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.
Radio Host Michael Medved cannot explain why other countries like China can be perfectly safe without bases around the world but the United States must have them in order to be safe. He cannot defend the militaristic- interventionist policy and instead tries to sidetrack the discussion by making slanderous attacks on Ron Paul. Part 3
The title is a quote from Winston Churchill.
In what may have been my most widely-read article, I compared Paul to Churchill in an attempt to put the good doctor, and the efforts of those who support him, into historical context. Doug Wead, one of Paul’s senior campaign advisers went even further in an interview with Cavuto, saying simply “Paul is Churchill”. (*)
As we Paul supporters have failed so far to rack-up a victory in the primary or caucus beauty contests, I have started noticing that some are considering giving in to defeatism.
That is not worthy of Dr. Paul or our cause – and Winston Churchill will show you why.
In 1940, during the Second World War, Hitler’s tyranny had already swept across all of Europe. The score was liberty - zero; tyranny – too many to count.
Only Britain was left standing. And Hitler came for us.
In the Battle of Britain, the British stood alone in the world against a tyranny that had built an empire more efficiently than any had been built in history. This was when Churchill rallied the nation with what many regard as his greatest speech.
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”, he said.
At the risk of stating the obvious, it is common knowledge that few people are in politics for something other than just gaining the weight of power. Let’s be honest. Wait. Nevermind. This is politics.
In the embarrassingly obese city we call our capital, both Republicans and Democrats spend their every effort to gain power. And cake. There is no measurable difference in their foreign policy. We are just as despised as the world’s policemen with Obama as we were under Bush. Nothing changes regarding the political machine’s overseas “adventurism”—otherwise known as meddling.
Information is in the eye of the beholder. There are many interpretations of where the delegate battle stands, and certain people spin things one way or the other. Many will not agree with this assessment of the race for GOP delegates, but it is as close as I can get by reading both party rules (for each state) and election returns (or the lack of them). I will not make projections or guesses.
Radio Host Michael Medved thinks that our national security would be in peril if we didn't have bases around the world. However, he cannot explain why other countries national security is not in peril, even though they do not have bases around the world. In order to defend this position he says Russia does not have international interests... to the level of United States. I think the Russians would beg to differ. Obviously, all countries have international interests. It is arrogant and slanderous to claim that other countries don't have international interests. It is a huge double standard that irks the rest of the world.
Furthermore, Medved's propensity to insult people that disagree with him is one of the principal problems with political debate today. He says Ron Paul is off his rocker and then when you investigate his reasoning to support this absurd claim it turns out it is simply a disagreement on defense policy; a disagreement which he can't even support.
Jack Hunter the official blogger for Ron Paul 2012 campaign and commentator at Daily Caller joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Exclusive Post Super Tuesday Ron Paul Campaign Update with Jack Hunter’ to discuss the results and reactions from Super Tuesday results as well as the fight for liberty and the establishment efforts to stop the message in the Republican party and the mainstream media.
In an effort to legalize treasonous actions against U.S. citizens, our Congress and the Barack Obama Administration has acted on multiple anti-American bills to nullify the Constitution. So far, the government is winning the war to destroy our civil liberties.
In roll call fashion, after September, 11, 2001, the government has effectively repealed the Fourth Amendment (protection against illegal search and seizures), the Fifth Amendment (the right to due process of the law), and the Sixth Amendment (the right to a speedy public trial), under the guise of increased security for all American citizens.
Last week, a bill quickly worked its way through the House and Senate, repealing the First Amendment (freedom of speech and right to peacefully assemble), under the guise of increased security for the government.
Finally, Congress is working on a bill that will revoke your citizenship if your actions are deemed hostile against the U.S. or in support of hostilities against the country. This is an effort to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment (right to citizenship and the regulation of Congress to make no laws deemed unconstitutional) for the protection of the government.
There’s been lots of hemming and hawing in the media about the caucuses. I suspect a lot of that comes from people who have not taken the time to learn the process. After campaigning in a dozen or so states over the last two election cycles and seeing the different ways caucuses are run, I’ve concluded that concerned voters should want a caucus. Here’s why:
1. Caucuses are Fun
Seriously – Roberts Rules of order. Tricks. Intrigue. What could be more fun than that? For two hours every four years, we, the average voters have a really meaningful excuse to behave like someone out of West Wing.
2. Caucuses are Transparent
In Chicago, you vote in the primaries and there’s no guarantee that anyone will ever count your ballot. It will be machine counted. A machine miscount, therefore, will not be caught. In contrast, in a caucus state...
I had a great time at the GOP caucus on Saturday in Seattle's Belltown district. Being a Brit, I could not participate, but I enjoyed watching this brand of direct and participatory democracy that differs profoundly from anything that goes on in the country of my birth.