About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

73 Responses

  1. Bumblebye
    August 16, 2011, 10:14 am

    We’re blacked out here across the pond in the UK. Can’t watch the clip. ;-(

  2. Dan Crowther
    August 16, 2011, 11:38 am

    Paul supporters always kill it at these types of events – I mean, he won the CPAC straw poll a few years ago. They are the most ardent supporters out there, but then he gets crushed in primary elections…

    Steve Kornacki does a good job explaining:

    link to salon.com

    Apologies to Citizen and Shingo!! :)

    • Justice Please
      August 16, 2011, 1:39 pm

      Yeah, when the Diebold voting machines come in, Paul gets less votes.

      Your electronic voting system is fucked up, no need to diss one of the only honest Congressmen.

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 2:05 pm

        Im not “dissing him” at all.

        Man, when you say anything other than “RON PAUL IS THE SHT” Ron Ron’s Acolytes come right after you……You guys gotta take it easy, not everyone is out to get Ron Ron

      • annie
        August 16, 2011, 2:42 pm

        well don, your framing is a little weird. let’s take a look at these numbers.

        Michele Bachmann has been named the winner of the Iowa straw poll, taking 4,823 votes out of nearly 17,000 cast. Ron Paul was a close runner-up, taking 4,671 votes and trailing Bachmann by less than 200 ballots. In a distant third place was former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who took 2,293 votes after investing heavily in the event.

        what i see is practically a tie at the top and the next candidate w/less than 1/2 of either of them, so that is a huge gap. here’s your framing which matches cbs framing (and frankly it is getting old)

        but then he gets crushed in primary elections

        and why does he get crushed? because nobody thinks he has a chance of winning because they never hear about him in the media. it’s like a throwaway vote, like a nader vote the only difference being nader never had the kind of support or supporters paul does. the ptb don’t like him so they black him out and that is why he gets crushed not because his support is topped at 27%. if the choice for the gop was between bachman and paul who do you think the romney supporters would vote for? but a better question for the gop might be ‘if the general election was between backman and obama vs paul and obama which gop candidate has a better chance of capturing the presidency?’ i think it would be paul hands down although i think obama would probably win. backman? sorry, i just do not see her picking up independents and people outside the fundie pocket. she’s getting the hucklebee voters and christian zionists but not fiscal conservatives imho. maybe i’m wrong. but i think paul is getting crushed at the polls because the msm blacks him out and i agree wrt the diebold assessment. they just don’t like him cuz he’s not a corporation man.

      • Justice Please
        August 16, 2011, 2:50 pm

        Thanks Annie for being much more patient with Dan/the topic than me.

        Dan, I would like to hear an answer to Annie’s points.

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 3:08 pm

        I AGREE. I AGREE.

        I thought part of this site was bringing in differing views – Kornacki wrote an article that was relevant to this thread, so I linked to it. And in fairness, all I did was summarize the article in my “run up” to the link.

        - Don, but you can call me Dan….. :)

        And here is another link, to my man Glenn Greenwald discussing the “black out” of Ron Paul. No summaries, just Glenn:

        link to salon.com

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 3:27 pm

        And just so we’re clear, this is the guy who Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006,
        believes that mandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens,
        Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship.[59] He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and “end automatic birthright citizenship,”[60] and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem,

        Paul was the lone member out of 415[78] voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, seeing this as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

        He would eliminate many federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education,[80] the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce,[81] the US Department of Health and Human Services,[81] the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service,[82] calling them “unnecessary bureaucracies.”

        However, there are criticisms[89][90] which contend that Paul’s position is disingenuous because he often requests earmarks for bills that he supposedly knows will pass no matter which way he votes. For example, in 2007, he requested nearly $400 million dollars in earmarks in bills he voted against………
        (ALL FROM WIKI)

        And of course, his stance on abortion is complete nonsense. He wants a “limited government” but one that is big enough to monitor every pregnancy in the country.

      • lysias
        August 16, 2011, 5:13 pm

        To do a lot of that domestic stuff, Paul would need the approval of Congress and/or the courts.

        As President, Paul would himself have the authority to end the wars, stop law enforcement practices that violate the 4th Amendment and other Constitutional guarantees, and stop enforcement of federal drug laws in states that legalize or decriminalize drugs or have medical marijuana statutes.

      • Keith
        August 16, 2011, 5:16 pm

        DANCROWTHER- Thanks for the post! Although I appreciate the way Ron Paul calls attention to the substantive issue of the US war machine, there is a lot about this Libertarian ideologue which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Regrettably, people tend to see what they want to see and to ignore that which they don’t want to know. While Paul seems to have some sense of the travesty of the PRIVATELY controlled Federal Reserve, his mindless opposition to taxes and government involvement in the political economy indicates that he hasn’t a clue of how our modern political economy actually functions, nor how it needs to be modified to function properly.

        Having said all of that, I would welcome his inclusion into the political discussion, but doubt that this will occur. The viable candidates avoid meaningful discussion of real issues in favor of cultural issues and the creation of a ‘winning’ image. Any candidate that deviates from this tried and true formula tends to throw a monkey wrench into the whole process, one reason that Nader was persona non grata in the media when he ran. Should Paul actually run and win, I’m not sure how much would actually change in any event. If he isn’t quickly brought to heel, he would be dealt with one way or another. Wall Street will continue to run the show until things get real, real bad and the military rises up and stages a silent coup. Most will be grateful.

      • Shingo
        August 16, 2011, 5:23 pm

        And of course, his stance on abortion is complete nonsense. He wants a “limited government” but one that is big enough to monitor every pregnancy in the country.

        Please link to any policy statement he has made to that effect.

        I think you’ll find that he is personally opposed to abortion, but never suggested banning it (he believes that is up to the states to decide) let alone proposing that the government police it.

        Who else but neocon lunatics would lament the closing of the DOHS?

        I don’t have the time to debate the policies of the other government agencies, but no president has unilateral powers to pull off those radical changes without a pliant congress.

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 6:56 pm

        Justice Please,

        My response to Annie: I do think that Ron Paul gets treated like a cook by many folks in the MSM. And I do think that he doesnt fit the “mold” of contemporary Republican candidates, which makes him persona non grata to the big donors of the Republican Party.
        Again, all I did was link to another article. Personally, I am not a Ron Paul guy. I have a hard time believing 70 yr old “conservatives” when they say that their belief in small government isnt based in racism, classism, sexism and xenophobia and here is why:

        Quote from Lee Atwater ( Father of the Southern Strategy)

        You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

        I know Ive pissed some people off with this, I apologize. I want to make clear, I think this guy has some views I agree with, and I absolutely think he should be covered and taken seriously, but at the end of the day, I think the above qoute is where he is coming from…….

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 7:02 pm

        link to sba-list.org

        When you sign pledges like this, I have a hard time believing your going to just “leave it up to the states”

      • Keith
        August 16, 2011, 7:04 pm

        SHINGO- “Who else but neocon lunatics would lament the closing of the DOHS?”

        I agree completely on this one! Additionally, it is only fair to mention that (I think) he voted against the extension of the US Patriot Act. My problem with him is that in eliminating most things, he is throwing out the good with the bad. We should, however, acknowledge the bad which he opposes. While I can’t in good conscience support him, at this stage of the game better him than Obama or any of the leading Republicans.

      • Shingo
        August 16, 2011, 7:24 pm

        While Paul seems to have some sense of the travesty of the PRIVATELY controlled Federal Reserve, his mindless opposition to taxes and government involvement in the political economy indicates that he hasn’t a clue of how our modern political economy actually functions, nor how it needs to be modified to function properly.

        With all due respects Keith, you’re the one who sounds mindless.

        Paul is the only one who does have a clue. He’sm the only law maker with any grip on how the modern political economy actually functions that he can make Bernanke (who all the other law makers cow tow to) look like a blubbering idiot.

        For example, he challenged Bernanke as to whether gold was currency. Benranke said no. When asked why banks keep gold reserves, Bernanke said it was because it was a valuable commodity like diamonds. Ron Paul asked him, why then did banks not keep diamond reserves. Bernanke had no answer.

        Bernanke could not even come up with a definitino of money for Paul.

        Paul’s opposition to taxes is anythign but mindless. If you took off your Beltway ear muffs for long enogh to hear his justification, you’d know it’s anything but mindless.

        With all due respects, you and Dan are exhibiting the same blind spot that Fox news are exhibiting. They shut their brains off to any sugegstion of ending war. You and Dan shut off your minds to anything other than the staus quo with respects to domestic policy.

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 7:24 pm

        Shingo -

        I totally agree about DOH.

      • annie
        August 16, 2011, 7:30 pm

        dan, very sorry i called you don!

        not that you called me one but i’m not a ‘Ron’s Acolytes ‘ i’m just saying it the way i see it. the meme the msm doesn’t cover him because he has no chance is BS because it isn’t the media’s job to make the news, it is the media’s job to report the news. and then when the media gives us a lame ass excuse it’s disheartening to hear others repeat it as if it was true. he’s a threat and that’s why they don’t include him in their overage. it’s no accident. it reminds me of something i heard about democracy. it’s all fine and dandy unless people democratically elect socialism. democracy and neoliberalism are wedded together. same difference. we’re all about the primaries and picking the most popular candidate unless that candidate is not accepted by the party ptb. iow it isn’t really a democracy because our choices are limited to who they choose for us.

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 7:43 pm

        Annie,

        as usual i agree! the only reason i linked to kornacki at salon was (and dont tell anyone else i said this) because I am not at all interested in Ron Paul getting more press. I realize that “blacking him out” does a disservice to us all, and I STRONGLY believe that everyones voice is heard. But from where I sit, I already know WAAAAAY too much about this right wing congressman from Texas – I want to know more about some real deal left winger from, say, ANYWHERE!!!

        I do find it funny that someone’s “not being talked about” can be the topic of a discussion about that person.

        Why does nobdy talk about Ron Paul? Gee, I dont know, thats really weird, your right nobody talks about Ron Paul. Somebody needs to start talking about Ron Paul. I like Ron Paul. So do I. Can someone please start talking about Ron Paul?!?!?! haha.

      • Shingo
        August 16, 2011, 7:44 pm

        My problem with him is that in eliminating most things, he is throwing out the good with the bad.

        Sure, but even then, I thik one hs to question their won reflexive reposnse to what they automatically assume to be bad.

        I too used to have these same authomatic, and dare I say, mindless responses. How could opposition to government run education be a good thing? The thing is, how do we know? The government sucks at running pretty much any service. Paul’s oppoition to government education is not that he doesn’t want education made available to poor people, it’s that he believes it can be better run on a community level as opposed to a federal program.

        Personally, I am not sold on the idea, but that doesn’t make him a kook. Let him make the case and convince the public.

        Look at how much resistance the Republican (who are determined to dstroy Obamacare) are having even from Tea Partiers with regard to ending Medicare?

        His liberla critics argue that his oposition to social security means he wants to hang out old people to die in the streets, but he has said repeatedly that this coud never happen until is it demonstrated that an alternative policy works better.

      • Shingo
        August 16, 2011, 7:51 pm
        When you sign pledges like this, I have a hard time believing your going to just “leave it up to the states”

        There is no contradiction there.

        He wants to end Federal financing of abortions, not deny the states the right to do so.

        The guy is a baby doctor and this matter is personal to him. On that count, I believe he is allowing his emotions to cloud his jugement. Then again, I was very liberal about abortion until son was born – and while I would never deny a woman’s right to chose, the idea of abortion sickens me.

      • Shingo
        August 16, 2011, 7:56 pm

        Gee, I dont know, thats really weird, your right nobody talks about Ron Paul.

        Who are you trying to fool? The guy is being deliberately omiited from polls that he wins or nearly wins. As Stewart pointed out, the media is even talking up Santorum.

