:
Warning: It is long, boring, and hard to understand if you don't know law. But if you're going to critisize Dr. Paul about not voting for AMBER, you'd be a total idiot if you did not at least review this document_ I say that with absolute sincerity.
www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjlp/jlp12ii_phillips.pdf
Here are some of the highlights:
The AMBER alert and PROTECT acts are two similar measures that were passed through congress after 2002. AMBER, at the outset, was relatively straightforward. It provided the means which were necessary to create a nationwide broadcasting system to help locate missing or exploited children.
Unfortunately, the "clean" version of the AMBER alert bill was poisoned by an ammendment authored by the DOJ and sponsored by Representative Tom Feeney, tentatively titled the "Feeney Amendment." Like many controversial bills introduced in the past, the Feeney Amendment was another example of how members of Congress manipulate valid and uncontroversial bills. This bill was presented to congress in an ambush and given a limited time to consider the new amendment's overall ramifications.
Reading through the document, I found that not only was the Feeney Amendment unconstitutional, it also limited the judicial branches' authority to set sentencing guidelines.
The American Bar Association stated that the Feeney Ammendment "would all but eliminate the discretionary power of federal judges to achieve justice in individual cases, and effectively transform the Sentencing Guidelines into a system of mandatory minimum sentences."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that "this legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and reasonable sentences."
The Federal Judges Association explained that "this amendment undermines the essential attribute of judging, which is to apply the law to the specific case by making an informed and dispassionate judgment."
"The framers of the Constitution declined to assign the responsibility of federal sentencing to any one of the three branches. The sentencing system has always involved the participation of each branch of government. This sharing of responsibility is in accord with separation of power principles. The Supreme Court has observed that "[w]hile the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity." The sentencing process reflects this integration of dispersed powers by affording Congress the power to set sentencing ranges and determine the scope of judicial discretion, the Executive the power to prosecute crimes, and the Judiciary the power to determine sentences and exercise discretion within the framework established by Congress."
Although Congress has the power to establish sentencing ranges, judicial contribution to the promulgation of the Guidelines is essential because of the political nature of criminal sentencing. The public's perspective on crime is influenced by the media, and Congress reacts to public concerns by toughening criminal sentences. The danger of placing complete control over the development of the Guidelines in the hands of Congress is that members of Congress may be influenced by the need to appear "tough on crime" for reelection purposes rather than engage in a meaningful analysis of whether current sentencing practices are fair.
Indeed, the evidence suggests that the sentencing system, driven by mandatory minimums and the Guidelines, is leading to distortions of the fairness and equality originally intended by the Guidelines because these measures have resulted in a disparate impact on minorities. Additionally, America's prison population has dramatically increased since the enactment of the Guidelines and the implementation of mandatory minimums.The constitutional guarantees of lifetime tenure and protection against salary diminishment enhance judicial impartiality and afford judges greater protection against the same political and public pressures exerted on Congress. Federal judges uniquely contribute to the work of the Commission because of their greater impartiality and expertise in criminal sentencing.
Traditionally, the courts and Congress have shared responsibility for establishing Federal sentencing policy. Congress defines criminal conduct and sets maximum sentences, while the courts impose sentences in individual cases. Any suggestion that the Executive Branch should be responsible for promulgating the guidelines would present troubling constitutional problems. More importantly, it would fundamentally alter the relationship of the Congress and the Judiciary with respect to sentencing policy and its implementation. Giving such significant control over the determination of sentences to the same branch of government that is responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases is no more appropriate than granting such power to a consortium of defense attorneys.
If the power of the Executive Branch to prosecute criminal violations were joined with the power to prescribe sentences for those convicted, it would constitute a potential for tyranny. These powers should not be lodged in the prosecuting branch any more than in a "consortium of defense attorneys."
There are also other reporting requirements enacted by the bill that would exhert undue pressure on Judges by revealing most, if not all details of a given case within 15 to 30 days of judgement.
