Ambassador John Bolton first claims to have a principle to determine when we should go to war. He says that the Iraqi war was justified because they had attacked another country, had weapons of mass destruction and had attacked their own people. On further questioning, it turns out that if another country like North Korea is in the same situation, we should not attack them, thus that is not his principle. The same thing happened when he justified the war in Afghanistan based on them harboring terrorists that have attacked us.
Four years ago, Nevada State GOP insiders so disliked Ron Paul supporters that they actually walked out of the state convention and turned off the lights behind them. In a windowless assembly room with some 2,000 people in it, one might imagine the terror this might cause. In what had been an otherwise orderly meeting, this move took place when it became clear that Ron Paul would sweep the Nevada delegation to the Republican National Convention. A bunch of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington types, inspired by Ron Paul, got involved in their party to effect change, and the party insiders didn’t like having these idealists around.
This year looks a little different. Ron Paul’s supporters have assumed a significant portion of the Republican Party leadership and Ron Paul’s supporters seem like they will show up in droves as delegates to assure their candidate is the best represented in Nevada. At the Nevada Republican Convention this year, 25 of the 28 Nevada delegates will be decided.
May 1, 2012 | The Corbett Report
The ease with which political and governmental bodies have been able to block the publication of books that are uncomfortable to the Washington elite, and even to destroy entire print runs of tell-all whistleblower stories, has greatly increased. Simultaneously, books that fulfill a social function of rallying the populace around the flag and supporting the dominant narratives of our time, from the war on terror to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, are given copious attention by a fawning lapdog press.
To those who care about such things, the silence of the media about the extraordinary events around Ron Paul's campaign is deafening.
Some see conspiracy. I don't. I see the expected reaction to a paradigm shift -- a complete change in the concepts we use to make sense of our politics and culture.
An excellent illustration of the power of a "paradigm" is the Perceptions of Incongruity experiment that was conducted at Harvard in 1949.
In this experiment, subjects were shown playing cards and asked to call out what they saw. They would consistently identify the cards correctly. After a while, however, the experimenters would slip in "incongruous cards" in which the colors red and black were switched, such as black hearts or diamonds and red clubs or spades.
Now that the GOP primary battle is down to the two-man race Ron Paul initially predicted, it is time to get to know our opponent. Who is Mitt Romney? The answers cannot be found in what he says, for his words change with the wind and his promises are never set in stone. His record and statements flip and flop around more than the large-mouthed bass I accidentally caught while practicing casting techniques. Who is Mitt Romney deep down inside? A simple peek at his face hints at the answers.
Ron Paul’s campaign succesfully navigated a confusing ballot process in Louisiana to secure delegates at the state's Republican convention.
Early reports indicate that Paul’s campaign won 5 of the 6 Congressional Districts in the Saturday, April 28 statewide vote, with a sixth district still up in the air. Analysis of the results estimates that upwards of 70% of the delegates to the Louisiana Republican Convention held in Shreveport, LA on June 2 will be composed entirely Ron Paul supporters. The delegates at the state convention then choose the majority of the delefates that get sent to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida later this summer.
David Gergen CNN TV commentator cannot answer simple questions. He does not know if the government should protect peaceful citizens against people that want to use force to take their money. He does not know if there are people in our society that want to use force to take other people's money. Apparently, he can't even understand the questions much less answer them. He is clear about one thing, he doesn't like the questions and he wants to leave.
As I type this, the Supreme Court has just wrapped a day of hearing arguments the case of Arizona vs. United States, concerning Arizona's immigration-related bill, SB 1070.
When it was originally passed, I was an immigrant resident of that state.
I received my greencard two years ago and received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security -- the same letter that is sent to thousands of new immigrants every week -- from which I quote:
How Good It Feels – The Last Five Days Have Been Amazing for Ron Paul’s Campaign
I must offer my congratulations to the activists in the liberty movement and in Ron Paul’s campaign, because many months, and arguably years of work are starting to bear fruit in the presidential selection process. These last five days have been outstanding.
Dana Loesch, CNN TV commentator is required to admit that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will reduce spending in absolute terms. At first she did not want to accept it, but later had to admit that the other candidates are only proposing to reduce the rate of increase in spending and not spending in absolute terms. Ms. Loesch, who is upfront about the fact that she is not a Ron Pauler, also says that Ron Paul shines on spending and other domestic issues. Sometimes all you need is a little coaxing to get to the truth.