      • Shingo
        August 16, 2011, 8:02 pm

        But from where I sit, I already know WAAAAAY too much about this right wing congressman from Texas – I want to know more about some real deal left winger from, say, ANYWHERE!!!

        So your problem with Ron Paul is that he’s not a left winger is that right? Let’s be real here. Any left wing equavalent of Ron Paul is going to be ebven more maligned than Paul is. Dennis Kucinich is probably the closest you’ll ever get and look at how he’s treated.

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 8:15 pm

        Shingo,

        I dont feel like I have a blind spot – I’m just not buying what the guy is selling. And as far as the status qou goes, Im definitely not for that.
        What I dont understand is the argument that even though we have been through probably the most right wing tilt in our political history, we have to go even further, back to where the country was before the Civil War.

        “You dont have libertarianism without the Confederacy.”
        - Ron Paul

        This is what this guy’s politics are all about. A southern white aristocracy. Sweet tea on the sun porch of the mansion your great grandaddy’s slaves built. Now it’s called “Property Rights.” Ha. That might be the most racist phrase ever uttered in this country. It’s all code man.

      • Shingo
        August 16, 2011, 8:51 pm

        Dan,

        Right wing and conservatism are not the same thing. Libertarians were known as liberals before the name was highjacked and now the right wing wants to highjack that the libertarian name.

        “You dont have libertarianism without the Confederacy.”

        I Googled that quote and found no links. Would you care to provide a source?

        Ron Paul is anything but an aristocrat. While I share your revulsion over any hint of white supremacy, I see no evidence to suggest this is what Paul stands for.

        I know he’s been maligned by dubious associations, but then again, one could turn the argument around and suggest your liking for main stream candidates is evidence that you want to bomb Iran and oppose the rights of Palestinians.

      • annie
        August 16, 2011, 9:00 pm

        I do find it funny that someone’s “not being talked about” can be the topic of a discussion about that person.

        come on dan, obviously there’s a difference between comment sections, blogs and the main stream media. you know what we’re saying right? the media is ‘choosing’ the candidates by selectively choosing what ti report.

        this reminds me of pam olsen’s book fast times in palestine, the recounting of the election while she was working for Mustafa Barghouthi .

      • Keith
        August 16, 2011, 9:50 pm

        SHINGO- “Paul’s opposition to taxes is anythign but mindless. If you took off your Beltway ear muffs for long enogh to hear his justification, you’d know it’s anything but mindless.”

        Beltway ear muffs? Don’t need any in sunny Seattle. Are you incapable of articulating any of his words of wisdom so that I might be informed? A lot of invective here but no specifics.

        “Paul is the only one who does have a clue.”

        The people’s prophet? Or the second coming, perhaps? Suggest you get a second opinion before you so fully commit.

        “Bernanke could not even come up with a definitino of money for Paul.”

        Forget Bernanke, here’s mine: Money is power. Economic power in fluid form, the primary means of social control. Money is created by the banking system. At one time it was associated with precious commodities such as gold. This was prior to the development of modern economies which create economic interdependencies which, in turn, make money integral to complex social organization, hence, inherently valuable insofar as it is essential for economic interaction. While gold may still perform a stabilizing function in international currency transactions, it functions as a speculative commodity, nothing more. This is as it should be. Any attempt to base modern money on a commodity is counterproductive. Money is, and should be, simply a legally established means of exchange, a small piece of economic power easily transferable, designed to facilitate exchanges, thereby directing the flow of economic and other activity. The amount of money in circulation is a political determination regarding the desired level of economic exchanges in relation to the size of the economy and economic policy. The store of value which supports the value of money is the real economy.

        “You and Dan shut off your minds to anything other than the staus quo with respects to domestic policy.”

        No, I am a radical dissident who advocates sweeping social changes leading to local autonomy, environmental protection, long term sustainability with a high quality of life for all, and progress toward true economic and political democracy. You, on the other hand, are a highly emotional follower of Ron Paul who blindly attacks those who are not enamored of him.

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 10:08 pm

        Shingo,

        He said that at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Im looking for the interview…..

        Ron in ’95
        link to youtube.com

        I dont support “mainstream” candidates. I didnt like war, so I dont support candidates that do. Ron Paul and his supporters do not have a monopoly on morality, I understand you like the guy, and some of the things he has SAID I like. But I cant ignore all his “dubious associations” and the reality of what he proposes. The country would be guarded compounds and ghettos

      • Dan Crowther
        August 16, 2011, 10:49 pm

        I do know what you are saying – and keeping him off the ballot is ridiculous. Im not advocating for the current system or the media.

      • Shingo
        August 16, 2011, 11:31 pm

        Are you incapable of articulating any of his words of wisdom so that I might be informed?

        To begin with, Paul is not opposed to taxes per se, he is opposed to income tax. There is an open debate as to whether any law was ever passed requiring employees to pay an income tax.

        Some tax protesters like Paul argue that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (removing any apportionment requirement for income taxes) was never “properly ratified” or that it was properly ratified but does not permit the taxation of individual income, or particular forms of individual income.

        This may or may not be true, but it is hardly a mindless position to take.

        The people’s prophet? Or the second coming, perhaps?

        No, those are the assessments of those who predicted the fiancial and economic chrisis on 2007 (Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff).

        Forget Bernanke, here’s mine: Money is power.

        What you are referring to is fiat money, and all fiat currencies are unsutainable.

        Money can be used to wield power, just like weapons, but in it’s most basic form, money is simply a form of exchange that has to fulfill certain critria – it must be a store or promise of value.

        Banks do not/should not create money, governments should. When Mayer Amschel Rothschild said in 1790 “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”, he was essentially boasting about his ability to steal the right to create money from governments. That’s what money has become, it is not what money should be.

        The US dollar was pegged to the gold standard until the 1960′s, so it was still in use in the modern economy. Being pegged to the gold or silver standard does not prevent money from remaining integral to economic interaction. The dollar was performaing this task succesfully for the geater part of the 20th century while bneing based on gold.

