Tuesday, December 20, 2011

A Response to the “Paulbomb” Part 2: Lies and Misinformation

This is the second part to my response on Reddit’s “Paulbomb.”

Lies and Misinformation

The Paulbombers have spread numerous lies and misinformation about Dr. Paul. From accusations that he is a racist, to accusations that he wants tyranny on a state level. Neither of those accusation are true. They are the result of lazy people no doing their research. They find one article that claims these things and that is automatically proof of its truth. That’s nothing but a lot of nonsense.

First, let’s look at the accusation of Paul being a racist. These came after a liberal website came out with racist newsletters written by an anonymous ghostwriter with Ron Paul’s name in the titles. First off, these were not written by Paul himself. No one can say who wrote these news letters because they were anonymous. Second, Paul has time and time again disavowed what was written in those newsletters on national television. Anyone who has ever met Paul or heard him speak knows the he has never spoken anything like the racist remark in those news letters. On top of all that, he has the support of the president of the NAACP’s Austin, Texas chapter. He makes it clear that he does not agree that Paul is racist in any way shape or form. And that the reason is being attack as a racist is because he is dangerous to the establishment.

Next, let’s look at Dr. Paul’s views on gay marriage and state’s rights. He has been criticized for wanting tyranny at the state levels instead of at the federal level. Now, it takes more than a single google search in order to understand Paul’s complete views on state’s rights and gay marriage. He has said that the states, under the United States of America’s Constitution,  have the power to regulate marriage, not the federal government. But, while he believes the constitution has that power, no level of government should be involved in the marriage business leaving it up to the consenting adults who want to get married.

Finally, they outright lie about Ron Paul wanting to build the fence along the Mexican-American border. He does not support the fence anymore than he supports national ID cards. It’s pretty clear.

There you go, Paulbombers. You have been shown how wrong you are. Now, are you going to admit it or are you going to continue with this propaganda campaign?

A Response to the “Paulbomb” Part one: The failing economy and warmongering

Recently on Reddit there has been a huge spamming of what is called “Paulbomb.” It is a list of anti Ron Paul  spam copy and pasted from the first Paulbomb post. This Paulbombing is teaching people to not think for themselves. It teaches them to just accept whatever is told to them with blind faith. If those who spread it actually did any research at all, they would understand the misinformation (and at times, blatant lies) espoused by this copy and paste. So, I am going to set this new spamming movement straight.

Spending and the economy
One problem that this new spam movement has with Dr. Paul is his sensible and consistent views on spending, the national debt and our failing economy. Among other things, they criticize his views on the Federal Reserve, the executive Departments he wants to cut, and the parts of the private sector he wants to cut federal funding.
With the current state of our economy, this is not a place we can pussy foot around. We have to make drastic cuts and we have to do it immediately. Libertarians are the only ones who seem to understand that. Liberals and Neo-conservatives are making no move to make drastic cuts to their spending. Wars, corporate welfare, a national bank that wont let anyone know what goes on…. All of these are burying us in debt that we will no be able to dig our way out of.
But what exactly do the Bombtards complain about? One thing is the that Dr. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve. Now, to explain, in detail, why the Federal reserve needs to be abolished would take a whole separate article longer than I have for just this one. So I will be as brief as I can.
First off, do not be fooled by the term "federal” in the Federal Reserve’s name. It is not part of our government. It is a massive private bank. This means that our government has no oversight into the Federal Reserve. Yes, congress periodically holds a session with the Chairman of the Fed, but they have to take his word for it. They cannot look into the secretive dealings of the Federal Reserve. And that is a dangerous thing since, you know, they have complete control over our nation’s currency.
That’s right. They decide how much money is printed and who it is loaned out to. This means they control the periods of inflation and deflation of our currency. And since they work for greed rather than the people, they use their power only when it benefits them…even when it hurts everyone else. “Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws.” – Nathan Rothschild, the banker that bought Great Britain.
Since the Federal Reserve is not part of our government, they loan the money they print to our government. In other words, as long as the Fed exists, the government will be in perpetual debt. And we, the people, will be paying it off for the rest of our lives through taxes. This is why they had to create the IRS along with the Federal Reserve.

