Ron Paul comments on Rasmussen Poll: Tied with Obama

Obama Will Bring Home Troops – AF

April Fools. If only it were true.

In reality he has expanded funding for the wars, expanded the defense budget, expanded the nuclear weapons program, expanded the war into Pakistan, and expanded the number of troops on the ground.

In addition he has said that we will have permanent troops in Iraq: merely relabeling them as ‘non-combat’ troops without changing their actual role.

In addition troop death rates in Afghanistan have doubled in the past 3 months.  It’s time to bring the troops home and stop expanding our occupation of sovereign nations.

Obama signs one-year extension of Patriot Act

AP News

President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation’s main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Obama Seeks Massive Increase in Nuke Spending

by Jason Ditz, January 30, 2010

In a move he insists is somehow consistent with his call for disarmament, President Obama is seeking more than $5 billion in increased funding for America’s nuclear weapons program, aimed chiefly at modernization and building new facilities.

Vice President Joe Biden detailed what he thought was the case for the investment, perplexingly arguing simultaneously for a world without nuclear weapons and for America to make “long overdue” investments in strengthening its own nuclear stockpile.

Though this funding will not actually be used to produce additional nuclear weapons, opponents caution that it will give the administration, and future administrations, the capacity to greatly increase the number of warheads in America’s arsenal, at a time when the administration claims to be trying to complete comprehensive warhead reduction agreements.

Though Vice President Biden portrayed the investment as crucial for creating a “safe, secure and effective” collection of weapons capable of murder on an unprecedented scale, he also pointed to Iran’s illusory nuclear weapons program as one reason for America to shore up its own, already enormous arsenal.

Continue Reading

Obama Ordered US Strike on Yemen

by Jason Ditz, December 18, 2009

Just one day after a very public denial that American forces were in the process of attacking sites in Northern Yemen, President Barack Obama ordered multiple cruise missile attacks on sites across the tiny, coastal nation.

The air strikes were coordinated with the government of President Ali Abdallah Saleh and the attacks left 120 killed, many of them civilians according to witnesses. President Obama called Saleh after the attack to “congratulate” him on the killings.

The Yemeni government denied any US role in the attacks, despite American officials’ admissions. This is largely in keeping with the Saleh government’s policy, as they angrily denied reports of Saudi attacks in the north as a myth even as the Saudi government was giving a press conference detailing the attack.

One Yemeni official however claimed that a local al-Qaeda “deputy” named Mohammed Saleh Mohammed Ali Al-Kazemi was slain, and that “scores” of al-Qaeda members were killed in the assorted attacks.

The conflict with al-Qaeda is just one of many conflicts currently going on in Yemen, including an enduring separatist movement in the south and an increasingly violent insurrection in the Shi’ite north. Technically Wednesday’s State Department denials appear to have been accurate, as the missile strikes were in a completely unrelated conflict from the one they were accused of taking part in.

Full Article

Ron Paul Says Ben Bernanke is More Powerful Than Obama

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Urged to Fully Comply With Anti-Torture Treaty

The fifteenth anniversary of the U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture passed last week with little fanfare and virtually no press attention from the mainstream media.

But according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “U.S. policy continues to fall short of ensuring full compliance with the treaty.”

For example, the organization said that an appendix to the Army Field Manual (AFM) can still facilitate cruel treatment of prisoners and detainees at home and abroad.

The Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment (CAT) is the most comprehensive international human rights treaty dealing exclusively with the issues of torture and abuse. It came into effect in 1987 and has been ratified by 146 countries.

The treaty was initially signed by the Ronald Reagan administration in 1988 and was ratified by the Senate on Oct. 21, 1994, but with reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) that failed to make the treaty fully applicable.

The administration of former president George W. Bush exploited these RUDs to justify abusive interrogation policies, including the use of waterboarding, stress positions, extreme isolation, and sleep deprivation.

Continue Reading

Obama and the Continuing War on the Poor

by Paul A. Cleveland on Mises Daily

A mentor of mine, Clarence Carson, published a book in the 1970s entitled The War on the Poor. He took his title from Lyndon Johnson’s so-called “war on poverty.” Carson noted that actual wars are waged against real people rather than circumstances, and that if the government were engaged in a war it must be against some identifiable group of people. In his book, he identified the poor as that group by analyzing the economic impact of the various policies that Johnson pursued. In each new initiative of the Great Society, the effect of those policies was to raise prices on various products and cause the poor in America to suffer for the sake of a few special interests.

