Ron Paul!!!

Unfortunately Mitt "Wall Street" Romney will be the Republican nominee......PERIOD.

The best candidates are Ron Paul and Buddy Roemer.

All the rest of the Republicans running are corporate hacks just like Obama and Biden.

Wall Street wins again in 2012 and the American citizenry continues to lose.

Not so fast, Caspian. You aren't seeing the Romney doppleganger that's kurking in the mists.
Huntsman has quietly gotten some traction as the "normal" alternative to the rest of the Republican crazies without any of the scrutiny of his CFR background. Is even being tauted on MSNBC. And can get all of the pact money he neeeds from China or the rest of the worldwide NWO cabal- whenever they get ready too upset with Pauls growing popularity against the uninspiring Romney.
This is the rope a dope, good moderatre cop/bad moderate cop routine.
First, they force Romney to tap out his resources against the non-comps. Then they roll out Huntsmen- as the partys more practical and electable contender.
The "delay factor" is critical and I'll explain why, later.

Actually, when you think about it Huntsmen could pose himself as a factor to Dem voters as Obama's doppleganger as well. Think about it. Then file it in the political "Ahead of the Learning Curves" cabinet.
=================

For now, it's all Ron Paul.
How can he lose, when he has the Chairman of the Board working his corner, ...direct from the "spirit" world.

Have you heard the version of "New York, New York" with the Ron Paul lyric revision. It's Absolutely Priceless!!!

You can't expect to go to war or rally new troops, without a theme song that can motivate. This "classic" spans generations with feelings of pride, and calm- yet stoic, "can do" attitude.

The man doesn't have to spend another dimeon advertising. All he has to do, is have the music playing in the background, every time he gets airtime.

It's infectious, contagious and so inspiring. It's the music of champions. If you don't believe so, just ask the Yankees, Rangers, Giants...

Go Ron Paul.
It's up to you, Ron Paul, ...Ron Paaaul."

My hat is off for those great souls that voted with all conviction for Buddy Roemer. My only wish is that there were many, many more who took his pleas and solutions more seriously.

John, Romney already has the blessings of Bush Senior and the Republican establishment.

Newt, Perry, etc. genuflected at Trumps alter. Trump is not the king maker like Daddy Bush.

John Kerry was the one shoved down the Democrats throats just like Romney is with the Republicans.

We all remember ( anybody but Bush ) in 2004 and Bush narrowly won.

Now we hear anyone but Obama and he has a slime chance of repeating.

I still believe Obama will be beat.

I cannot find Old Blue Eyes singing about Ron Paul, but I did find this girl.

lol

Go Giants!!!

Exercise for me is about having a good time. Zumba allows me to have alot of fun and its a great workout too!

Your page is the greatest I have seen for a long time!

Your article is the greatest I have seen for a long time!

Wammy, am I ever ecstatic I arrived to your website. Wicked details!

This is my second time to your page, I love it every time!

This is my second time to your blog, I love it every time!

I am going to try this sometime soon!

I am going to try this sometime soon!

Excellent post.. I had to look it twice to understand it all though, haha!

Your website is the best I have seen for a long time!

Caspian: Nobody supports Romney with any amount of vim and vigor. No amount of Money can buy away Romney's track record or correct his ever morphing "persona of the day" wooden "above it all" personality.

Republicans are just painting themselves into a very narrow box trying to exemplify their creation and "vulture" capitalism.

Do you recall the posts left here that cursed the Texas board of educations re-education model that has been adopted by at least 12 other states as their ciriculum?
"Thomas Jefferson" defender of the rights of the individual removed from our history books.
"American capitalism" which was based upon a corrective cyclical economy that generated our middle class, erased... for that sinaster tool of unmitigated selfishness my first me only "free enterprisers" that Romney tauts as "his right" by law to inflict w/o a single care in the world. In fact, the man says he is proud of it and its been documented and gone viral.
That my good friend is a chink in the Romney armor and this NWO re-education process that any "capitalist" worth their salt, could easily drive a truck through.
Republicans have told these candidates to back off of Romney because of the attention and notoriety this has caused.
Free Enterprise totally undermines the more balanced rewards and social contributions, attached to "American capitalism", which attached to the core of its motivations a private industry that had a step ladder for all workers to rise above their living standard by working as a team toward a common goal. Where business owner and loyal worker merged could merge assets and skills together to build as family products and services that they could share pride.
Free Enterprisers sets forth the notion of every man for himself, everyone else is your enemy, greed is good aspects as the pinnacle of aspiration.
Free enterprisers have conversely given us "outsourcing", "off-shore tax havens","downsizing", "deregulation", and "greed on steriods" without any concern or regard for the affect of what this vulture has on others.
It was the shadow practioners and the druid financiers behind the notion of this so called "free" enterprising gave the impression that "free" trade agreements were fair and and gave free enterprising ponzi schemes so long as they were profitable the "legal" cover to demolish our nations mores. Hmmmmmmmm!

Free for whom?
Free for the "NWO globalists" "sell-outs", "corporate raiders", and "profiteers"
Definitely not "free" nor "participitory" in the processes, to the American work force and those who played by the rules and fairer practices of good old American capitalism.

LIGHTNING QUIZ
Haven't you observed that...
The free enterpriser or job creators moniker is the same wink, wink blank check "badge of blanket immunity" to all those given the title?
Phil Gramm- "DEREGULATION", off shore tax evasion scandals,
Zuckerberg- FACEBOOK- the state of the art surveillance tool that obliterates privacy.

We've already been conditioned to dismiss allegations despite any preponderance of evidence whenever we hear or see or the words "free enterpriser".

Beware! This is exactly what Aaron Russo warned about.

Beware of ..."the Romney-bot".
Max Headroom and his "free enterprisers-are alive and erasing the very foundations and balances of American capitalism.

GINGRICH MUST BE P.O.-ed AT NWO'S GLOBALISTS FOR TELLING HIM TO BACK-OFF ON THE SO-CALLED "FREE ENTERPRISING" VULTURE CAPITALIST.

"If you are going to defeat Barack Obama, you are only going to defeat him with a conservative," he said.

Gingrich did not mention Romney by name at his first stop but did so at a later event in South Carolina, which holds a primary on January 21 and will be the next battleground in the Republican race.

He also did not directly attack Romney's work for private equity fund Bain Capital, which critics say plundered companies and slashed jobs, including some in South Carolina. A political action committee that backs Gingrich plans to spend at least $3.4 million in the state raising that issue.

But Gingrich told reporters Romney's work at the company was fair game for criticism and rejected Republicans who have urged the candidates to back off the attacks.

---> "If you are going to run a presidential campaign based on a record, the record has to be open to review.
---?This is not anti-capitalism, that is the smokescreen of those who are afraid to be accountable," he said.

--->Later, he told CNN: "It's not about capitalism, it's not about free enterprise.

--->It's about values, character and judgment."

Hmmmmmmmm! That just happens to be very timely support and verification of the truth behind the scenes Mr Gingrich, thank you. JUST LIKE IT WAS STATED EARLIER, IN THE PREVIOUS POST.

Well,this post is benefit for my work,I have to use it.I believe there will be a very good effect,thank you for your idea!

Caspian: Nobody supports Romney with any amount of vim and vigor. No amount of Money can buy away Romney's track record or correct his ever morphing "persona of the day" wooden "above it all" personality.
John

======

I agree with you but it does not matter to the people ( In The Know ).

Obama is in the Wall Street pockets and THEY do not care if Obama comes in again.

It is a win win with Wall Street and that is why Ron Paul will NEVER EVER be the Republican nominee.

"It is a win win with Wall Street and that is why Ron Paul will NEVER EVER be the Republican nominee." - Caspian

Personally I am not as cynical. I believe the underlying process of our democracy is still in tact. I believe IF a viable choice like Ron Paul is presented to us, we can unite as one people and choose who WE want. In the case of Ron Paul and other viable candidates, it is ONLY when we are swayed by the BIAS and controlled Media, do we decide differently.

Wasn't it strange how the Media bites on charges of Racism out of nowhere, the minute Paul starts to look electable? That causes those on the fence to rethink and change their choice.

It seems to me whenever MSM uses serious but in this case baseless accusations such as Racism. That is tact used to sway public opinion away from what the establishment wants. Don’t be swayed by the Media. Judge the truth for yourselves as directly and honestly as you can. I don’t just mean that for Ron Paul. I mean that for the Tea Party, the OWS and other candidates and public figures.

Don’t be swayed by the Media. Judge the truth for yourselves as directly and honestly as you can. I don’t just mean that for Ron Paul. I mean that for the Tea Party, the OWS and other candidates and public figures. MG

==========

There is not that much difference between the Obama corporate Democrats and the Romney corporate Republicans.

The phony Tea Party governor of South Carolina already endorsed Romney.

This proves too me that the Tea Bags in power will never nominate a true conservative like Ron Paul.

I already voted for Paul in the Republican primary in 2008 and will do so again.(Maybe?)

Marco Rubio will give Romney cover with the so called real tea bag conservatives as VP.

The game is fixed in Washington DC and Obama proved that on day one when he hand picked "ALL Corporate Hacks" in his cabinet.

When he puts Max Baucus and Kent Conrad picked by Harry Reid, all in bed with lobbyist to write the legislation.

For 8 years most Americans who voted for Obama thought only Bush Republicans allowed lobbyist to write the legislation.

That is why I voted for Ralph Nader and not Obama.

The only thing that gave me a little hope about Obama was he broke the all time record for individual average American donors.

"This proves too me that the Tea Bags in power will never nominate a true conservative like Ron Paul." Caspian

Often our discussions are about classes, middle-class verses the rich. There are other types of classes that may not be as apparent. The ruling class verses the people. The Tea Party like OWs came from and belong to the people. Ron Paul is a rare candidate these days, one that resides in the ruling class but is a voice of the people. Ron Paul supports the Tea Party and supports the people. When Obama and Pelosi support OWS that does not make them the same as OWS.They are still the ruling class. The same is true with many Tea Party candidates, they are not often the same as the Tea party.

"I already voted for Paul in the Republican primary in 2008 and will do so again.(Maybe?)"

"That is why I voted for Ralph Nader and not Obama." - Caspian

So Caspain what do you gonna do? Whine about the fact you never are dealt the Ron Paul or Nadar Straight Flush, throw in your cards and go home a sure loser or are you going to play the hand that is dealt you? I believe Romney is a much better hand then Obama. Even, though we will not be a big winner in the game I believe it will be better overall for the country then it is now, lobbyists or no lobbyists there are other considerations.