While Chief Justice Rehnquist approved of the general authority of Congress to collect information in aid of formulating legislation on sentencing, he went on to explain that individualized collection of information on a judge-by-judge basis "is more troubling . . . . For side-by-side with the broad authority of Congress to legislate and gather information in this area is the principle that federal judges may not be removed from office for their judicial acts . . . . [A] judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment." This principle, the Chief Justice observed, has existed for nearly 200 years, following the trial of Justice Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court by the Senate.
Enactment of the Feeney Amendments does not reflect the legislative process at its best. Considering the devastating impact the original Feeney Amendment would have wrought on judicial sentencing discretion, it is remarkable that the House passed it based on a mere twenty minutes of debate. Although part of the reason for the enactment of the Feeney Amendment was due to concern over implementing the AMBER Plan on a nationwide scale, enactment of the Feeney Amendment reveals that the Judicial Branch requires protection from members of Congress and the Executive who fundamentally distrust judicial independence and discretion in sentencing or fail to appreciate the moral consequences of a sentencing system lacking the input of the judiciary.
I can hardly blame Dr. Paul for having the ability to both read and understand the bills being presented to him. I lament for most of the other members of Congress who railroaded this legislation through without so much as batting an eyelid.
If you still oppose Dr. Paul's stance after reading the document, perhaps you should consider being a Neo-Con.
~One.
Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill
Saturday, October 20, 2007
..> ..>
The Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill comes up every two years or so for refinancing and is presented to the house and senate for procedural votes. Though on the outside, these bills seem well intentioned, it is not until you get to the nuts and bolts that you find massive military financing for Israel, Egypt, and Sudan, amongst other foreign nations.
Generally, the largest amount of financing always goes to Israel, specifically towards its military. These bills are reprehensible. By tagging military financing along with programs such as Global HIV/AIDS Research, Peace Corps, and Millenium Challenge Accounts, the true intention of the bill is undermined.
Considering the large amount of military aid given to Israel via this bill, and Israel's current and illegal occupation of Palestine, what we eventually wind up with is a foreign relations disaster. Bills such as these undermine the value of a humble foreign policy.
Therefore, along with information specific to each individual bill that has been passed through the house and the senate, I am also providing individual Presidential Candidate votes (where available) for and against each individual bill mentioned.
Please note: Consisten vote of "Y" for this bill equals $18.16 Billion Dollars to Israel's military over 9 years.
2006: Foreign Operations and Export Finance Appropriation Act
HR 5522: Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />..:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />
Highlights:
- Prohibits any use of the funds for direct financial support to Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran or Syria (Sec. 507, 589)
- Prohibits the use of funds to pay for abortions as a method of family planning, to motivate or coerce any individual to practice abortion, or perform involuntary sterilizations (Sec. 518)
- Bars bilateral assistance funds to nations that support terrorism or provide a haven for terrorists, unless the President justifies the use of aid for national security or humanitarian reasons (Sec. 526)
- $5.19 billion for the State Department, including:
- $2.77 billion for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
- $750.21 million for migration and refugee assistance
- $703.60 million for international narcotics control and law enforcement
- $4.45 billion for the Foreign Military Financing Program, including:
- $2.34 billion for Israel
- $1.3 billion for Egypt
- $216 million for Jordan
- $90 million for Columbia
- $4.09 billion for the U.S. Agency for International Development, including:
- $1.57 billion for child survival and health programs
- $1.29 billion for development assistance
- $348.8 million for international disasters and famine assistance
- $2.65 billion for the Economic Support Fund, including:
- $455 million for Egypt
- $250.5 million for Jordan
- $225 million for Afghanistan
- $120 million for Israel
- $35.5 million for Lebanon
- Other appropriations:
- $2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation to monitor the activities of the Millennium Challenge Account, which provides development assistance to those countries that establish certain economic and human rights criteria
- $324.59 million for the Peace Corps
House Passage Vote: 06/09/2006: Passed 373 - 34. (Roll No. 250).
