There are three political parties in the United States today, and they are all fielding candidates for the presidency.
The parties are the Republicrats, the Scared Religionists, and the Freedom and Peace Party.
By far the largest party is the Republicrats, who have held sway with their current platform since at least the 1940s. They are offering two candidates for president in 2012: their names are Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, January 20th, 1981
On July 23, 2011, a 35-year-old Iranian electrical engineering student named Darioush Rezaeinejad was gunned down as he and his wife, who was also wounded in the attack, waited for their child in front of a kindergarten in Tehran.
Israel has never denied that it was behind that assassination, and two senior US officials have confirmed to NBC news that the accusation by Ali Larijani - a senior adviser to Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei - that Israel's Mossad had used the Mujahideen E. Khalq (MEK) to carry out the killing of Iranian scientists was essentially accurate.
Rezaeinejad was the fourth Iranian scientist whom the Israelis had tried to assassinate, but what was different about his assassination is the subsequent effort by the Israelis to justify it after the fact. That effort casts new light not only on the larger assassination campaign, but on the way in which Israel has gone about constructing its contention that there is an active Iranian nuclear weapons program.
There’s a 30-minute long YouTube sensation that’s gotten more than 70 million views in just a few days. The stated goals of the expertly produced Kony 2012 is to make an African warlord a household name and to keep U.S. military advisors in Uganda.
Because ideas presented in the documentary are stated as “something we can all agree on,” I find it important to step forward and say that I do not in the slightest agree with the idea of U.S. military advisors in Uganda. In fact, I think that the work being done by Kony 2012 director Jason Russell and a number of organizations and activists on this topic is flat wrong.
Kony 2012 has a “power-to-the-people” feel to it and calls for action that is humanitarian in nature, making it ideal in convincing naïve, well-intentioned people about the justness of having foreign troops in Uganda.
However, my years of political involvement have shown me that people must not be judged on what they say, but on what they do. As well-intentioned as they are couched, Russell’s actions move us toward American military involvement in Uganda under popular pressure and under a veneer of justice. This is not an admirable goal and the talking points are familiar ones.
In fact, his techniques are so familiar that the maker of this film sounds like a neo-conservative, especially from September 10, 2001 until W’s mission accomplished speech on May 1, 2003.
Bruce Fein Senior Advisor for Ron Paul 2012 campaign and author of Congressman Walter B Jones H. CON. RES. 107M joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Ron Paul Senior Advisor Bruce Fein talks Impeachment Resolution and Republican Convention Outlook’ to discuss the resolution’s purpose moving forward and the support for this legislation. He responds to the question regarding Leon Panetta’s statement of whether or not the administration would even talk to congress prior to military action in Syria as impeachable. He also talks about the no clear winner scenario at the Republican National Convention.
An odd memory from my teenage years was the first time I heard the term “erectile dysfunction” mentioned on television. It was said by the man who was formerly a candidate for the highest office in the land, this was a man so well-known that he had 51% name recognition 15 months before the presidential election, the former senior senator from Kansas.
It was an awkward moment for me. Anyone who was in DC at that point understood that the lines between government and business interests had long been blurred. Many far-removed from DC, such as in my native Chicago, also understood that idea. But I had somehow missed that memo up until that point in my life and therefore was surprised to see that message broadcast on television.
The message was below the surface of the commercial: “a politician will use the goodwill he built-up talking about his values with voters in order to cash in with a corporation.” Of course, it was just a Viagra advertisement, but in retrospect – the uncomfortable topic of impotence and the idea that a trusted politician was hawking drugs on television combined disharmoniously in me and didn’t fit the mental schema I used to understand politicians and government.
WASHINGTON, Mar 12, 2012 (IPS) - News stories about satellite photographs suggesting efforts by Iran to "sanitise" a military site that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said may have been used to test nuclear weapons have added yet another layer to widely held suspicion that Iran must indeed be hiding a covert nuclear weapons programme.