I believe Romney is a much better hand then Obama. MG

=============

Mike, you are part of the problem and not the solution by voting for the lesser of two evils.

Obama,Reid and Pelosi sold out the liberals just like the Senator from South Carolina is selling out the Tea Bags.

Jim DeMint is a phony Tea Party leader because he just endorsed Romney in South Carolina, as will Michele Bachmann eventually.

Obama and Pelosi are corporate hack Democrats proven by the policies they implemented.

Obama and Pelosi already proved it by continuing most of Bush/Cheney with a Democratic House and Senate.

Obama's health care was one and the same as Bush/Cheney senior citizen prescription drug passage.

All Seniors and all Americans are still paying the highest prices for medicines.

Obama and Pelosi despise the OWS and only give it lip service, proven by taking Billions from Wall Street and implementing Dodd/Frank which Wall Street approved BTW.

Do you really think President Romney will put Glass/Steagall back in place so the banks cannot steal again? LOL

The system is rigged against the middle class, working poor, and indigent Americans.

Take your own advice and stop believing the lies and half truths in the corporate rightwing media and corporate mainstream media.

P.S. The stage is set for Jeb Bush in 2016!!!

------------------------------

The Constitution 101:

In the Federalist Papers it said: We were not going to have a monarchy, and we were not going to have a democracy. $$$$$$$

And to this day we have neither. For two hundred years we have had an oligarchical system in which men of property can do well (Dumbya Bush), and others are on their own. $$$$$$$

American politics is essentially a family affair, as are most oligarchies. When the father of the Constitution, James Madison, was asked how on earth any business could get done in Congress when the country contained 100 million people whose representatives would number half a thousand, Madison took the line that oligarchy's iron law always obtains: A few people invariably run the show; and keep it, if they can, in the family.$$$$$$$

Our founding fathers had such a fear and loathing of democracy that they invented the Electoral College so that the popular voice of the people could be throttled, much as the Supreme Court throttled the Floridians on December 12, 2000. $$$$$$$

We were to be neither a democracy, subject to majoritarian tyranny, nor a dictatorship, subject to Caesarean folly. $$$$$$$

As American media is controlled by that corporate America which provides us with political candidates a well-informed electorate is not possible. $$$$$$$

"Mike, you are part of the problem and not the solution by voting for the lesser of two evils." -Caspian

Caspian, I understand exactly why it is you think that way. It is because for everything that matters to you, there is not much difference between Obama / Obama administration and Romney. So you have no problem going for the Gold and if you lose, then it makes very little difference to you if Obama is in for another 4 years.

So I would vote for Paul in the Primary because he is the real deal. However, in the general, I would vote for the lessor of two evils (Romney) and not some third party. Because for me, in this election, the lessor of two evils is a lot less overall then allowing the greater of the two evils to remain in office.

"P.S. The stage is set for Jeb Bush in 2016!!! " -Caspian

The stage may be set but nobody will come to the show. I guarantee whether good or bad, Jeb Bush will not get in. The American people has had enough Bush family presidents to last a lifetime!

The Madness of Ron Paul:

I believe that Texas Congressman Ron Paul and his followers have good intentions. However, as any conservative can attest, having good intentions does not exempt a person from the consequences of his actions or views. Given that, by diverting and dividing the right at a time when we can ill afford to be distracted, the extremist views held by Paul and his merry band of libertarian Bolsheviks are very dangerous. Libertarianism is an important strand of conservative thought, and to have its principal representative at a moment such as this be as extreme a figure as Representative Paul is, in truth, destructive to the ideals that he claims to hold dear.

This is not to deplore the libertarian creed in its entirety. On the contrary, almost all examples of government intervention in both public and private life have results that fall somewhere between unproductive and destructive. However, on a practical level, anyone with any long-term exposure to human beings ought to understand that a fully libertarian society is as impossible as a fully communist one. To wit, if everyone were willing to intelligently pursue his self-interest (or, indeed, were capable of doing it), then we could have a fully libertarian society. If everyone were willing to set aside self-interest in the name of the common good, then we could have a communist society. Since neither is possible, we can have neither.

This is where Paul and his followers go astray. On one issue after another, they take wholly unrealistic positions rooted in an ideologically perfected and entirely imaginary alternative to reality and then assail any who disagree with them as being in opposition to human liberty, the Constitution, and all of the other fine things that they claim to be upholding.

Consider the matter of drug legalization. Most libertarians believe that individuals have a right to put whatever they want into their own bodies provided that they do not harm others in the process. Therefore, they would favor the legalization of most (or all) presently illegal drugs. This would be a perfectly defensible position except for the obvious fact that one of the primary reasons why many drugs are illegal is because their prolonged usage places people into a state of desiccated decrepitude that renders them utterly unfit to support themselves. Without first seeing to it that the mechanisms by which money would then be extracted from the general public to pay for such individuals are abolished, the libertarian position could, in practice, result in an increase in the size of government.