Nothing much has changed in America. The only difference between then and now is the degree to which property is being attacked. Indeed, the entire political process seems to center around such attacks in the name of alleviating our misery, which more often than not is caused by some past program. Despite the misery that past policies have inflicted on us, during each election cycle our politicians travel the country telling us how their proposals will fix all that ails us. If they are incumbents, they argue that their policies will work if given sufficient time. Moreover, they tell us that they have been hindered in the performance of their promised feats because of their political opponents. Alternatively, challengers argue that only their proposed interventions will work to produce the desired economic prosperity. And so it goes, as each pursues the needed votes to ensure election.

Fortunately for our aspiring magicians, the media takes the process very seriously and devotes a great deal of time to covering the debate — without asking any serious questions as to whether intervention of any sort is a prudent course of action. The media thus gives a credibility to the process that would not exist without their endorsement. After all, if the media believes that the government is really able to produce something from nothing, then uncritical men and women in the street may have reason to believe it as well. To date this seems to be the case, since the failures of past policies are generally not pointed to as a reason for doubting current political promises.

There is, of course, one issue that our political aspirants never wish to discuss at any length. They never wish to discuss the costs of their proposal. If they are forced to discuss this topic at all, they simply argue that the many benefits of their scheme will vastly outweigh the upfront costs. Moreover, they invariably promote a plan to impose the costs upon the so-called rich people because they can afford it. Since no one knows any of these very rich people, many feel secure that the politician’s plan will ultimately prove beneficial to them.

The magician lives by his deception. If the audience is ever able to see the reality of what the political class is actually doing, then these magicians would have to practice their magic craft privately. But this kind of fraud exposes them to the danger of spending time in prison (as Bernie Madoff can attest to). If they were not willing to risk jail time, the political class would instead have to work for a living. No longer would it be possible for them to live off of the fruits of other peoples’ labor. They are indeed glad that the citizens of the land seem content for the most part to remain blind to the impoverishment they have perpetrated.

Continue Reading

Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show – December 11, 2009

The Antiwar Right: Our Time Is Near

The neocons are worried – and with good reason

Neocons like Reihan Salam are worried that Republicans will soon “begin to abandon the president en masse over Afghanistan.” As well they might be: Salam, a self-described advocate of “a Pax Americana foreign policy,” and a fellow at the New America Foundation – a corporate-funded let’s-promote-”new”-but-safely-conventional-ideas, formerly headed up by James Fallows – knows his enemies, and is preparing to meet them, albeit not head on. Before the battle is joined, however, he wants to define the enemy – in his own terms, of course.

There are plenty of antiwar conservatives to cite, including politicians: the primary example being Rep. Ron Paul, whose presidential campaign mounted an amazingly successful challenge to the GOP Establishment – and, as a result, earned the undying enmity of the neocons. There are others: John Duncan, Republican of Tennessee, Rep. Walter B. “Freedom Fries” Jones (R-North Carolina) – whose stunning turnaround on the war provoked a neocon hissy-fit and an electoral challenge, both of which he survived – but Senor Salam chose Jason Chaffetz, a freshman Republican from Utah, perhaps because he’s the newest addition to a growing group. But also, perhaps, because it’s easier to characterize his “antiwar” views in a certain, limiting way.

“Among grassroots conservatives,” Salam avers, “there is a growing sense that the U.S. military is too hamstrung by concern about civilian casualties and political correctness to wage an effective military campaign under Obama, which implies that there is little point in offering him political support.” According to Salam, Chaffetz “makes this point explicitly,” but this is not at all clear. Here is what Chaffetz actually says:

“We must redefine the Rules of Engagement: A politically correct war is a lost war. If we are going to sacrifice lives and resources in this fight, we must go in with everything we have. We must be committed to win. But then we must go home. Anything short of an all-out commitment to accomplish the mission puts too many American lives at risk.”

Continue Reading

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »