The Washington Post is calling Ron Paul's gold investments a 'conflict of interest' but it won't let me post commentsSubmitted by sailingaway on Sun, 06/13/2010 - 23:28
I have a user account there, but when I try to click comments I get a 'no page here' notice.
"Rep. Ron Paul is captivated by gold. Over the past two decades, he has written books about the virtues of gold-backed currency. He has made uncounted speeches about the precious metal. He even took a leadership post on the House subcommittee that oversees the nation's monetary policy, mints and gold medals.
But his focus on gold goes beyond the theoretical.
In recent years, Paul (R-Tex.) has poured hundreds of thousands of his own dollars into stocks of some of the world's largest gold-mining operations, according to a review of his financial disclosure forms by The Washington Post. In 2008, while advocating for the United States to reinstate a gold standard, he reported owning up to $1.5 million in shares of at least nine gold-production companies. In addition, he disclosed up to $200,000 in silver stocks. In all, those holdings represented close to half of his assets.
Part 2 below:
A mother and professional nurse is visited at her front door by two FBI agents about her attending peaceful protests. Instead of letting them in, she grabs her video camera and films the interview at her front door with the door remaining open.
She interspersed the video with essential advise for any activist.
Two, not related, questions to you people:
1. Do you care about the wildlife being destroyed with this oil spill or do you only care about people and their property getting destroyed?
2. Do you eat meat? If not, why?
Please note that I understand personal freedom so I will not attack you if you answer in some way I don´t agree with (hope you know this ^_^), I am just interested what you think.
Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.
In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.
To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.
Russia Reverses on S-300 Missile Sale to Iran
Less than 24 hours after the Russian Foreign Ministry insisted that the long-delayed sale of the S-300 missile defense system to Iran was still on track and that the UN Security council sanctions did not apply to the defensive missiles.
Today, Russia has reversed that position entirely, and the Kremlin says that the sanctions actually do forbid the sale. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin insists that the sale has been frozen.
Daniel Ellsberg, the former US military analyst who released the pentagon papers in 1971, appeared on MSNBC today with Dylan Ratigan. He said he fears for the safety of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, who is reportedly on the verge of leaking secret State Department cables. The Daily Beast reports that Assange is currently being sought by the Pentagon, and Ellsberg advises him not to reveal his whereabouts.
“We have after all for the first time, that I ever perhaps in any democratic country, we have a president who has announced that he feels he has the right to use special operations operatives against anyone abroad, that he thinks is associated with terrorism,” says Ellsberg. “Now as I look at Assange’s case, they’re worried that he will reveal current threats. I would have to say puts his well-being, his physical life, in some danger now. And I say that with anguish. I think it’s astonishing that an American president should have put out that policy and he’s not getting these resistance from it, from Congress, the press, the courts or anything. It’s an amazing development that I think Assange would do well to keep his whereabouts unknown.”
The Atlantic | Conor Friedersdorf | June 11, 2010
Q. Glenn, you're a blogger at Salon.com, and author of three books: How Would A Patriot Act, A Tragic Legacy, and Great American Hypocrites. You're also one of the few writers who has levied harsh criticism against the War on Terrorism related policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
I've been surprised by how readily President Obama has embraced Bush-era legal arguments on detainee issues, and particularly troubled by his assertion that he possesses the unchecked power to assassinate, without due process, American citizens who he designates as "enemy combatants." Presuming that the Republican nominee in 2012 is also bad on civil liberties, what should a voter who cares deeply about these issues do?
A. That's hard to say, because ultimately, elections are about comparative choices, making it difficult to assess what one should do against an unnamed opponent. If the GOP opponent is substantially worse, that would be a different calculus than if s/he is merely marginally worse or roughly as bad.
But what is clear is that, for a variety of reasons, the two-party system does not work in terms of providing clear choices. No matter who wins, the same permanent factions that control Washington continue to reign. That's true no matter which issues one considers most important. At some point, it's going to be necessary to sacrifice some short-term political interests for longer-term considerations about how this suffocating, two-party monster can be subverted.
Q. You'd think that Tea Partiers, with their distrust of President Obama and their ostensibly libertarian ethos, would be allies in the fight to rein in executive power. On the other hand, these are people who look to War on Terrorism hawks like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Mark Levin for intellectual leadership. To complicate things even more, some of these people are huge Ron Paul fans. In your work, do you presume that you can win some of these people over to your civil libertarian position, or do you assume that an alliance of this kind is untenable?