Still, that does not mean that there is no place for libertarian views in public discourse. Truly, there are too many federal laws and too many unjustified intrusions by the government into private life. By creating a culture of self-reliance, we can, step by step, transition into a more libertarian society. Perhaps we could call this strain of thought "democratic libertarianism," or something like that. Congressman Paul, however, seems to be disinterested in such practical matters. In fact, although he and his followers self-identify as libertarians, the fact is that the issues that he seems to care most deeply about are far removed from the main currents of libertarian thought and are instead deeply tied to two of the worst ideas to ever pollute American public life.

Consider, for example, the matter of the Federal Reserve in particular and modern central banking more generally. Believing, admittedly with some justice, that central banks are an example of unjustified government intervention in the economy, Paul and his supporters wish to abolish the Federal Reserve, end fiat currency, and return to the gold standard. Indeed, here Paul has managed to revive one of the oldest debates in American political life -- one that defined careers as diverse as those of William Jennings Bryan, William McKinley, Grover Cleveland, Andrew Jackson, and Alexander Hamilton. Distrust of a national bank is a tradition that extends as far back as to the days of Thomas Jefferson and helped General Jackson wrest control of the White House from John Quincy Adams in 1828. That this debate spans centuries does not, however, change the fact that Paul's position on the issue is dangerously disconnected from corporeal reality.

The primary virtue of the Federal Reserve and its printing presses is its flexibility. By maintaining control of the money supply, the Fed is able to exercise broad control over the direction of the economy. Lower interest rates can help to spur business activity during a downturn, and higher ones can be used to help reduce inflation. Additionally, as we have seen during the recent crisis, the Fed also has a number of ways in which it might directly inject liquidity into the economy or serve as a lender of last resort in an emergency. Obviously this gives the Fed immense power over the economy, and certainly that power has been, is being, and will continue to be abused from time to time. However, that does not change the fact that these powers are vitally necessary.

Compare the economic performance of the United States before and after the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Throughout the 19th century, the country -- as was much of the world in the era before the establishment of modern central banking -- was subject to much more frequent and sharp economic downturns than we have seen in our lifetimes. Much of this can be attributed to the lack of an institution to play the role that the Federal Reserve presently holds as a backstop to the rest of the system. It was just a feature of life in the 19th century that periodic cascading panics would bring much of the economy to a halt.

Let us suppose for a moment that, by some strange alchemy, Paul or someone like him were to gain the power to actually abolish the Federal Reserve (more on that in a moment). What do you think would happen next? We have to turn only to our history books to make an educated guess. In 1836 President Jackson, who distrusted the Second Bank of the United States because he believed that the existence of a national bank was injurious to individual liberty, managed to prevent that bank's charter from being renewed. The result was a series of bank failures and a recession that lasted for most of the decade that followed.

Now, one may very well argue that the panics and recessions of the 19th century were simply the ordinary operations of a free and unfettered market and that any true capitalist ought to welcome such periodic turmoil as simply another example of the sort of creative destruction to be allowed in any free society. However, would the electorate tolerate such a state of affairs?

The Founders instituted a government made for men, not for philosophical constructs. Whether or not a system such as that advocated by Paul and his followers might be more ideologically pure is totally irrelevant in view of the impossibility of its acceptance by the actual public. Thus the characterization of Paul and his followers as "Bolsheviks": it is frankly hard to conceive of how they would ever enact or maintain any of their policies by any means other than dictatorship.

Similarly, on foreign policy, the position that Congressman Paul holds is actually a very old one. While his lengthy paeans to the virtues of non-engagement have largely found an audience among those weary after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Paul is less the heir of the 1960s peace protesters and more the inheritor of an older and more disreputable strain of antiwar activism akin to that of those in the "America First" movement. These are the people who opposed the entry of the United States into the Second World War and who, before that, kept the United States out of the Great War for two and a half years as much of Western civilization engaged in an act of collective murder-suicide upon the battlefields of Europe.

In other words, the American people have taken the counsel of Paul and his ilk before, and each time, it has had disastrous consequences for the world. Had the United States been actively engaged in world affairs throughout the whole span of the 20th century, both world wars might have been avoided -- or, at least, they might have seen both their magnitude and duration reduced. In either case, millions of lives would have been saved. It was only when the lessons of the first two world wars were fully absorbed by the American people that the United States made the decision to remain permanently engaged in world affairs -- and thus, admittedly at a cost of nearly 100,000 American lives, did we not see a Third World War during the 20th century.

The time has come for a libertarian voice to make itself heard on national affairs. Ron Paul, however, does not represent that cause. He is little more than a cranky old man espousing failed ideas that were obsolescent even when he was born. Paul's supporters would be better-served to take some time to contemplate the nature of free nations and free people. A culture of liberty is not something that can be created overnight, and allowing the "zap, you're free!" vision of liberty espoused by most of Paul's supporters to define what libertarianism is can only be destructive to the cause.

"The Madness of Ron Paul:"

"However, on a practical level, anyone with any long-term exposure to human beings ought to understand that a fully libertarian society is as impossible as a fully communist one."

The "Americanthinker" never thought this one through. A Ron Paul presidency would NOT result in a fully libertarian society but rather would add a serious "peoples voice" to an overwhelming Democrat progressive and Republican establishment presence. The net result would be limited government that is "by the people and for the people"

Well at least they did not call him a Racist in trying to push their agenda.

