Charles Goyette NY Times bestselling author of The Dollar Meltdown joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for a special book review interview ‘Red and Blue and Broke All Over by Charles Goyette’. We discuss several powerful chapters of his new book including the blessings of liberty, fascism and crony capitalism and the dollar endgame.
The Barack Obama administration's new interest in the 2004 religious verdict, or "fatwa", by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banning the possession of nuclear weapons, long dismissed by national security officials, has prompted the New York Times to review the significance of the fatwa for the first time in several years.
Senior Obama administration officials have decided to cite the fatwa as an Iranian claim to be tested in negotiations, posing a new challenge to the news media to report accurately on the background to the issue. But the Apr. 13 New York Times article by James Risen rehashed old arguments by Iran's adversaries and even added some new ones.
David Gergen, CNN TV commentator and Harvard professor, refuses to answer fundamental questions about our political system. He will not answer whether you can live well if other people can legally gang up on you and forcefully take your money? He will not answer whether the Declaration of Independence contains a limited government view or does it support the view that the government should redistribute its citizens wealth? Nor will he answer whether other people's children should have a legal right to your money? Gergen does not want to answer any of these questions, that he calls philosophical, and decides to leave. Part 4
The GOP Lost the Birth Control Debate a Decade Ago
The Hinlicky Rule directs us to fully understand the argument of an opponent before criticizing it.
“You shall not criticize the position of another…until you can state that position with such accuracy, completeness and sympathy, that the opponent himself declares, ‘Yes, I could not have said it better myself!‘ Then, and only then, may you criticize. For then you are engaging a real alternative and advancing a real argument. Otherwise you shed only heat, not light.”
I expect no such formalities from either partisan Republicans or Democrats. The Republicans and Democrats talk past each other, and both are happy to do so to fire up “the base.” Readers of these pages are likely to understand the talking points coming from both parties and to laugh at them for different reasons.
We live in a world where it is no longer enough to be Mr. Universe, then the wealthiest actor in Hollywood, then married to a hot news anchor from the premiere American political dynasty family. To be truly satisfied, apparently, one must knock a knowledgable accountant out of a big race to fix your state's budget crisis, then sit on the Governor's throne, and then boink the maid. For the record, "Conan the Republican" left the California governatorship as a card-carrying liberal. I warned my friends working for his 2003 Total Recall campaign to not come crying to me when he sells them down the river. They came crying to me anyway. Every dark cloud has a silver lining, though; the accountant who lost the state race to Arnold is now Congressman McClintock and Mr. Universe is back in the entertainment business.
Left and Right and Right and Left
Have left America bereft
Of liberty, its founding light.
Christians, Liberals speak of peace
Until they hold the nation’s leash,
And send its youth to fight.
The welfare payments quickly rise
While still one half decap’talized;
No end to either blight.
The Left with all its good intent,
The Right with its religious bent,
Have turned our day to night.
It’s those who think that they know best
Who softly tyrannize the rest:
Domestic might makes right.
It’s means - and not intended ends -
On which the outcomes all depend,
John Dennis US congressional candidate running in the 8th district of California joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Liberty Candidate Series: John Dennis for US Congress’ to discuss his congressional race agianst Nancy Pelosi, the open primary process in California and the importance of putting Liberty Candidates in office.
WASHINGTON, Apr 12, 2012 (IPS) - The Barack Obama administration has adopted a demand in the negotiations with Iran beginning Saturday that its Fordow enrichment facility must be shut down and eventually dismantled based on an understanding with Israel that risks the collapse of the negotiations.
The year is not 1912 when three serious candidates ran in the general election for the White House. The year is 2012 when simply getting on the ballot is enough for third parties to cheer.
I’m not the partisan type and the weak "success" of simply getting Ron Paul on the ballot won’t be enough for me to even break a smile this autumn. I want to see Ron Paul in the White House. That will be success.
When I look my children in the eye and tell them the history of the revolution, the minor victory of ballot access for Ron Paul will not be mentioned. Ballot access is an important fight. It's a step in the right direction. But right now in the spring of 2012 with Rick Santorum leaving the race, we are confronted with a choice. Will we Ron Paul supporters continue to take over one of the two major parties, or will we settle for a third party run?