A. It's absolutely tenable. Some of the earliest and most vocal opponents of the Bush/Cheney assault on the Constitution were found on the Right. Back when virtually all leading Democrats were petrified of opposing George Bush on anything having to do with Terrorism -- or, worse, were actively supporting what he was doing -- people like Bob Barr, Bruce Fein, the Cato Institute, even George Will were emphatically objecting. I devoted a chapter in my first book, about Bush's executive power abuses, to conservatives who consistently applied what they were saying about such things in the 1990s to oppose those abuses when perpetrated by a Republican administration.
As you suggest, when it comes to Terrorism issues, Ron Paul is as steadfast in defense of civil liberties as any major political figure in the country. A significant minority of my readership has always been libertarians and other non-progressives who viewed Bush radicalism with serious alarm. I've written about civil liberties in The American Conservative several times. When Jane Hamsher and I founded Accountability Now, to target incumbents who served corporate and Beltway interests rather than their constituents, we did so by forming a coalition with libertarians and others devoted to civil liberties protection. There is much greater agreement across the ideological spectrum than our conventional political punditry wants to recognize.
Saturday, June 12th at 2:30PM Eastern time, being broadcast on ABC will be a return to the battlefield for two old foes: USA and England. They're a good underdog team and seem to have gotten deeper and deeper into the tournament each and every time they make it in. It's been 60 years since USA was last victorious over England in the world up. This is going to be a huge game! Anyone else going to watch?
Fox News Channel 9 PM Eastern
Update: Early Tube for those without TV. Fox streaming link isn't working.
Thanks to LibertyPulse.com
The Drs. Paul, Ron and Rand will join Judge Napolitano this Saturday for the national TV debut of Freedom Watch. Also scheduled to appear: Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachman, Dick Armey, Governor Ed Rendell and a surprise mystery guest!
The topic of discussion will be libertarian and conservative coalition building.
- What will be the future of the Tea Party?
- Will the Tea Party and the GOP set aside their differences and unite before the fall elections?
- Will social conservatives put aside their differences with libertarians and unite under the Gadsden Flag of fiscal responsibility?
- Or are libertarians just more suited to work with liberals because of their passion for civil liberties and distaste for war?
Tune in this Saturday at 10am Eastern to Fox Business for the national TV debut. If you won’t be around to catch it, set your DVR or watch the rebroadcast Saturday night at 8PM, or Sunday at 8PM and 11PM EST.
Should be a great show.
There must be something significant in those documents.
Anxious that Wikileaks may be on the verge of publishing a batch of secret State Department cables, investigators are desperately searching for founder Julian Assange. Philip Shenon reports.
Pentagon investigators are trying to determine the whereabouts of the Australian-born founder of the secretive website Wikileaks for fear that he may be about to publish a huge cache of classified State Department cables that, if made public, could do serious damage to national security, government officials tell The Daily Beast.
The officials acknowledge that even if they found the website founder, Julian Assange, it is not clear what they could do to block publication of the cables on Wikileaks, which is nominally based on a server in Sweden and bills itself as a champion of whistleblowers.
Snip from the latest Public Policy Polling Data:
One thing that's very interesting about these numbers is that Ron Paul is the most popular out of the whole group with independents. They see him favorably by a 35/25 margin. The only other White House hopeful on positive ground with them is Romney at a +2 spread and they're very negative on the rest: -5 for Huckabee, -16 for Gingrich and Palin, and -17 for Obama. All five of the possible GOP contenders lead Obama with independents, but Paul does so by the widest margin at 46-28.
It has been easy in the past to write Paul off as irrelevant but this anti-politician climate is giving his movement some steam. Paul's going to have an interesting choice in the next year or so. If his goal is really to be President rather than to influence the national dialogue then he should probably keep on trying to win the GOP nomination, as improbable as that might be. But if he wants to guarantee himself a major role in the 2012 contest he should run as a third party candidate instead. Polling at 5-10% nationally in the general election would get his views a much wider airing than just trudging along through the Republican nomination process and hoping to get 10-15% in each primary.
Yes, You CAN BELIEVE, Ron Paul for Pres.2012!!!