The "Americanthinker" never thought this one through

No Mike, I believe they thought this through quite well. A Ron Paul Presidency would leave us defenseless and chum in the face of our enemies. If it ever came down to the two of them, as much as I loathe the Barack Obama agenda and all he stands for, I'd prefer Barack's weak and pitiful foreign policy to a completely non existent one which is what Paul says he stands for....and he says it over and over again.

Caspian, I understand exactly why it is you think that way. It is because for everything that matters to you, there is not much difference between Obama / Obama administration and Romney. MG

====

Maybe So?

Maybe Not?

Lincoln freed the slaves.

FDR saved us from the big banks and out of the great depression.

Eisenhower build our infrastructure and warned us about the corruption in the Pentagon.

Johnson gave civil rights for Blacks.

These four did more for America than all the others combined.

10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free
By Jonathan Turley/ January 13, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/7w3x5yk
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
1. Assassination of U.S. citizens 2. Indefinite detention 3. Arbitrary justice 4. Warrantless searches 5. Secret evidence 6. War crimes 7. Secret court 8. Immunity from judicial review 9. Continual monitoring of citizens 10. Extraordinary renditions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_print.html

"I'd prefer Barack's weak and pitiful foreign policy to a completely non existent one which is what Paul says he stands for....and he says it over and over again." = Bill

Bill, Paul served in the military Obama did not. Paul voted to go after Al Qaeda and invade Afghanistan which was a legitimate War. Both he and Obama were against sending troops into IRAQ which with no WMD's and leaving no stable government against IRAN, turned out IMO, to be a significant mistake.

So Paul was right in both cases. He is also right to want congress to decide when to go to War and right when he says a lot of our foreign conflicts are not making us any safer. I do however, disagree with him totally on his assessment of IRAN's motive behind going nuclear. I believe he is wrong about that, we cannot have a Nuclear IRAN. Yet, if Congress declared War, Paul would consider it legitimate, which is the way it should be. So if we listened to Paul from the beginning and never went into IRAQ we would probably be better prepared and able to stop IRAN now. Besides Al Qaeda, IRAN was always the biggest threat.

"These four did more for America than all the others combined." Caspian

LOL..Caspian this proves to me your expectations are way to high. Neither Romney, Obama or anyone else running are going to prevent Americans from experiencing economic hardship or set any of us free.

I would settle for a do nothing president because "do nothing" is better then continuing to do things and make decisions that are bad for the American people.

Mike G.

I have come to realize that working within the two party system is futile.

Voting for the lesser of two evils are still evil.

The leaders of the Tea Party in South Carolina already sold you out by endorsing Romney.

Senator DeMint and Governor Nikki Haley proved that too me.

Most liberals know Obama,Reid, and Pelosi sold us out.

"I do however, disagree with him totally on his assessment of IRAN's motive behind going nuclear. I believe he is wrong about that, we cannot have a Nuclear IRAN."

Right! A typical mistake like that America and its allies could never tolerate from a sitting president. Paul telegraphs a fear of war that would motivate all the closet crazies into open season on the USA......of this, I have no doubt. His base is made up of self made pacifists from both parties and independents. Whatever Paul is saying about the rest of his agenda is secondary to most of these people, especially the young.

Caspian, don't give up because the GIANTS WIN!!!!.. beating the best team in football! Did I watch the game thinking "woe is me, we don't have a chance, the ref's are against us, the effort is futile?"

No my friend, I believed it was possible. You have to start to believe. In the beginning the Giants were the "lessor" of the two NY teams, then they became the greater and when we got behind them, they became winners. Now they have a chance to win it all!

Don't you want to be a winner? If you do, changing a losing hand is a start.

The Giants played a great game and deserved to win.

I'm rooting for them.

The 8 years of Bush/Cheney and now 3 plus years of Obama only benefited the wealthy few who own most of Congress.

AND THE WINNER IS???

Wall Street and not main street.

lol

"The 8 years of Bush/Cheney and now 3 plus years of Obama only benefited the wealthy few who own most of Congress." - Caspian

Caspian, I challenge you to ask yourself this one question. Is life in this country really that bad for you that you have not realized any benefit? Perhaps, you are just comparing yourself to the so very few that have it all or perhaps you are really truly suffering.

There is no doubt for everyone that is struggling we can and should do better and for everyone that is suffering we MUST do better. Still I wonder how much of this point of view of yours is real and how much of it is just wanting more?

Is life in this country really that bad for you that you have not realized any benefit? MG

---------------

Personally for me I'm doing fine.

But, but, but, the system is rigged against the middle class, working poor and indigent Americans.

This is a fact that should not be in America.

Trillions of taxpayer funds for Wall Street and Wars, and nothing for main street.

The Bush tax cuts in a time of two wars and after September 11, 2001 were shameful, disgraceful, and morally wrong.

---------------

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller

The Martin Luther King You Don't See on TV
It's become a TV ritual: Every year in mid-January, around the time of Martin Luther King's birthday, we get perfunctory network news reports about "the slain civil rights leader." http://tinyurl.com/2wy5du

The remarkable thing about this annual review of King's life is that several years — his last years — are totally missing, as if flushed down a memory hole.

What TV viewers see is a closed loop of familiar file footage: King battling desegregation in Birmingham (1963); reciting his dream of racial harmony at the rally in Washington (1963); marching for voting rights in Selma, Alabama (1965); and finally, lying dead on the motel balcony in Memphis (1968).

