Michele St. Pierre (c) 2011
Many Republicans find that they like Ron Paul’s fiscal ideas, but they think that they disagree with his foreign policy, calling it “weak”, “misguided”, “pro-Islam”, “anti-Israel” and then some.
FDA Wages War on Raw Milk Farmers Using KGB Style Spying And Infiltration Techniques
Confucius say, "Same boy in all fights might be one starting fights."
He really didn't say that I made that one up myself;)
Add your Confucius saying.
In a recent column, Jeffrey Lord warned that Ron Paul's presidential bid was secretly a "Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign." Writes Lord: "the Paul campaign is not just a campaign for president. This is a campaign -- a serious campaign -- to re-educate the American people…" For Lord, Paul's alleged reeducation mission means passing off liberal ideas as conservative. This is amusing -- because this is precisely what self-described conservatives of Lord's ilk have been doing for years.
Imagine that there never was a President George W. Bush, and when Bill Clinton left the White House he was immediately replaced with Barack Obama. Now imagine Obama carried out the exact same agenda as Bush -- Medicare Plan D, No Child Left Behind, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- the whole works. Would conservatives have generally supported Obama as they did Bush -- or would they have rightly criticized the most big government president in our history at that time?
Despite his glaringly statist record, did Lord ever consider Bush a "neo-liberal"?
Lord's response to Jack's response is revisionist garbage. Don't forget to leave your coments on their site folks!
American Conservative Mag weighs in on Lord's misrepresentations: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/08/24/no-ron-paul-is-no...
Thanks Brutus56 for making us aware!
To the Left, From a Leftist: Some Remarks on the 2012 Election
I'll get right to the point. I'm concerned about the 2012 presidential elections, mainly, for two reasons: 1) although Obama promised change, we have yet to witness it—rather in domestic or foreign affairs—and to believe that he can actually deliver on his word is a belief built on sentimental clichés and one void of any intellectual analysis; and 2) the thought of Perry or Bachmann entering the White House may actually induce many to hold the unsubstantiated, sentimentally-backed beliefs previously mentioned.
The fighting is not yet over in Tripoli, but the scramble to secure access to Libya’s oil wealth has already begun.
Before the rebellion broke out in February, Libya exported 1.3 million barrels of oil a day. While that is less than 2 percent of world supplies, only a few other countries can supply equivalent grades of the sweet crude oil that many refineries around the world depend on. The resumption of Libyan production would help drive down oil prices in Europe, and indirectly, gasoline prices on the East Coast of the United States.
Western nations — especially the NATO countries that provided crucial air support to the rebels — want to make sure their companies are in prime position to pump the Libyan crude.
I like to make this statement...
Imagine if NATO intervened in the civil war, and chose the side of the rebels...
You almost always get the response, "Isn't that the case?"
To which I reply, "Yes. Now let me add one word."
Imagine if NATO intervened in the American civil war, and chose the side of the rebels...
Just thought I'd share a simple, easy and effective way to make a great point. Have a great day all.
NATO Prepares "Humanitarian" Occupation Of Libya
Here's something to think about. When you consider that Iran's crude oil exports to China dramatically increased in the first two months of 2011(see http://www.payvand.com/news/11/apr/1057.html) and remember that the US dollar no longer plays a role in that trade, you see how important it is to understand Chinese-Iranian relations and how they pertain to the world's fiat currency system, the US elections, and the propaganda campaign about Iran's nukes (see http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9434).
Hey Ron Paul Fans: Hope You Know That If America Stopped Being The World's Policeman, America's Economy Would CollapseSubmitted by DeMolay on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 05:36
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry | Aug. 23, 2011, 4:32 AM |
Ron Paul doesn't just think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a mistake. He's an isolationist: he thinks America shouldn't be the world's policeman. He thinks America shouldn't have troops abroad and shouldn't use its military except in cases of self-defense.
Here's the problem: this would wreck the US economy, and the world economy.
And isolationists in general, and Ron Paul in particular, don't seem to grasp that.
From Russia Today, story suggesting NATO went into Libya to stop plans to trade oil for gold only. Is there truth to this?
The Income Tax...
flash: cnn "Don't mention Al-Qaeda" Journalist not "following order" are threatened from all countriesSubmitted by Ryan Schaefer on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 15:08
by Laurence M. Vance | Via LewRockwell.com
This talk was given on August 20 at the Florida Liberty Summit 2011 in Orlando, Florida.
Thank you Campaign for Liberty for the opportunity to speak about a subject I feel so passionate about. I would like to speak to you today about Christianity and War. Although I am a Bible-believing Christian and a theological and cultural conservative, I write extensively about the biblical, economic, and political fallacies of religious people, and especially on the topic of Christianity and war. This is a subject where ignorance abounds in both pulpit and pew, and most of it willful ignorance. This is a subject that exposes Bible scholars as Bible illiterates. This is a subject that turns Christians into disgraceful apologists of the state, its leaders, its military, and its wars. This is a subject that reveals pro-life Christians to be two-faced supporters of wholesale murder.
If there is any group of people that should be opposed to war, torture, militarism, the warfare state, state worship, suppression of civil liberties, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians, and especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace. It is indeed strange that Christian people should be so accepting of war. War is the greatest suppressor of civil liberties. War is the greatest destroyer of religion, morality, and decency. War is the greatest creator of fertile ground for genocides and atrocities. War is the greatest destroyer of families and young lives. War is the greatest creator of famine, disease, and homelessness. War is the health of the state.
But modern-day Christianity is in a sad state. There is an unholy desire on the part of a great many Christians to legitimize killing in war. There persists the idea among too many Christians that mass killing in war is acceptable, but the killing of one’s neighbor violates the sixth commandment’s prohibition against killing. Christians who wouldn’t think of using the Lord’s name in vain blaspheme God when they make ridiculous statements like "God is pro-war." Christians who try never to lie do so with boldness when they claim they are pro-life, but refuse to extend their pro-life sentiments to foreigners already out of the womb. Christians who abhor idols are guilty of idolatry when they say that we should follow the latest dictates of the state because we should always "obey the powers that be." Christians who venerate the Bible handle the word of God deceitfully when they quote Scripture to defend the latest U.S. military action. Christians who claim to be dispensationalists wrongly divide the word of truth when they appeal to the Old Testament to justify U.S. government wars. Christians who claim to have the mind of Christ show that they have lost their mind when they want the full force of government to protect a stem cell, but have no conscience about U.S. soldiers killing for the government.