The worst thing about the Fed is that, with all of this power, it is accountable to know one. No a single politician can do shit about the Federal Reserve.
Now, on to the national debt and government cuts. Cuts are necessary. There is no arguing this. We are trillions of dollars in debt and heading toward financial collapse. If we do not start making major cuts, we will become a third world country. Dr. Paul is the only politician that is willing to make those major cuts that we need. His plan cuts one trillion dollars off the deficit in just one year. Yet, the Democrats and the Republicans are not willing to give up their spending so they call him insane instead of the only rational man in office.
Foreign Policy
Those who criticize his foreign policy are no more than warmongers. Dr. Paul’s foreign policy is the only foreign policy of liberty. The major criticism is calling him a pre-World War II isolationist.  They only do this because they have absolute zero understanding what isolationism is. Isolationists want the United States to completely isolate itself from the rest of the world. That means no political, military or economic ties to other nations. This is not what Paul wants. He is a non-interventionist. He wants the U.S. to trade and friends with all nations, but he does not think the United States has the right to control the internal affairs of other nations. He does not want to start preemptive wars base on faulty intelligence. This has lead some to not only call him an isolationist, but also a pacifist. That is not true, either.

A pacifist believes that war is never justifiable. Paul believes a military response is justifiable if a nation is attacked. This is what is called the Non-aggression Principle. The NAP states that the initiation of force is always immoral. This includes invading Iran because of the fear that they might get a nuclear weapon. Iran, though one might disagree with the way it is ran, is an independent and sovereign nation. A preemptive attack against Iran because they might have nuclear weapons would violate their rights as a sovereign nation.

Another issue some people just do not get is the devastation  the U.N. has on America. It is a world government that makes laws and goes to war without any representation of the people. This is illegal. It goes against everything the founding fathers expected from our nation. This body, that we have no control over, even has its own military. And guess who makes up the majority of the U.N. soldiers...That's right. America. We send our soldiers to die for an unamerican tyrannical world government. 

Which brings us to another point. The Paulbombers also criticize him for believing in a New World Order "conspiracy." This isn't the prediction of fearmongers. This is becoming a reality. Just look at everything I told you about the U.N. because it also applies to NATO. These are mulit-national governments without any representation for the people.

Finally, The Paulbombers have decided that the Constitutional powers of war do not matter anymore. The Constitution authorizes the congress to grant letters of Marque and reprisals. Letters of Marque allows the president to hire mercenaries to attack militants or nations. Some thing our presidents do already without the approval of congress making unconstitutional. Think about this: What if we had hired Afghan militants to go after Osama instead of sending our troops to nation build? They would know the Afghan and Pakistan terrain far better than any American. They would have found and captured Osama a lot quicker than our government did. On top of that, it would not have cost one trillion dollars to sustain an entire army in a foreign nation. 

Part 2 responds to lies and misinformation spread about Dr. Paul.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Senate Passes Defense Bill Turning America into a Battlefield

Tonight the Senate passed the defense bill that so many liberty loving individuals feared: the Department of Defense Authorization bill. American soil is now classified as a battlefield, therefore its citizens are now subject to indefinite military detention.

While I watched the proceeding over the last several says, I had a shinning glimmer of hope. Senator Feinstein brought an amendment to floor that would negate indefinite military detention. Unfortunately, it failed to pass 45-54. And tonight, the senate passed the bill in its entirety. 

A couple of other Amendments added to the bill were sanctions against Iran and accelerating troop withdraw from Afghanistan.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

"Defense" Bill Updates

Nov. 29, 2011
  • The Senate convened at 10am
  • The Senate debated the bill for only an our
  • At 11am, the Senate voted on a cloture to the bill - which would abruptly end debate.
  • The cloture passed and the bill has 30 hours of debate left.
Nov. 30, 2011

  • The Senate is currently debating the bill - you can watch it live on CSPAN2
  • The Senate is currently debating an Menendez-Kirk Amendment (sanctions on Iran)
    • Sen. Lindsey Graham is comparing Iranians to Nazis - He is the most dangerous Congressman to a free America.
      Dec. 1, 2011
      • At 2:00pm the Senate voted on the Feintstein Amendment which would limit who the government could hold indefinitely by not allowing American citizens picked up in America to be held without trial. Amendment failed to pass 45-55
      • The bill passed 97-3

      The American Third World Totalitarianism

      America is heading head long into a third world totalitarian state. If our coming complete economic collapse was not one thing, now our government is cracking down on our first amendment rights. As the people protest the power of banks in our nation, militarized police show up with grenade launchers filled with tear gas canister, pepper spray that could bring down a horse, and guns with rubber bullets that can do more than leave a bruise.