An alert viewer might notice that the chronology jumps from 1965 to 1968. Yet King didn't take a sabbatical near the end of his life. In fact, he was speaking and organizing as diligently as ever.

Almost all of those speeches were filmed or taped. But they're not shown today on TV.

Why?

It's because national news media have never come to terms with what Martin Luther King Jr. stood for during his final years. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2269

Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam

Delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
April 4, 1967 / http://tinyurl.com/3fxtop

At Manhattan’s Riverside Church
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say. Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people, they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate, leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/04/8096/

How Obama Betrays Martin Luther's King's Dream:

January 16, 2012

President Obama has mocked Martin Luther King by policies and actions that judge people by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character.

Martin Luther King, Junior's "I Have A Dream Speech" was one of his more eloquent and moving speeches. His words have resonated with all Americans for the past five decades and will do so for many decades to come. Among his dreams was an America where his four children would be judged not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"

Of course, he was not just referring to his own children or to children at all. He meant to heighten the disgrace of racism by picturing innocent children as the victims. What he truly meant -- as was made clear during the rest of his oration -- was that his dream was that all people would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

The man who campaigned on the theme that there was no "white America" or "black America" has used his powers as President to practice identity politics on a scale never before seen in America. Barack Obama has overtly chosen top officials on the basis of their skin color and not on the content of their character. Moreover, he has enacted policies that overtly favor "people of color" over "people of pallor" regardless of the merits of the individuals impacted by his programs.

What were we expecting from a man whose moral compass was the race-baiting Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose views of white people and America would have repulsed Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Has Barack Obama chosen the best people to run America -- has he picked people in a color-blind way who would do best in helping all Americans or has he used a color filter to discriminate among candidates for office?

He chose Eric Holder to be our Attorney General, despite a controversial background involving the granting of a pardon by Bill Clinton to the ex-husband of a wealthy donor. Holder became America's first black Attorney General. The past three years have seen the Department of Justice tarnished by the Fast and Furious Scandal, incompetency involving whether to try terror suspect in civilian trials in New York City, the Department's refusal to pursue a "lay-up" case involving violent voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, and the transformation of the Civil Rights Division into a battering ram against businesses and banks on behalf of minorities.

Perhaps the latter dereliction of duty should not surprise us considering that Holder has amply displayed his own true feelings regarding America and how white people treat black people. He has called us a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussions of race, has characterized criticism of Obama and himself as being a manifestation of racism since "we're both African-Americans" and carries in his wallet a card containing language that Holder says represents his views that "there's a common cause that bonds the black United States attorney with the black criminal." Was that a Never go To Jail Card for the New Black Panther Party members?

Holder's record as Attorney General has been so disgraceful that a growing list of 60 Congressmen, two Senators, GOP presidential candidates and at least two sitting governors have called for his resignation. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer has called him one of the most incompetent attorney generals in American history.

Yet Obama chose him and continues to support him despite a record of failure. Is Holder serving all the American people? Is there truly no one in the vast ranks of attorneys who could serve in that role? Does Obama care about the content of Holder's character or the color of his skin?

But this is par for the course for Barack Obama.

He appointed Van Jones to be his Special Advisor for Green Jobs. Jones had a record that came to light after he assumed office that was filled with bigotry towards whites (he accused white polluters of steering poison into the people-of-color community), radicalism, flirtation with communism, and conspiracy theories regarding George Bush and 9/11. According to Valerie Jarrett, Obama's right-hand woman, they knew all about Van Jones and had been following his career for years.

Van Jones was compelled to resign when the rest of America found out about Van Jones, courtesy of Glenn Beck.

Was he chosen for the content of his character or for the color of his skin?

Lisa Jackson was chosen by Obama to be the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Since assuming office she has been reckless in her war on carbon and in the wake is leaving job losses, slow growth and an uncertain electric energy supply. She has been accused of exceeding the bounds of her regulatory authority to such an extent that businesses are paralyzed by uncertainty-unsure of what she will unleash next. She is blithely unconcerned that Congressmen have taken her to task for performance.

Was she chosen for the color of her skin or the content of her character?

Susan Rice, America's Ambassador to the United Nations, has kowtowed to dictators, promised that America's joining the disgraceful UN Human Rights Council would lead to its reform and the end of its incessant America and Israel-bashing (it hasn't; there was a reason George W. Bush boycotted the council), has missed important meetings and votes, and has heartily criticized our ally, Israel, at that forum of hate. She has been, according to a former spokesman for four previous U.S. Ambassadors at the UN, wildly inattentive at the United Nations because she has been devoting time to the social scene of Washington and the White House.

Was she chosen for the content of her character or the color of her skin?

Then there is Mark Lloyd, the Chief Diversity Officer, a newly created position at the Federal Communications Commission. What are Lloyd's qualifications? He has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to "step down" in favor of minorities. He also spoke of the limited number of these powerful positions and then expounded,

"... unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power". He added, for good measure, "there are few things, I think, more frightening in the American mind that dark-skinned black men. Here I am ..."

Job requirement: Character or skin color?