        The reason Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold was to facilitate his ability to “finance” the Vietnam war.

        At the end of the day, all you are exchanging are promisory notes that should allow you to redeem them for something of value.

        While gold may still perform a stabilizing function in international currency transactions, it functions as a speculative commodity, nothing more.

        Sure there are those who speculate and seek to manipulate it’s price, but then again, so are most currencies. If gold was nothing more than a speculative commodity, then banks would hold all kinds of commodities as reserves, not just gold.

        Any attempt to base modern money on a commodity is counterproductive. Money is, and should be, simply a legally established means of exchange, a small piece of economic power easily transferable, designed to facilitate exchanges, thereby directing the flow of economic and other activity.

        There is no evidence of why base modern money on a gold should be counterproductive. What it does do is prevent inflation.

        Money is meaningless without an established value and the trouble with fiat currencies is that it’s value is whatever people decide it is worth. You can print all the money you want, you cannot print gold.

        The fact that the amount of money in circulation is determined by politics only serves to underline the inhenerent flaws in fiat currencies.

        The store of value which supports the value of money is the real economy.

        Wrong. The store of value of fiat currency is what speculators and governments say it is.

        No, I am a radical dissident who advocates sweeping social changes leading to local autonomy, environmental protection, long term sustainability with a high quality of life for all, and progress toward true economic and political democracy.

        I’m sure you believe that Keith, but anyone who advocates fiat currency has no idea about long term sustainability.

        You claim to advocate sweeping social changes, but only those you agree with. That is your perogative of course.

        I have no problem with you attacking Paul all you like, but I do take exception to attacks made on him based on poorly informed assumptions.

      • Shingo
        August 16, 2011, 11:51 pm

        He said that at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Im looking for the interview…..

        I will take your word for it that he made such a comment, though I cannot comment about it myself without undertanding the context.

        Paul does not have a monopoly on morality by any means, and certainly not his supporters, but if we are going to dismiss all candidates on the grounds that they are not 100% compatible with our own views, then where does that leave you?

        The country would be guarded compounds and ghettos

        Yeah, it’s not like any of those exist and are growing as we speak now is it?

        link to youtube.com
        link to ghettoamerica.blogspot.com
        link to youtube.com

        Are they Paul’s doing?

      • Charon
        August 17, 2011, 12:03 am

        Those federal government agencies are most definitely unnecessary bureaucracies. If you disagree it is because you drank the kool-aid.

        The abortion argument is a straw, it has nothing to do with running a country. Partisan issues are intended to give the illusion that one paid-for shill candidate is different than another so the sheeple can argue about nonsense things like abortion. It’s not nonsense since people are divided on it, but again nothing to do with running a nation.

        I’ve never understood why people embrace the whole illegal alien thing without realizing that is is a threat to sovereignty and it’s not racist or bigoted to say this. Same with using taxpayer money on things like a slavery exhibit. Nothing to do with running a government. That stuff should be paid for by donations.

        The reason people get angry at those who dismiss Paul is because the only reason they see people dismissing him is because the media does. For a middle class person who isn’t a banker, doesn’t work on wall-street, isn’t extremely wealthy, and has a conscious, there is no alternative candidate unless you want to write in somebody obscure. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Otherwise, the other candidates including Obummer are not on our side.

        Of course, this can be dismissed as a strong opinion but it really isn’t. All remaining candidates are war-mongering (even if they say they aren’t) Israel lovers. Want the constitution and the nation to commit suicide? Vote for one of them.

        Some idiot tried to justify the Patriot Act the other day. I called him an idiot and he tried to attack me, squeezing my arm. These extremists have too much control of our country and all belong in a prison.

        That’s why people get mad when people diss Paul. They see all other candidates as a threat to our society. In the end, the president is one person and they probably can’t do everything they want. Obummer has found himself quite powerless recently.

      • Dan Crowther
        August 17, 2011, 8:28 am

        Shingo,

        I am not dismissing anyone, I dont know how many more times I can say that. ( YOU READING THIS TOO CHARON? I dont like Kool-Aid)
        I agree with some of his stated policies. I am not going to just “take him at his word” like many seem happy to do. I also dont understand the “Ron Paul is willing to take a stand” theme from alot of his supporters.
        The guy represents gulf of mexico real estate owners in a district with a partisan voting index of +18 for republicans. A fckin pillar of integrity!! His district doesnt want anything, so he says “No.” Until a storm comes, then he’s at the trough.
        And you can call me biased, thats fine – I admit I take with a grain of salt the “stated” policies of 70 yr old white southern christian conservatives. For a person like me, a guy like that is going to have to demonstrate in his life that he ISNT a racist – and calling MLK day “hate whitey day” and refusing to vote for a medal of freedom for rosa parks because it used public funds doesnt go along way in convincing me he isnt .There are a ton of problems in this country, and I dont see how they can be solved by gutting the support system for people – you want to cut the net when people are still on it. Lets get people back to work in good paying jobs with benefits (organized labor being another target of Ron Ron’s) before we dabble with “I got mine, Fck you”

        “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
        - James Kenneth Galbraith

      • Keith
        August 17, 2011, 1:23 pm

        SHINGO- “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”

        Nice quote. It also happens to be the first one of three on my short essay “Money, Taxes and Political Economy: Taking Control.” I go on to say: To say that our current financial system deviates from a desirable financial system is an understatement, to put it mildly. For starters, our financial system (money creation and banking, primarily) is in private hands for private profit. Nothing wrong with profit per se, however, having the financial system in private hands virtually guarantees that the financial flows will be manipulated to facilitate private profits at the expense of the political economy as a whole. This is the problem inherent in private control which government regulation seeks to moderate, with limited success at best. Eventually, the private financiers seek to redirect the flow of money into financial speculation and paper wealth resulting in asset inflation as the real economy is starved for funds. This is happening now. It is unrealistic to expect private individuals and organizations seeking personal and organizational gain to manage the flow of money in such a way as to benefit society as a whole. The financial system is integral to the management of the economy at the macro level, and needs to be treated as a government run utility. Private business is fine, but private control of the economy is nuts.