      On top of that, the government is now trying to use the military to police our nation, calling America part of the battlefield. This "defense" bill will also greatly increase the military's power to hold people indefinitely without trial. 

      Watch this video and read this article for more information then please go to my Get Involved page to contact your senator over this bill. I will create a post with updates.

      Tuesday, August 16, 2011

      Jon Stewart Rips Media for Ron Paul Coverage

      The Ames, Iowa straw poll ended in the American People seeing the mainstream media for what they truly are: Political puppets. While Michele Bachmann won the straw poll, Ron Paul came in a very close second. He was less than 1% away from winning the poll himself. You would think that the major underdog in the election coming that close to a strong win would get a lot of Media coverage. But the media had another idea. Disregarding Paul’s 4,671, they focused on Bachmann, the winner (with 4,823), Tim Pawlenty (with 2,293 – Less than half of Ron Paul’s votes), Rick Santorum (with 1,657), and even Jon Huntsmen (with only 69 votes). They completely ignored Paul’s victory as the anti-establishment Republican candidate coming in second place.
      This is what “Journalism” has come to. The main stream media is a pathetic form of biased journalism that has shot itself in the foot with this recent fiasco.
      The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
      Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
      Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

      Sunday, June 19, 2011

      McCain to GOP: I Still Don't Understand Isolationism

      Ron Paul schooled Senator McCain on national television during the South Carolina GOP debate in 2008. Responding to an attack by John McCain, calling Paul an isolationist, Paul said, "He doesn't even know the difference between Isolationism and Non-interventionism. I am not an Isolationist." McCain did not learn his lesson it appears. McCain has called out almost every candidate in the GOP primaries this year.

      "We cannot repeat the lessons of the 1930s, when the United States of America stood by while bad things happened in the world," McCain told ABC's "This Week". McCain also said, "There's always been an isolationist strain in the Republican Party, the Pat Buchanan wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak."

      Again Mr. McCain (And those who believe in his out right lies), there is a huge difference between Isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism is a foreign policy were a country wants to wall themselves entirely off from the rest of the world. This includes trading, economic agreements and military alliances. Isolationists want absolutely nothing to do with any nation outside of their own. That is not what non-interventionists are. Non-interventionists still want open trade with foreign nations. They still want to be diplomatic and friends. They simply do not think a nation has the right to interfere in another nation's internal affairs. They also believe the only just war is a war in self-defense. In other words, they want to be diplomatic trade partners and friends will all other nations, but they just don't see a rational reason to get entangled in their internal issues.

      And they are right. There is absolutely no reason to get involved in the internal affairs of another nation. When the U.S. takes its military overseas it creates more of a mess and doesn't help anything. The government has turned Iraq into a hotbed for terrorists and are killing civilians in Libya. Yes. NATO invaded Libya on the grounds that they were trying to help the citizens revolt against their dictator. But how do you help them by killing them?

      Look at this man, America. Now look at Sarah Palin. Now back McCain. Now at yourself. These two idiots who can barely form sentences almost because the leaders of our country. Wouldn't that have been a goddamn shame.

      Thursday, June 16, 2011

      Obama Sends Letter to Congress and What it Means to the Nation

      Congress has been hounding President Obama over unanswered questions regarding the President's war in Libya. One of the issues is the legality of the war. Congress is worried that the President is overstepping his legal authority in Libya. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) sent a letter to Obama explaining he legally only has until Sunday to get congressional approval for the war. If he doesn't then he must immediately begin to withdraw all forces from Libya. On Wednesday Obama responded to Congress in a letter defending his operations in the Country.

      In the letter, Obama claimed he had no legal reason to get approval from congress despite the Constitution and the Wars Power Resolution. He cited a U.N resolution saying members could invade countries to prevent catastrophes or humanitarian crisis. So what he is saying is that an unelected body can overrule the Constitution and laws created by Congress.

      This is what we would expect from a nation that is transforming into a dictatorship. Over the past one hundred years the executive branch has taken more and more from the Legislative branch. It has the ability to create laws through "executive decisions" and not just enforce laws passed by congress. And now we see the President completely disregarding Congressional approval for military actions as dictated by the United States of America's laws.

      We are on a really fucking dangerous slope, folks. The more power a single man takes away from the other branches the less freedom you and I will end up having.