Most recently, Obama chose Cecilia Munoz to be in charge of his Domestic Policy Council. For the past two decades, Munoz has served as the chief lobbyist for the National Council of La Raza ("The Race") and has devoted herself to promoting its agenda of in-state college tuition breaks and drivers' licenses for illegal aliens as well as opposing enforcement of immigration laws and border controls. Obama put in charge of formulating his domestic policy someone who advocated that our laws not be enforced.

Clearly the appointment was well-timed to garner support from Hispanics in key battleground states. This ability to gin up support among Hispanics may also be a factor that led Obama to pick Hilda Solis as his Secretary of Labor (despite a tax scandal involving her husband's failure to pay tax liens)

Was they chosen for the content of her character or for the color of their skin?

Lest we forget Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor. While she attended prestigious schools (like Obama) she was not considered among the top stars of her law school class at Yale . She had a less than stellar record compared to her fellow justices but as a self-characterized "wise Latina" she believed she could often reach a better conclusion than a white male regardless of academic or scholarly skills. When Obama went looking for a Supreme Court Justice is was so obvious that he had a very narrow filter of who would "qualify" that Time's Mark Halperin wrote that "White Men Need Not Apply."

Obama seems inclined to make his choices for judges based on skin color. This came back to bite him recently. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary delivered very harsh verdicts on Obama's federal judicial nominees (rejecting them as unqualified at triple the rate of both George Bush and Bill Clinton's nominees). Fourteen nominees were rated as unqualified to serve as federal judges. Thirteen of them were women, Hispanics or African-Americans. The ABA is famously liberal; clearly Obama was not picking nominees based on merit.

Barack Obama seems to be running a one-man affirmative action program. While all administrations have tried to showcase minorities Obama's seems to have gone to the extreme. George Bush had leading figures such as Colin Powell and Condi Rice. However, they had stellar backgrounds and records that fully justified the faith President Bush placed in them when he asked them to serve their nation. While Bush had problems with his pick for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, they certainly have not risen to the scandals that have plagued Eric Holder's reign. Did Bush have a Van Jones or Harold Lloyd? Did he have a person in charge of formulating his domestic policy that advocated laws regarding illegal immigration not be enforced? Are Americans being well-served by these officials that Obama has chosen to give vast power?

Barack Obama campaigned on theme that there is not a "white America" or a "black America".

President Obama is not practicing what Senator Obama preached. Instead of channeling the heroic Martin Luther King's dream that people be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin President Obama instead seems to be channeling the views of his moral compass, Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

"But, but, but, the system is rigged against the middle class, working poor and indigent Americans." Caspian

Yes there are those that struggle more then others and unfortunately that always was and always will be the case. But the REALITY is that even in a rigged system those who struggle in this country are still better off then the majority of the rest of the world both statistically and logically. Otherwise, why would anyone want to come here illegally to work for peanuts?

And as for your poem, in order to be considered true, you have to answer some important questions:

1) Who are "they"?
2) Are "they" really coming?
3) Is it reality that the Socialist, Trade Union and Jews are somehow being treated more unfairly in this country then the rest us?

As a nation we MUST strive to do better and fight against injustice but that perfect government, perfect society, does not and never will exist because we are not perfect.
Keep your eye on the real prize....

"For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me."
Mark 14:7

"How Obama Betrays Martin Luther's King's Dream:"

Okay I have nothing against the "americanthinker" but in one article they put down Ron Paul for being a pacifist and in another they put down Obama for betraying MLK's dream. Do they really support MLK or are they just using it to put down Obama politically?

On MLK day here is something from MLK that the americanthinker would never think of printing:

"Prior to reading Gandhi, I had about concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationships. The "turn the other cheek" philosophy and the "love your enemies" philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict, a more realistic approach seemed necessary. But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was.

Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective transformation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking."

Dr. Martin Luther King

And as for your poem, in order to be considered true, you have to answer some important questions:

1) Who are "they"?
2) Are "they" really coming?
MG

=================

1. They were the Third Reich which wasn't that long ago.

2. They are already here stealing pensions, home foreclosures, gutting Social Security and Medicare, downsizing jobs, outsourcing jobs, corporate welfare, government subsidies, tax cuts for the wealthy,and the Billions and Billions of waste and fraud inside the Pentagon, etc. etc. etc.

P.S. Mike G. the wealthiest won the war a long time ago and most Americans do not realize it yet.

==============================

Union Sundown
Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore,
My flashlight's from Taiwan,
My tablecloth's from Malaysia,
My belt buckle's from the Amazon.
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet,
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy makin' thirty cents a day.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan.
Well, the dog collar's from India
And the flower pot's from Pakistan.
All the furniture, it says "Made in Brazil"
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringin' home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve,
You know, that's a lot of money to her.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, you know, lots of people complainin' that there is no work.
I say, "Why you say that for
When nothin' you got is U.S.-made?"
They don't make nothin' here no more,
You know, capitalism is above the law.
It say, "It don't count 'less it sells."
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, the job that you used to have,
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador.
The unions are big business, friend,
And they're goin' out like a dinosaur.
They used to grow food in Kansas
Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw.
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Democracy don't rule the world,
You'd better get that in your head.
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid.
From Broadway to the Milky Way,
That's a lot of territory indeed
And a man's gonna do what he has to do
When he's got a hungry mouth to feed.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Copyright ©1983
http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/union-sundown

"P.S. Mike G. the wealthiest won the war a long time ago and most Americans do not realize it yet."