But the story is suspect, in part because it is based on evidence that could only be ambiguous, at best. The claim does not reflect U.S. intelligence, and a prominent think tank that has published satellite photography related to past controversies surrounding Iran's nuclear programme has not found any photographs supporting it.
The original Parchin clean-up story by Associated Press correspondent George Jahn, published Mar. 7, reported that two unnamed diplomats from an unidentified country or countries – it was not made clear how many were involved – told him that satellite photos "appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles" at the site.
Brian Doherty Senior Editor of Reason Magazine joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Brian Doherty of Reason.com talks Unbound Delegates, Brokered Convention and Ron Paul Super PACs' to discuss his detailed breakdown of the Ron Paul Revolution's push for delegates and a brokered convention. He also talks about controversial questions surrounding the effectiveness of Ron Paul Super PACs.
During the first 2 months of the Republican presidential primary contest, the mainstream media consistently reported that Ron Paul had failed to secure a win in any state. While Paul had likely accumulated the majority of delegates in several caucus states, including Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Alaska, Minnesota and possibly several more, he had not placed first in the straw polls in any of those states.
Despite the fact that the straw poll is non-binding and ultimately has nothing to do with selecting the party’s nominee, the media consistently reported the straw poll winner as the winner of the state caucus. They even went so far as to project the delegates won by each candidate based upon that candidate’s percentage of the straw poll vote. This is misleading because the straw poll results have nothing to do with the allocation of delegates in most caucus states The delegate process is completely separate and takes place after the straw poll is over.
The media has not missed an opportunity to point out that Ron Paul has not won a state in this election cycle, although those listening carefully heard John King admit after the Arizona debate that Paul was in second place in terms of delegates. This was the result of several strong second place finishes and several wins - if one defines a win as securing the most delegates. However, the media recognizes the straw poll winner as the “winner” regardless of who actually gets the delegates.
That is, until Ron Paul wins a straw poll. Then the rules change.
Howard Kurtz, of CNN, the Host of Reliable Sources rejects logic in his attempt to avoid giving an opinion. Mr. Kurtz rejects the idea that you necessarily either have an opinion or you don't . He thinks there is some third option. He rejects the law of the excluded middle. At the same time, he claims it is his job to reveal contradictions in a politicians thinking. How can use logic if he denies the law of non-contradiction and its corollary, the law of the excluded middle? He appears to have a contradiction on contradictions.
Conservative Americans DO NOT WANT Mitt Romney. That’s pretty darn obvious. He spends a fortune trying to convince voters, gets a generous amount of media time to express his message, and still can’t seem to inspire the Republican base, even when he’s running against the likes of crooked party hacks Santorum and Gingrich, or against that other guy – the Congressman from Texas who seldom gets mentioned in the media. Against opponents like that, the out-of-touch punditry have long expected that Super Tuesday 2012 would be the coronation of Mitt Romney.
In the era of the Tea Party, Mitt Romney is simply too big of a statist and is too inconsistent with his views to sew up the nomination or the presidency. Does he like gun control (as past action has shown) or does he like the Second Amendment (as his current rhetoric is demonstrating)? Does he want national healthcare (as past action has shown) or is he against government healthcare (as his current rhetoric is mostly demonstrating)? Is he against the concept of the free market (as past action has shown) or is he in favor of a free market (as his current rhetoric is occasionally demonstrating)?
Republicans clearly do not want Mitt Romney as a president, but we’re still only 8 weeks into this 8 month long nominating contest and perhaps they’ll take a liking to the number two man in the delegate count – Ron Paul when they come to realize what a chance they have at choosing a principled candidate who can succeed at winning the White House. He has the second largest fundraising apparatus of the candidates, has the largest volunteer army, appeals to the swing voter, appeals to the youth, appeals to activists, gives the angry ex-Obama voters on the left a safe home, attracts independents, Greens, and Democrats, grows the party, and has a record of winning 12 elections in the conservative south, all of which nearly ensure that his nomination would bring about a Republican win in November.
Take a step back to 2003 with me.
Then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld presented intelligence reports that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He even said he knew where they were: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
But these reports were false. Rumsfeld knew no such thing. He lied.