Senate Passage Vote: 6/12/2006: No vote taken: referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
Foreign Operations FY 2006 Appropriations Bill
Official Title of Legislation:
HR 3057: Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
- Denies funding for the Global Environment Facility due to their failure to initiate a performance based grant allocation system that Congress requested in 2002; the GEF is an international investment firm that provides support to companies that make contributions that meet certain criteria regarding environmental quality and human health
- Prohibits the use of funds for direct financial support to Saudi Arabia (H AMDT 379: Adopted: 293-132 Roll no. 331)
- Prohibits the use of funds for any foreign country that has an extradition treaty with the U.S. but refuses to extradite an individual accused of a criminal offense in the U.S. (H AMDT 382: Adopted: 294-132 Roll no. 333)
- Limits financial assistance to any foreign country that refuses to extradite an individual accused of killing a law enforcement officer in the U.S. (H AMDT 378: Adopted: 327-98 Roll no. 330)
- $4.44 billion for the Foreign Military Financing Fund; of which $2.28 billion is for grants only for Israel, $1.30 billion is for grants only for Egypt, and $206 million for assistance to Jordan
- $4.17 billion for the U.S. Agency for International Development; of which $1.50 billion is for Child Survival and Health Programs, and $1.46 billion is for Development Assistance - to aid countries in Central America and Sub-Saharan Africa
- $2.56 billion for the Economic Support Fund - financial assistance to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Cyprus, Lebanon, and Afghanistan (not to be used for military purposes)
- $1.92 billion for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
- $1.75 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation to monitor the activities of the Millennium Challenge Account, which provides development assistance to those countries that establish certain economic and human rights criteria
- $325 million for the Peace Corps
House Passage Vote: 06/28/2005: Passed: 393 - 32 (Roll No. 335).
Senate Passage Vote: 07/20/2005: Passed: 98 - 1. Record Vote No: 197.
House Conference Report Vote: 11/04/2005: Adopted: 358 - 39 (Roll No. 569).
Senate Conference Report Vote: 11/10/2005: Adopted: 91 - 0. Record Vote No: 320.
Presidential Action: 11/14/2005: Signed by President. Became Public Law No: 109-102.
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY 2004 bill
HR 2800: Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
Highlights:
- Over $1 billion to combat HIV/AIDS.
- $800 million for the Millenium Challenge Account, which aids developing countries that meet certain human rights, economic, and political standards.
- $2.2 billion for international child health programs.
- $2.2 billion for Israeli military assistance.
- $1.8 billion for military and economic assistance for Egypt.
House Passage Vote: 07/24/2003: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 370 - 50 (Roll no. 429).
Senate Passage Vote: 10/30/2003: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.
Foreign Operations FY2002 Appropriations bill
Official Title of Legislation:
HR 2506: Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.
Highlights:
- $3.5 billion for the Agency for International Development
- $475 million for International HIV/AIDS programs
- $625 million for the Andean Regional Initiative for development and anti-narcotics programs
- $727 million for the Export-Import Bank
- $784 million for former Soviet Republics
- $236 million for international disaster assistance
- $2.04 billion (military) and $720 million (economic) in aid to Israel
- Overturns ban on U.S. funds to overseas groups that use their own money to promote or perform abortions
- Withholds aid to any nation that provides "lethal military equipment" to a government that is labeled as a "terrorist government" by the Secretary of State
- No direct aid or reparations to Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan or Syria
- No aid to any nation that does not comply with the U.N. sanctions placed on Iraq unless it is in the United States' national interest
House Passage Vote: 07/24/2001: Passed 381-46 (Roll no. 266).
Senate Passage Vote: 10/24/2001: Passed 96-2. Record Vote Number: 312.
House Conference Report Vote: 12/19/2001: Agreed 357-66 (Roll no. 505).
Senate Conference Report Vote: 12/20/2001: Agreed Unanimous Consent.
Presidential Action: 01/10/2002: Signed by President. Became public law 107-115.