Jonathan Karl, ABC News TV commentator and reporter, first states that he has no position on whether we should have gone to war with Iraq! Later, it turns out that he has a position, but he will not share it with us. Why do he and other journalists first say they have no position? After 10 years of the USA having made this decision he still feels uncomfortable sharing his reasoning and analysis for this position. How can we learn lessons of history if the people that report, analyze and comment on political events will not share their opinions(at least with me)? Why are they happy to share their opinions in other venues? How can we know what is the right policy if we cannot examine the reasoning they use to support their public policy positions? Part three.
Chip Reid CBS news correspondent first says he has no opinions, but later admits that he does have opinions. Apparently, he has to pretend he does not have an opinion in order to be considered neutral. Does having an opinion prevent you from being objective and neutral? If as everyone agrees having an opinion does not prevent you from being objective, why is it so many journalists believe it is necessary to pretend they have no opinion and when first asked lie about the fact that they do have opinions? Who do they think they are deceiving any way? Don't they know that their opinions are implied in the selection of their questions?
TAMPA, April 7, 2012 – GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney continues to win primaries and Ron Paul still won’t go away.
Part of the reason is that the Paul campaign understands the primary process and knows a little history. Romney’s support is lukewarm, while Paul’s actual delegate total is dramatically understated.
As Robert Wenzel points out, Paul is a lot like Warren Harding. Harding went into the brokered 1920 convention with only 6% of the delegates, but emerged as the party’s nominee. Harding won the general election in a landslide and took a very non-interventionist approach to the Depression of 1921.
Free market economists cite Harding’s refusal to intervene in that crisis for the quick recovery that followed.
So, there is no reason not to take Ron Paul at his word when he says that he is still in the contest to win the nomination. Still, speculation persists that he has made a deal with Romney for an eventual endorsement.
In return, Paul would get a speaking slot at the convention, consideration for his son Rand, or concessions in the party platform.
Both Paul and Romney have repeatedly denied this. Paul acknowledges that he is open to talk to the other candidates and that Romney, a personal friend, is easier to talk to. However, anyone who believes Ron Paul will simply endorse the nominee in exchange for political favors doesn’t understand Ron Paul or his Revolution.
Recently President Obama made this remarkable statement, “Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” For someone reputed to be a former professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago this statement is hard to explain. Any high school student in a sophomore American History class knows there are many precedents for the Supreme Court making laws passed by Congress null and void. As a matter of fact, in the system of government tradition has delivered to us overturning laws as unconstitutional has been an important power of the Supreme Court for more than two hundred years.
And if the primary content of the President’s statement isn’t strange enough the supporting information is wrong. Obamacare wasn't passed by a strong majority in Congress. In reality the final vote in the House vote was 220 to 215. Every Republican and thirty four Democrats voted against the law. In the Senate the vote was sixty Democrats and Independents voting for and thirty nine Republicans voting against. The Democrats, even though they controlled both houses of Congress knew they would lose enough of their own members that it was going to be a close vote so they moved the bill outside the regular order of business and used a legislative maneuver known as reconciliation to avoid giving the Republicans the opportunity to filibuster the law.
What is the context of these current pressure tactics being used by the executive branch on the judicial branch?
The mainstream media is completely out of control and nothing more than a big government (big bank, big war, big pharma, big prison, big police state, big agribusiness and so on) propaganda machine. If Ron Paul loses his bid for the Presidency it will be because their lies and smear cost us the election, and that could ultimately cost us our country. Their lies have certainly placed our nation in the jeopardy it is in today.
We can do something about it and boycott the mainstream media's advertisers (their advertisers keep them in operation). Certainly if we do nothing, nothing will change.
US Rep. Steve King says all payments are redistribution of wealth. Why does he say this? First he says he is against governmental redistribution of wealth. When confronted with the fact that he is in favor of some farm subsidies and some foreign aid he argues that if these are examples of redistribution of wealth then everything is redistribution of wealth, implying that there isn't anything wrong with redistribution of wealth. To defend his point that everything is redistribution of wealth he says that, if he gave me a penny that would be redistribution of wealth.