      Wednesday, June 1, 2011

      Friday, April 1, 2011

      Who Has the Power of War in the United States?

      "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama

      As the Commander in Chief of the United States Military, most presidents in the 20th to the 21st century have assumed the power to send the United States military to any conflict they decided was worth it. They have claimed that under Article II Section II of the Constitution that it is the right of the President to use the United States military to fight in any war or conflict they deem necessary. The problem with this view of the President is that anyone who believes this has not read the entire Constitution.

      The clause of the Constitution that so many believe gives the President power to invade any country he chooses actually says:
      “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (The Constitution).”
      From this reading it is absolutely true that the President is the Commander in Chief of the United States Military, but only when “called into the actual service of the United States.” That is as far as the powers given to the President stretch when it comes to war as given to him by the Constitution. So who can call the military of the United States into service? According to the Constitution the only branch able to call the military into service is Congress. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that only Congress has the power to “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water (The Constitution).'”

      To make sure you understand that passage, let me define letters of marque and reprisal. A letter of marque is an action by a nation to hire mercenaries (pirates, rebels, militias, etc.) to attack another nation for them. A reprisal is when a state uses military actions just short of war to punish a nation for wrongdoings. Most of the time reprisals are used when a specific wrongdoing has been aimed at the nation granting the reprisal. Reprisals can come in the form of capturing a ship, taking hostages or bombing anti-aircraft weaponry.

      Those politicians who are in favor of President Obama sending missiles into Libya are Republicans who think Obama should turn Libya into the same mess Bush turned Iraq into. But even many Democrats who oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan support Obama’s war even though it will inevitably turn into a mess like Iraq. Unfortunately, there is little Congress can do now short of impeachment. They can pass a new law saying the president cannot go to war without congressional approval, but why would the President worry about that law when he ignores the supreme law of the land, the Constitution?

      To try and stop presidents from sending soldiers into war without congressional approval, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973. This act actually had the opposite effect that Congress had wanted. It states that, like the Constitution, the military can only be sent into action with Congressional approval except when "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” At this point it expands the President’s power by giving him the power to go to war, without congressional approval, when the United States has been attacked. Under the War Powers Resolution in this situation the president has 48 hours to alert the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. After Congress is alerted to the use of troops, the President has 60 days to do what ever he wishes with the troops. After 60 days if Congress has not approved of the military conflict or passed a Declaration of War the President must withdraw all troops engaged in hostilities (The War Powers Resolution).

      The problem with letting the President use the troops without congressional approval for 60 days is that the President has 2 months to create a war in which Congress sometimes has no choice but to then approve. In short, when trying to limit the power of the President when war is concerned, they gave him free reign to do as he wishes.

      Since passing the resolution, there have been 118 reports sent to Congress about unconstitutional wars by Presidents, but only one of those reports have stated that the act was in response to an imminent threat to the nation, like the resolution declared they were all supposed to do according to section 4(a)(1).This shows how Politicians are willing to disregard the law no matter if it is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, or an act passed by congress separate from the Constitution. How many of these presidents have been held accountable for breaking the law? None of them. Impeachments have been threatened, but none of them have gone through the process for their illegal actions regarding war. 

      The United Nations Security Council is an unelected, international body that sets itself above the sovereignty of national laws. The Security Council has five permanent members (including the United States) that can send the United Nations Peace Keepers (And international military made of soldiers from different countries) into any conflict regardless of the Constitution and other war laws in the United States of America or any other nation. In other words, due to this small, unelected body the President can illegally send soldiers into conflicts without congressional approval or an imminent threat, as was shown with the recent attacks on Libya.

      The powers of war that the President has is more limited than most Americans realize. After more than half a century of undeclared wars fought by the President it has become unwritten law that the president has complete control over the military. That goes back to the old saying, “If you repeat a lie long enough it then becomes truth.”

      Monday, March 21, 2011

      The Cost of the War with Libya

      When I voice my protest about the America’s current actions against Libya, I hear the same questions asked every damn time: “What could be wrong with bombing a brutal dictator to protect the citizens?" “Obama has already said it is going to be over in days, so what could a few days hurt?” “Obama also said he is not going to be sending any ground troops, so what is wrong if we do not lose any soldiers like we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan?” I get these questions all the time from Democrats and Republicans, but with the Republicans they usually add something like “’bout time that Muslim lover did something.” When talking to these folks it looks like there is absolutely nothing wrong with our government attacking Libya, but that is nothing by bullshit.