        “The US dollar was pegged to the gold standard until the 1960′s, so it was still in use in the modern economy. Being pegged to the gold or silver standard does not prevent money from remaining integral to economic interaction. The dollar was performaing this task succesfully for the geater part of the 20th century while bneing based on gold.”

        The gold standard is the basis for compelling governments to turn to the private banks for financing since the banks have historically been the repository for gold, lending out money based upon gold deposits. As long as there is private control of ‘debt money’, whether backed by gold or not, the banksters can stimulate or depress the economy to achieve their profit seeking objectives. Are you not aware of US history regarding booms and busts while on the gold standard? As Doug Henwood notes: “The classical gold standard was nowhere near as stable nor universal as it’s usually depicted by metal fetishists. Wild booms alternated with equally wild busts.” (Wall Street, 1997)

        The use of gold as money constrains the economy to the amount of gold available, and will usually result in either economic stagnation or an increase in the price of gold to compensate for the need to expand the money supply to support a growing economy. Of course, this will do nothing to dampen the enthusiasm of the gold cult which maintains their faith in spite of empirical repudiation. Henwood continues: “Anyone who has observed the modern gold bugs knows that behind their faith often lies a deep snobbery, a contempt for ‘common,’ debased forms of money like paper, which lack the aristocratic status of the sacred metal. Economically, they love the austere, punishing regime of the gold standard, which makes mass prosperity difficult, and hate loose money which makes prosperity more widespread than it should be.” Further: “Calls for a return to the gold standard regularly emanate from the right wing of Wall Street- supply siders Jude Wanniski and Larry Kudlow adore gold….” (Wall Street, 1997)

        “To begin with, Paul is not opposed to taxes per se, he is opposed to income tax.”

        Terrific! Let us do away with progressive taxation and rely exclusively on regressive taxes! I suppose our slow movement in that direction by continually lowering the income taxes on the rich and corporations has ushered in an economic boom? Cutting the income taxes of the rich has been a good thing? Imposing regressive taxation will be a good thing? Seems to me we can pretty well describe Ron Paul’s domestic agenda in one word- neo-liberalism! Thanks, but no thanks! I have a better idea of how to free ourselves from our dysfunctional system of concentrated wealth (money-power). See below.

        An essential part of democratic control of the financial system is the use of taxes both to redirect spending from private decision making (individual and organizational) to public decision making, and to ameliorate the dysfunctional economic and political consequences of excessive income/wealth disparity. Of particular significance is the need to greatly reduce the power of the huge transnational corporations and financial elites who currently dominate our society. Yet, this clear need has been camouflaged by massive elite propaganda which has successfully convinced an astonishingly gullible citizenry that money is a thing, a piece of personal property imbued with “property rights,” and that taxes are a form of legal theft which diminishes our rights and freedoms. Folks can’t seem to comprehend that money is not a thing but a social/legal construct, the means by which we direct the economic activity of the polity, and that the rich and the corporations have no divine right to rule the political economy (as they currently do), and that progressive taxation is an essential and integral part of a just and sustainable society.

        What also seems to have gone unnoticed is the extent to which public expenditures are essential both to provide employment opportunities (particularly in view of corporate outsourcing) and to provide those things which cannot be individually purchased like clean air, clean water, and environmental clean-up. If one were to compile a list of priorities of what needs to be done to assure a sustainable future with quality of life for all, the overwhelming majority of things needing doing like universal health care, affordable education, and restructuring society to deal with global warming and peak oil, fall within the sphere of political decision making, not the individual market transactions of a consumer society. Additionally, advances in technology and automation have dramatically reduced the number of people required to produce “things,” hence, the majority of post-industrial jobs will involve services, such as free ongoing education for all funded through taxes. It is all quite simple. A social vision needs to be established at the macro level consistent with the constraints of the real economy, then money is allocated with the intent of implementing the vision. The financial system needs to support the real economy which, in turn, needs to support the social vision.

        See “Money, Taxes and Political Economy: Taking Control”, http://saskck.blogspot.com

      • Justice Please
        August 17, 2011, 2:08 pm

        Dan, (or Don, I’m confused :-))

        No way to comment on all which followed. Obviously, this candidate creates much more honest debate among us then Bachman or Perry. Reason enough for Phil to cover him more, I’d say.

        … which was my original complaint. I wrote that he should be covered, the media blackout should be pointed out, and the positions where he and our community here are in agreement should be pointed out.

        I wrote that he should not be embraced completely by our community of opinion-having individuals, because not all his views resonate with us.

        But we HAVE to applaud his stance on the important things: War, intervention, the FED, Homeland Security, the various constitutional amendments, habeas corpus etc.

        I take less interventionism and a seriously rethought “war on terror” any day over your cited “National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction”, thank you very much. (I know that was a cheap shot, but well).

      • Dan Crowther
        August 17, 2011, 2:21 pm

        Justice,

        I agree. He should be covered and the “media” should be called out and shamed.

        I think Paul does have some good ideas, and I also think that he should be leveraging “the left” to get some of the enacted. Part of “limited government” should be the idea of having people who believe in what they do work for the government. A radical idea, I know.
        This is where the libertarian/left wing consensus should build from.
        You can do “more with less” but those people need to be really committed to public service that serves the public – all we have seen so far from “limited government” people is the intentional sabotage of public institutions to make them look bad and inefficient, so they can offer their “private sector” remedies. Im not sure if Paul is any different…..but I do like what he “says.” I think any rational person would. If he forms Vultron with a Kucinich or someone, I’ll have alot more respect for the guy/take him more seriously.

      • lysias
        August 17, 2011, 2:22 pm

        Decriminalizing drugs would do an awful lot of good for an awful lot of blacks.

      • Shingo
        August 18, 2011, 2:24 am

        Keith,

        This is clearly a topic into which you’ve invested a lot of time and research.

        I agree with much of what you say, especially with regards to how paper/fiat currencies contribute to inflation. Like you say, having the financial system in private hands guarantees private profits at the expense of the economy as a whole, but it is largely facilitated by fiat currency, not to mention the Orwellian exploitation of fractional reserve banking.

        The gold standard is the basis for compelling governments to turn to the private banks for financing since the banks have historically been the repository for gold, lending out money based upon gold deposits.

        True, but I’m afraid you are again confusing money (pegged to redeemable assets) with fiat money. The concept of “debt money” is actually a relatively new one. Money backed by gold is not in itself debt based.
        Money used to represent value, but thanks to fractional reserve banking, it now represents debt. The only thing that gives fiat money value is the government’s decree that we have to accept it as payment.

        Are you not aware of US history regarding booms and busts while on the gold standard?

        Booms and busts are an inevitable cycle of capitalism and should not in themselves be regarded as a goor or bad thing. The stability that the gold standard provided is not a hedge against booms and busts , but against destruction of the value of currency. Busts are and should be seen as market corrections for over priced assets, thus the fact that booms and busts occurred during the gold standard does not strengthen the argument for paper currency.

        The use of gold as money constrains the economy to the amount of gold available, and will usually result in either economic stagnation or an increase in the price of gold to compensate for the need to expand the money supply to support a growing economy.

        Why should the increase in the price of gold be a problem? Has the increase in the Dow Jones Index or S&P100′s been undesirable?

        If gold is a finite resource, then the price will most certainly go up with demand. I see no problem with that.

        “Anyone who has observed the modern gold bugs knows that behind their faith often lies a deep snobbery,

        You know Keith, when I read that piece from the WSJ (dated 1997) I couldn’t help but wonder if you’d not made a mistake in citing it. The tech bubble was three years from bursting when this article was written and gold finished the year at US$288 per ounce – the third worst in nearly 3 decades (link to the-privateer.com). I’d be fascinated to hear Henwood’s opinion with the benefit of hindsight post tech/housing bubble/financial crisis/dollar crisis. Had anyone suggested that gold would be surging toward US$2000 an ounce in 2001, I suspect he would have died laughing.

        The snobbery exists on both sides of the debate. To this day, those in mainstream financial circles continue to reject gold as a viable investment option or currency and regard it as the demi god of provincial, paranoid Tea Party, Ron Paul types. When paper assets drop in value by 50%, we’re told it’s a buying opportunity, but when the price of gold falls a fraction of 1% , the Wall Street naysayers insist it proves that gold is not a safe bet.

        Go figure.

        It’s not widespread prosperity that those obsessed with gold revile, it’s cheap credit and the inevitable irresponsibility and destructiveness that comes with it. Neither of the bubbles produced prosperity. Prosperity is based on the accumulation of real wealth that sustains itself through these busts, not debt financed consumption.

        During the tech bubble, people became multi millionaires on paper for owning shares in tech companies that weren’t making any money. The only millionaires that survived it were the few that got out in time.

        During the housing bubble, people became multi millionaires on paper for taking out mortgages on houses that weren’t attracting a rental return to even service the mortgage – in fact, most remained empty. The only millionaires that survived it were the few that got out in time.

        Terrific! Let us do away with progressive taxation and rely exclusively on regressive taxes!

        I was mistaken when I incorrectly referrred to “income” as opposed to “wages”. In any case, there is nothing progressive about a taxation system that allows people like Warrern Buffet to defer any wages and opt for income in the form of dividends, which means, in his own words, that he ends up paying less tax than his cleaner.

        I am on the same page as you when it comes to income taxes of the rich, but the rich don’t pay taxes. They never have. Once you enter that exclusive domain, it’s a completely different set of rules.

        I have a better idea of how to free ourselves from our dysfunctional system of concentrated wealth (money-power). See below.

        I appreciate your sentiments, but your prescription essentially comes down to more of the same. The more money the government gets to spend, the greater the incentive for private corporations to stick their noses into the trough. Companies like Lockheed/Martin wouldn’t even exist were it not for government contracts because their brief forray into commercial airliners was a flop. I think history has demonstrated that there is no such thing as a democracy that is immune to corruption and political/financial influence.

        If you want to deny the rich and the corporations from ruling the political economy, then you are going to need a revolution, because since the dawn of time, that has been the status quo, whether it be feudalism or democracy.

        Speaking for myself, I am 100% with you when it comes to universal health care and affordable education, but I am also prepared to admit that none of these ideals is sustainable. If you take social security as an example, the best that can be said for it is that it is funded till 2035, which sounds well and good, but what happens after that?

        The same will go for education funded through taxes. These are all admirable ideas on your part, but even if you eliminate wars, waste and obscene military spending, government revenues are simply not going to be able to keep up.

        If we are to come up with a financial system that support the real economy as well as your social vision, then it’s going to require something radical, not merely a modification of what exists today.

      • Keith
        August 18, 2011, 11:44 am

        SHINGO- Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am forced to conclude, however, that your argument comes down to two assumptions: government bad, gold good. All else flows from this. I could go on, but we have both written quite a lot already, so let the readers make their own judgments.

      • DBG
        August 16, 2011, 7:29 pm

        wow, so there is a conspiracy with the electronic voting machines. is this a mossad operation?

      • annie
        August 16, 2011, 7:31 pm

        so there is a conspiracy with the electronic voting machines

        where have you been?

      • DBG
        August 16, 2011, 7:35 pm

        who is this conspiracy against exactly?

      • annie
        August 16, 2011, 9:04 pm

        maybe you’d be better off asking who it is for, not who it is against. watch Princeton University Exposes Diebold Flaws

      • Chaos4700
        August 17, 2011, 12:46 am

        Israeli Holocaust denial emulators strike again.

      • DBG
        August 17, 2011, 7:43 am

        Annie, you linked to an article about flaws in the system. We all know about these flaws. So a flaw in a computer system now equals a conspiracy? please you have to have better ‘facts’ that that don’t you?