Foreign Operations FY 2001 Appropriations bill
Official Title of Legislation:
HR 4811: Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
- $2.82 billion for aid to Israel, including $1.98 billion for Foreign Military Financing and $840 million for economic assistance
- $2 billion for aid to Egypt, including $1.3 billion for Foreign Military Financing and $695 million for economic assistance
- $834 million for the Child Survival and Disease Program Fund, including $110 million for UNICEF
- $385 million for international family planning assistance
- $305 million for the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
- $258 million for the Peace Crops
- $160 million for emergency disaster assistance for southern Africa, including Mozambique
- $69.4 million for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative debt relief
- $25 million for aid to Ireland
- Up to $10 million for support of efforts to bring about political transition in Iraq *** THIS WAS VOTED ON A YEAR BEFORE 9/11!!
House Passage Vote: 07/13/2000: Passed: 239-185 (Roll no. 400).
Senate Passage Vote: 07/18/2000: Passed: Unanimous Consent.
House Conference Report Vote: 10/25/2000: Agreed: 307-101 (Roll no. 546).
Senate Conference Report Vote: 10/25/2000: Agreed: 65-27: Record Vote Number 280.
Presidential Action: 11/06/2000: Signed by President. Became Public Law 106-429.
Foreign Operations FY2000 Appropriations bill
HR 2606: Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
Highlights:
- $2.88 billion for military and economic assistance to Israel
- $2.04 billion for military and economic assistance to Egypt
- $725 million for former Soviet Republics
- $625 million for refugee and migration assistance
- $393 million for assistance of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states
- $285 million for international narcotics control and law enforcement
- $240 million for the Peace Corps
- $200.88 million for international disaster assistance
- $10 million for funding of political, economic, humanitarian and other activities of Iraqi opposition groups
- Withholds funding from foreign organizations that perform or promote abortions
- Withholds aid to any nation that provides "lethal military equipment" to a government that is labeled as a "terrorist government" by the Secretary of State
House Passage Vote: 08/03/1999: Passed: 385-35 (Roll no. 362).
Senate Passage Vote: 08/04/1999: Passed: Unanimous Consent.
NOTE: Senate passed HR 2606 in lieu of S 1234.
House Conference Report Vote: 10/05/1999: Agreed: 214-211 (Roll no. 480).
Senate Conference Report Vote: 10/6/1999: Agreed: 51-49. Record Vote No: 312.
Presidential Action: 10/18/1999: Vetoed by President.
For Presidential Veto Statement Click Here Why? Short answer: Clinton felt there was not enough funding allocated to foreign governments or aid groups.
Foreign Operations FY98 Appropriations bill
Official Title of Legislation:
HR 2159: Making Appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes
Highlights:
- Prohibits any funding from being used to perform or promote abortions abroad
- Denies U.S. family planning funding aid to any group that performs or promotes abortions abroad
- Withholds aid to any nation that provides lethal military equipment to a government that is labeled as a terrorist government by the Secretary of State
- $3.6 billion for Foreign Military Financing Program
- $2.4 billion for Economic Support Fund
- $650 million for refugee and migration assistance
- $625 million for former Soviet Republics
- $470 million for assistance of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states
- $230 million for international narcotics control and law enforcement
- $222 million for the Peace Corps
- $190 million for international disaster assistance
House Passage Vote: 7/14/1997: Passed: 379-49 (Roll no. 364).
Senate Passage Vote: 9/4/1999: Passed: Unanimous consent.
Note: The Senate passed HR 2159 in lieu of S 955.
House Conference Vote: 11/13/1997: Adopted: 333-76 (Roll no. 631).
Senate Conference Report: 11/13/1997: Adopted: Unanimous consent.
Presidential Action: 11/26/1997: Signed by President. Became Public Law No. 105-118.
How the candidates voted:
Congress: | 2006 | 2004 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1998 | 2007 |
Duncan Hunter | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Tom Tancredo | N | N | N | Y | Y | N/A | N |
Dennis Kucinich | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N |
Ron Paul | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Senate: | |||||||
John McCain | Y | N/A | Y | N | Y | N/A | N/A |
Joe Biden | Y | N/A | Y | Y | Y | N/A | N/A |
Chris Dodd | Y | N/A | Y | Y | Y | N/A | N/A |
Barrack Obama | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Sam Brownback | Y | N/A | Y | Y | Y | N/A | N/A |
Hillary Clinton | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
John Edwards | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Y | N/A | N/A |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)