What the Laws of War Allow
Do the WikiLeaks War Logs Reveal War Crimes -- Or the Poverty of International Law?
Anyone who would like to witness a vivid example of modern warfare that adheres to the laws of war -- that corpus of regulations developed painstakingly over centuries by jurists, humanitarians, and soldiers, a body of rules that is now an essential, institutionalized part of the U.S. armed forces and indeed all modern militaries -- should simply click here and watch the video.
Wait a minute: that’s the WikiLeaks “Collateral Murder” video! The gunsight view of an Apache helicopter opening fire from half a mile high on a crowd of Iraqis -- a few armed men, but mostly unarmed civilians, including a couple of Reuters employees -- as they unsuspectingly walked the streets of a Baghdad suburb one July day in 2007.
Watch, if you can bear it, as the helicopter crew blows people away, killing at least a dozen of them, and taking good care to wipe out the wounded as they try to crawl to safety. (You can also hear the helicopter crew making wisecracks throughout.) When a van comes on the scene to tend to the survivors, the Apache gunship opens fire on it too, killing a few more and wounding two small children.
Charles Goyette has more in common with Ron Paul than merely similar views. Like Paul, Goyette has paid a price for standing by his principles. He walked away from a promising career in conservative talk radio because he refused to support the Iraq war. In 2004, he endorsed Libertarian Party nominee Michael Badnarik for president.
If you like what Ron Paul has to say about freedom, the economy and U.S. foreign policy, you’re going to love Goyette’s new book, Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America’s Free Economy.
Goyette blames Republicans and Democrats equally for the mess we’re in, just as Paul does. However, what makes this book so valuable is Goyette’s ability to express timeless philosophical ideas in simple, everyday terms and then demonstrate how those ideas apply to today’s problems here in the real world.
The book is divided into three sections, entitled “Liberty,” “The State” and “Dead Ahead,” respectively. Goyette lays the philosophical foundation by explaining the inextricable link between liberty and non-aggression, recognized by modern libertarians and the founding fathers. He quotes Murray Rothbard who said that liberty is “the absence of molestation by other people,” and Friedrich Hayek who maintained that it is “the condition in which man is not subject to coercion by another or others.”
Radio Host Lars Larson is in favor of some redistribution of wealth. He is in favor of foreign aid; for instance, giving money to Egypt. He thinks that if we don't give money to Egypt the security of the United States will be at risk. I asked, who will attack us if we don't give money to Egypt? He had no answer, and made a very quick exit.
We have heard this argument before, and it makes absolutely no sense. I started to explain to Mr. Larson that we have 8000 nuclear deliverable warheads and thus, the no country is going to attack us. It would be complete suicide for the leaders, as well as the rest of the people in the country. The decision-makers of the country, the leaders, do not want to commit suicide. We know this to be fact, including the leaders of Iran. Not a single one has committed a suicide bombing .
The idea that Egypt or any other country would attack the United States because we don't send money to Egypt is ludicrous. There is absolutely no connection between our sending money to Egypt and increasing the probability of the United States being attacked by another country. There are no facts or reasoning that support this conclusion . Egypt will not and cannot attack us, nor will any other country attack us for not giving foreign aid to Egypt, or for that matter, any other country. Obviously, whatever the reasons are for sending money to Egypt, it is not to protect ourselves.
I Hate To See You Go
Go. Build the third party route. Do it without Ron Paul’s blessing.
I will continue to follow the GOP route the way I think it can be best done, and I too will do it without Ron Paul’s blessing.
Ron Paul doesn’t give us much direction; it’s simply not his style. And nothing said by Ron Paul will make it matter one way or the other anyway. Leading our group is like herding cats and no one, not even the Honorable Ron Paul, would succeed in rounding us all up and organizing us systematically. Accordingly, with the exception of some paid campaign staff, Ron Paul doesn’t endorse the behavior of any of us on behalf of liberty. We are a decentralized movement.
Ultimately no amount of conversation on the Daily Paul will mean a thing on this topic. It will be our actions that matter.
I know in reality that a lot of the folks who comment on Daily Paul are cyber loudmouths who don’t contribute much to the political process. Some are great folks who talk boldly and act boldly, but my guess is that,