Maybe most Americans don't realize it because most Americans are not effected by it. This is completely unlike the horrible nature of the third Reich which caused true OPPRESSION for the majority and terrible unheard of suffering for the minority. The third Reich never existed in this country and the majority would know if it was here.

What you state has to do with fairness, justice, mutual sacrifice and good government leadership. Which can and should be improved. But War is destruction not improvement. If you think of it as War, where we are battling the wealthy, its no wonder you feel we lost because we can never match their resources. It is fortunate for our country we are not at War with the rich, nor are we being oppressed by them. They need us and we need them and united we are a strong nation. Class warfare however, divides us, destroys us and does nothing to make our situation better.

I think the great MLK would agree?

Paul Fights Washington Spending, Flies First Class:

Monday, January 16, 2012

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been spending large amounts on airfare as a congressman, flying first class on dozens of taxpayer-funded flights to his home state. The practice conflicts with the image that Paul portrays as the only presidential candidate serious about cutting federal spending.

His congressional staff says Paul chose not to buy the cheaper economy tickets at a fraction of the price because they aren't refundable or as flexible for scheduling.

An AP review of Paul's congressional expenses and average airfares found that Paul charged taxpayers nearly $52,000 on the more expensive tickets, or $27,621 more than the average Continental airfare for the flights between Washington and Houston.

Paul portrays himself as the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race.

"Do they really support MLK or are they just using it to put down Obama politically?"




MLK:
"I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day."


With Obama's agenda of class warfare as a pathetic means for his re-election bid, the author's point in this article seems to be right on the mark. Mind you, we've come a long way
from the 1960s.

Maybe there is a issue with the CSS here? I can't read anything here without highlighting it with the mouse, due to the fact it's all white. I'm using Mozilla Firefox if it helps.

MikeG: re: your post to Caspian.

"What you state has to do with fairness, justice, mutual sacrifice and good government leadership. Which can and should be improved. ---> But War is destruction not improvement. If you think of it as War, where we are battling the wealthy, its no wonder you feel we lost because we can never match their resources. It is fortunate for our country we are not at War with the rich, nor are we being oppressed by them. BUT, THEY ARE AT WAR WITH US!

THEY'VE BANKRUPTED OUR NATION, OVEREXTENDED THEIR OWN MARGINS OF CREDIT BOTH HERE AND ABROAD LEAVING US WITH THE DEFICIT AND THE ENTIRE BILL OF THEIR NON-REFUNDABLE WELFARE TAX HOLIDAY. THEY HAVE REPLACED A SOUND DOLLAR, WITH RAPIDLY DEVALUATING AND INFLATIONARY CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS. They need us, "ONLY" FOR THE TAX REVENUE THAT SUPPLYS THE MILITARY THAT PROTECTS THEIR FOREIGN INTERESTS, AND THE SUBSIDIZATIONS OF THE ALREADY POOR AND DISENFRANCHISED THAT THEY, THEMSELVES FIND AND DEPICT OVER THEIR MSM BULLHORNS AS "USELESS", "UNDESERVING", AND EASILY REPLACEABLE BY "OUTSOURCING". WHICH HAS BEEN "THE BARGAINING CHIP" TO THEIR LEVER TO RELEASE FOREIGN CREDIT.
THESE OTHER "SELECT" NATIONS, SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS, AND PRIVATE EQUITIES ARE GETTING STRONGER, WHILE OUR NATIONS PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN IDLED AND CASTIGATED, IN THIS PARASITICAL AYN RAND EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF "NWO" RACE TO THE BOTTOM. and we need them and united we are a strong nation. NO. WE NEED A NATIONAL TREASURY, A SOUND DOLLAR BACKED BY AMERICAN RESOURCES AND SUPPLY, AND A INDEPENDENT BANKING SYSTEM. THOSE CURRENTLY RUNNING THE SYSTEM FROM THE 1% ARE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN RUN A BUSINESS OR SET A RATIONAL FOREIGN AND TRADE POLICYS. Class warfare however, divides us, destroys us and does nothing to make our situation better. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.
IF WE HAVE A DEFICIT THEN IT SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE ENTITIES THAT CAUSED THE DEFICIT AND NOT BY THE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS, THE VICTIMS CAST ASIDE AS FINACIAL RED INK AS EXCESS BAGGAGE, AND OUR NATION WHILE GO ABOUT PLAYING THESE "GLOBALISM" PONZI SCHEMES WITH INSIDIOUS "TOO BIG TO FAILS" AND "FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS" THAT ARE PICKING OUR BONES DRY.
===========

If you think of it as War, where we are battling the wealthy, its no wonder you feel we lost because we can never match their resources. MG.

--------------

President Bill Clinton & Speaker Newt Gingrich allowed Wall Street to steal by terminating Glass/Steagall.

Bush & Cheney for 8 years did nothing about it until the bailout for Wall Street and not main street.

This too me is a war on the Middle Class, Working Poor, and Indigent Americans.

Glass/Steagall was implemented because of the crash of 1929.

Fiscal conservatives and F.D. Roosevelt were against government insuring private bank savings.

It only materialized because it was promoted by moderate Republicans like Arthur Vandenburg and Populist Democrats like Henry Steagall. ( Glass-Steagall.)

History repeats my friend.