      • annie
        August 17, 2011, 11:45 am

        dbg, you were the one who brought conspiracy into this conversation not me. do i think there is voter fraud in this country’s elections? yes i do. if there were not they wouldn’t make voting machines w/the necessary software with capability to thwart the process.

        you also brought mossad into this conversation. you also make these jumps in your dialogue implying i said something i didn’t.

        the idea voting machines with the ability to facilitate software that cheats the system is not by definition a ‘flaw’, it is done with intent presumably by more than one person. look at florida gore/bush. you tell me it wasn’t a conspiracy.

        i’m not engaging in anymore discussions w/you about ‘facts’ wrt voter fraud. anyone can claim the elections here are all fair and square and that in a country of millions no one would consider conspiring to fix any election. so claim it if you want to. good bye.

  3. Justice Please
    August 16, 2011, 1:37 pm

    Thanks for covering that, Stewart really did a good job there. He should get Paul and Dennis Kucinich on his show, talk with them how they are virtually the only Congressmen refusing to bend over for AIPAC.

  4. annie
    August 16, 2011, 2:09 pm

    jesus, i had to move my coffee cup to the other side of my desk to remind myself not to take another sip til after the video. this was after sipping up on the ’13th floor’ joke.

    why doesn’t jon mention they did this to him in the last election too? maybe he doesn’t know. the thing about paul is he’s the only gop candidate running who has any realistic chance of scrapping off lots of dem voters.

    • Chaos4700
      August 16, 2011, 6:48 pm

      Honestly? At this point Ron Paul has my vote for President, to heck with any Republican nomination.

      • annie
        August 16, 2011, 8:05 pm

        honestly what? that he’s the only gop candidate running who has any realistic chance of scrapping off lots of dem voters? or honestly maybe jon wasn’t aware he was also this far ahead and routinely ignored at the last election?

      • annie
        August 16, 2011, 8:06 pm

        or honestly that i sprayed my coffee on my keyboard during jon’s joke? i definitely did that.

      • Chaos4700
        August 17, 2011, 12:47 am

        Scraping off Dem voters. I voted for Obama this last cycle and barring an titanic shift in the party I am never voting for a Democratic President again.

      • annie
        August 17, 2011, 11:11 am

        yes, i think he has the potential to scrape off dems. lots of people vote dem as the lessor of 2 evils. for people who self identify as primarily anti war it makes sense to vote for the candidate less likely to invest in war domestic politics be damned. i posit there are quite a lot of voters out there like that. there are quite a few americans and dem voters who believe if we didn’t invest so much in war it would free up a lot of money that would stay with the middle class.

      • Justice Please
        August 17, 2011, 2:10 pm

        “or honestly that i sprayed my coffee on my keyboard during jon’s joke? i definitely did that.”

        Pics or GTFO :-)

  5. lysias
    August 16, 2011, 2:11 pm

    Jack Cafferty apparently revealed on CNN last night that the on-air talent there has a “memo” from the “bosses” telling them not to mention Ron Paul. Oh, Snap!!! Bump for Jack Cafferty, because he just bumped RON PAUL! :

    Jack looked DISGUSTED with the “memo” on not mentioning Ron Paul and was determined not to dance to the MSM tune! INTERESTING! Maybe there’s a little rebellion brewing in the MSM as well. Maybe we’ll see a MSM Revolution!

    • lareineblanche
      August 16, 2011, 3:35 pm

      Paul is one of the only members of Congress to openly oppose the two-headed War Party Orthrus status quo, that’s why he’s ridiculed :
      link to washingtonsblog.com

      Might be good to read up on the full story, though :
      Ron Paul and the Dysfunction of the American Left
      link to meldungen-aus-dem-exil.noblogs.org
      I confess, I haven’t read everything to verify the facts of her analysis, but it should give some pause, though.
      At this stage, the Democrats have totally merged into the Republican Party, the policies are so similar, so it seems voting Dems has become a totally fruitless endeavor.

  6. Dan Crowther
    August 16, 2011, 2:12 pm

    unrelated, but really funny

    link to 3.bp.blogspot.com

  7. annie
    August 16, 2011, 2:18 pm

    this just out from cbs Is Ron Paul getting unfair media treatment?

    On “The Daily Show” Monday night, Jon Stewart assailed the media for essentially ignoring Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul despite his second-place finish (and near victory) in the Iowa straw poll.

    “He’s the one guy in the field – agree with him or don’t agree with him – who doesn’t go out of his way to regurgitate talking points or change what he believes to fit the audience in front of, and [the media is] treating him like if this was Celebrity Apprentice, he’d be this guy,” Stewart said, as the camera cut to video to actor Gary Busey making strange noises. (See below.)

    As anyone who reads the CBSNews.com comments section well knows, this is a view Paul’s passionate supporters have been expressing for a long time. Yesterday, I wrote a post that began this way: In the wake of the Iowa straw poll, there are three frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination: Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Texas governor Rick Perry and, to a lesser extent, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.”

    Paul is mentioned in the second-to-last paragraph, where I wrote that he “lost the straw poll by just 152 votes” and added, “Paul’s support, though passionate, seems to have a ceiling in the low double digits.”

    In comments, Paul backers accused me of bias or worse.

  8. jewishgoyim
    August 16, 2011, 3:18 pm

    Couldn’t that be also called the “John Edwards treatment”? I mean for all the excitement and hope that Obama brought, it was clear very early on in 2008 that he was an establishment candidate. The writing was on the wall during the primaries: Obama was a mandarin, not a spartacus.

    John Edwards seemed resolute to be more of a pain in the neck for the powers that be. Henceforth: no media coverage. Full stop.

    • lysias
      August 16, 2011, 5:11 pm

      Maybe you’re right that the media eventually froze Edwards out, but what I distinctly remember is that earlier than that, they froze out Dennis Kucinich, I assume because of his antiwar views. It’s an interesting fact that Kucinich and Ron Paul are friends.