      A major consequence of the war in Libya is the crumbling of the Constitution. When the president goes to war without the approval of congress, it creates a hole in the powers awarded to congress by the Constitution. Article I section 8 gives congress the power “declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and in water.” So basically any military interference in regards to another nation must be approved by congress.  Did congress approve this new war? No. And it has not approved any of the other wars,  either.

      How the war was started shows another sign of the destruction of the Constitution. Not only did congress not approve of this war, but it was started by an unelected body of delegates of a few select foreign nations, the Security Council of the United Nations.. Am I the only one that sees a fucking problem with this? If I am, let me know so I can scream louder. The powers of congress are being shifted over to a world organization with no elected representatives and no oversight.  It is the top dog. There is nothing that can override its decisions and it continues to award itself more and more power. It has even become a legislative body constantly creating laws and sending other nations to war. The UN is the biggest mistake America has made.

      I have the same response for both of the last two questions: You cannot believe anything politicians say. Bush told us that Iraq would be a quick war with no casualties. Years later and thousands of men women and children lost to the industrial military complex, we have realized there was not truth to anything Bush has said. Now, automatically, we should start trusting the politicians again? When Obama says this will be quick, like Bush did, we should take him at his word? Follow him with blind faith? Bullshit. If this asshole has proven anything it is that there has been no difference between is tyrannical rule and Bush’s tyrannical rule.

      Even Obama knows what he is doing is not only wrong, but Illegal:

      "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation...History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."- Barack Obama, The Boston Globe, December 20, 2007
      Is Libya a threat to the United States of America? Absolutely not. It is a small, poor government that can barely push back the rebels on its own.  How can that kind of government be an imminent threat to the United States? Here we having Obama saying the only justified war is when we are in imminent danger and it would be best to have Congress's approval, yet he is going to war against a nation that is absolutely no threat to the United States and without congress's approval. Again, how the fuck can we trust this man? Just like any other politician, double speak is a second language used constantly. He will say and do anything that will get him elected.

       Unjustified and preemptive war is simply just another big government program. It is fueled by the tax payers, ran by the politicians, and harmful to, not only our own citizens, but people across the globe. The politicians claim it is all about the safety of individuals, but blowing up the people they are trying to save seems contradictory. There is always an agenda behind every act in the government and this war is no different. With our current government, we would never go to war with someone unless there is someone profiting from it. This is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they created our government out of a harsh and and hard fought war for Independence.

      Monday, January 10, 2011

      The United States: A Nation of Fear and Tyranny Demands Personal Information from Twitter Users

      The United States Government has had a long history of fear mongering in order to get what it wants. Muslims, Hispanics, Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, African Americans… Racial and religious scapegoats are nothing new. Illegal invasions have been constant for the past 50 years. The United States government has become a pro at intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. So why is this new and disgusting act such a surprise to anyone? It shouldn’t be.

      The United States Government is trying to force Twitter to hand over information from some of it’s users claiming it is necessary in into investigation into Wikileaks. The information being demanded by the Government is as personal as Telephone numbers, Credit Card Information, Emails and IP addressed. The people they are requesting this information from are the people they see as the closest to Wikileaks including its founder Julian Assange. But they are also demanding information from Pfc. Bradley Manning and Iceland Member of Parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir.

      We have seen in recent months that American’s citizen’s 4th Amendment rights mean nothing to the American Government. It turns out, they can search you and seize anything you have without warrants and without any evidence of any wrong doing. That has been painfully clear during the current TSA controversy. Also, It seems, that the Rights of foreign officials mean nothing to the American Government, either. Iceland is pissed.

      Birgitta Jonsdottir is a Politician in Iceland. She is an elected representative in the Parliament, elected, of course, by the Citizens of Iceland. But the U.S. Government is looking beyond that and treating her like a common criminal by demanding personal information that is irrelevant to it’s criminal investigation. The United States is acting like the big bully on the block that can get away with anything it wants, but it can’t. Not when the whole world has its eyes on them through the internet and other Media outlets.

      This war on the Freedom of Speech and against government transparency can only end in one of two ways: The Constitution and the Freedom of Speech win and our government becomes more transparent or the government wins and transparency and freedom of speech is lost forever in America.