      And, even earlier than Kucinich, they froze out Mike Gravel. In fact, I remember when they did it. Gravel did an interview on the PBS News Hour in which he blamed the drumbeat for going to war with Iran on the Israel lobby and AIPAC. The very next week, he was excluded from the Democratic debates.

      • annie
        August 17, 2011, 11:05 am

        lysias, yes i know they’ve always frozen out dennis kucinich who is one of our best politicians. i had the honor of hearing him speak once and wow, what energy and charisma. he had the whole room going crazy. i love him. and i do recall what you mentioned about mike gravel but i don’t recall he had anywhere near the following of ron paul so i guess the silencing didn’t have the same sort of obviousness with him. thanks for pointing that out.

  9. john h
    August 16, 2011, 4:42 pm

    Jon did that so well, what a crackup.

    The treatment of Paul reminds of the treatment of anything pro-Palestine or negative toward Israel, whether it is reporting its actions or in comment.

    • Koshiro
      August 17, 2011, 12:13 pm

      During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul addressed Congress to voice his staunch opposition to the House’s proposed resolution supporting Israel’s actions. He stated: “Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers.” He then went on to question the very purpose of America’s support for Israel, asking: “Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?”
      The Lobby doesn’t forget, Ron.
      Just as a progressive is only acceptable in the form of a PEP, a Libertarian is only acceptable in the form of a LEI. Oppose monetary aid to other countries and US meddling in foreign affairs all you want – but not when it comes to Israel!

  10. seafoid
    August 16, 2011, 5:58 pm

    Ron Paul is the father of Rand. And Rand is a fruitcake.

    • Chaos4700
      August 16, 2011, 6:51 pm

      Rand is, in terms of US politics, what we like to call “mainstream Republican.” I couldn’t care less what Rand Paul has to say. He isn’t Ron Paul.

      • seafoid
        August 17, 2011, 2:26 am

        Who did the Tea Party displace on the right, Chaos? there must have been a wipe out of mainstreamers.

      • Chaos4700
        August 18, 2011, 2:24 am

        Well, I will say that Ron Paul isn’t as well liked among the Tea Party “mainstream” as you might be led to believe, first and foremost. But I recommend you start by looking up Lincoln Chaffee. You may also want to take a look at the strategy that Mitt Romney sort of pioneered — drop anything and everything you said in the past if that’s what it takes to sell out to the current upsurge of right-wing extremists. A lot of the mainstreamers displace themselves now.

  11. POA
    August 16, 2011, 11:54 pm

    Whether or not Ron Paul’s ideas, opinions, and policy advocations resonate with you, there is a much larger issue underscored by the media’s treatment of candidates such as Paul, Kucinich, or (remember?) Gravel.

    What IS underscored, is how the media, as agents of corporate America, determine who will reside in the White House. Really, its not up to us. Yes, we vote. But we vote on the chosen few, those selected by their willingness to play the DC game, and not rock the status quo.

    Who the f*ck is Rick Perry???

    But look how he is being marketed.

    Who the f*ck was Barack Obama??? But look how he was mass marketed. He was a carefully wrapped product, a pile of shit in a nice box, designed to catch the consumer’s eye. We didn’t vote for a man, we voted for a marketed bucket of status quo Washington DC horseshit.

    Theres a great article today in the Los Angeles Times about just how big a slut this Perry dude is. You got money? Give some to Perry, and you’ll go places, by golly.

    Its all the same. They’ll shit all over Ron Paul. He’s got some pretty taboo traits going on. Honest patriotism, conviction, common sense. Who the hell does he think he is, trying to bring that kinda kissy feely bullshit into american politics?

    They’ve already picked out who gets to preside in the Oval Office and hand us the usual screwing we’ve come to accept and expect. Yeah, they don’t know WHICH whore gets to wear the crown yet. But make no mistake, they’re narrowing the field down to JUST whores.

    Now, its just a matter of who can package their snake oil in the prettiest bottle. They’ll try to tell you it’ll fix what ails ya. But really, its just a lubricant.

    • Shingo
      August 17, 2011, 12:20 am

      That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

      It’s not the media, it’s the ruling class. You may or may not be aware that the GOP and the Dems both control the debates vie the Commission on Presidential Debates. The topics that are raised are all carefully filtered out so that only the acceptable toics are ever raised.

      The whole system is set up to ensure the 2 party system remains a closed shop.

      “The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) began in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President of the United States. The Commission is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation as defined by Federal US tax laws,[1] whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations”
      link to en.wikipedia.org

      • slowereastside
        August 17, 2011, 12:23 pm

        “. . . the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: “the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.” The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today’s version of the CPD . . .

        In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a “memorandum of understanding” that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums.”

        link to en.wikipedia.org

  12. yourstruly
    August 17, 2011, 1:19 am

    when it comes to the all important presidential debates, ron paul won’t be invited. the excuse that msm will offer is that he was below some arbitrary cutoff point in terms of percemtage of votes received. Supposedly that’s why dennis kucinich was disqualified as a debate participant in 2008. The real reason? Anti-war candidates are taboo & not to be invited to the final dance.

  13. Kris
    August 17, 2011, 1:35 pm

    I disagree with Ron Paul about almost everything, but agree with him fervently on one important issue: STOP THE WARS. So this life-long Democrat is going to vote for Paul in the Republican primary in my state.

    And if Paul (or anyone) were to win the general election, instead of Obama? Good. Obama has been a total sell-out, beginning with his silence during Operation Cast Lead. He has achieved more for the Republican agenda than any Republican could have. We would have been much better off with McCain and Palin. Obama kept single payer health care off the table, expanded the wars, enriched the upper economic elite, claims the right to have anyone, anywhere assassinated or imprisoned forever, and is determined to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Obama, as many have observed, is Bush on steroids.

    I was so happy when Obama was elected that I cried. Because I thought there would be real hope and change in this country, and it would be led by a black man, something that, having grown up in Texas, I would never have believed possible. Obama’s cynical betrayal of all the “folks” (as he likes to call them) who really believed in him and contributed money that they couldn’t afford to his campaign is unforgivable.

Leave a Reply