Why I Support Ron Paul

First off let me say the elections in this country are a sham.

I do not mean to suggest that the United Nations monitor our election process, but according to our own measures of democratic elections abroad, we do not even come close to the standards we hold to other nations. There is plenty of reputable investigative journalism available (albeit, mainly outside the mainstream media) that not only proves that the 2000 election was hijacked, but also the 2004 election. If memory serves, "The Daily Mirror" ran a headline in 2004 that stated "How can 59 million people be so Dumb?". No doubt, Kerry ran a very poor campaign. One would almost think Kerry didn't want to win, running as Bush Lite – but I was still astonished by the outcome. I say astonished, because it truly was an incomprehensible and illogical result. Consider these facts:

1. Bush's approval ratings before the 2004 election among registered actual voters was at best estimates only 48 percent, yet somehow managed to get 51 percent of the vote. But these incumbents never made surges from their last horse race number:
1956 Eisenhower's final horse race projection 59.5%, his actual share of the vote 57.8%
1964 Johnson's final horse race projection 64%, his actual share of the vote 61.3%
1972 Nixon's final horse race projection tally 62%, his actual share of the vote 61.8%
1976 Ford's final horse race projection number 49%, his actual share of the vote 48.1%.
1980 Carter's final horse projection numer 44%, his actual share of the vote 41%.
1984 Reagan final horse race projection tally 59%, his actual share of the vote 59.2%.
1996 Clinton's final horse race number 52%, his actual share of the vote 49.2%

2. Over 122 million Americans voted in 2004, an increase of 17 million over the 2000 presidential election. Turnout jumped from 54 percent of eligible voters in 2000 to 61 percent in 2004. This was also a year where spontaneous protests cropped up in just about every urban center, and to my knowledge the only time a political party's convention also saw a strong, consolidated protest. The media did their best to ignore these inconvenient facts, but the truth is that Bush & Co. managed to upset a good number of Americans sufficiently to get them to travel to Washington D.C., and New York to voice their strong opposition to Bush's policies.

3. National exit polls projected Kerry at 51 percent and Bush at 48 percent, yet later the media widely reports such polls as being the most inaccurate of any election as well as a reluctancy among Republican voters to admit whom they voted for? Hmm…I have yet to meet any of those reluctant Republicans.

I could go on for pages, but to me it comes down to two simple questions. Why would voters show up in record numbers to reelect an unpopular incumbent president? And why would all the polls be so inaccurate in regard to one single election? I think the answer is all too obvious, and it is as simple as this: Bush stole the 2004 election. But lest I invite you to infer that Kerry would have been our savior, allow me to assuage such an inference. Kerry undoubtedly would have made little difference since he too would have furthered the neoliberal corporatist agenda.

Perhaps this is why half of the registered voters stay home? They see little point in voting, and I must say they are right. I believe that all eligible voters be registered to vote and required to vote in all elections, or otherwise face a fine or community service. Yet a vote of "no confidence" for any political office would be on all ballots. Should "no confidence" get a majority of votes, the election would be deemed suspended until a candidate inspire enough of the citizenry to claim a "mandate".

The Undivided States of America – we're not red and blue; we're purple


This is the "us" versus "them" map the media loves to show of the 2004 presidential election.


A more realistic depiction, yet one must also account for population centers.

I am a journeyman lithographer, and I can tell you that if you take 48 percent cyan (blue) and 51 percent magenta (red), you'll get purple. We are the purple people, folks! I use this illustration because I do not believe the myth of a divided nation that the media hypes. I have traveled across this nation on several occasions, and my experiential knowledge tells me another story. Call it anecdotal if you will, but I am more inclined to believe it. Most Americans are neither liberals nor conservatives. Most of us are centrists. Just as most of us are not bible-thumping proselytizers or raging atheists. Most of us are rather secular with some kind of nebulous religious affiliation. Yet most of us really want the same thing, and one thing that is a high priority is a protection of liberty and personal freedom. And not so surprisingly, most Americans are wary of career politicians and big government. What unites us is far more than what divides us. "E Pluribus Unum", "One out of Many". It's a good motto, and much more accurate than "In God We Trust", which belongs in a prayer book, not on our national currency. The sooner we get "god" out of government the better. Meanwhile, God in all his infinite glory can reside perpetually within his Universal Kingdom where no one can monopolize him.

Democrats I like, and why they don't stand a chance.

I like Kucinich and Gravel. Both of these men have proven records and stand on principled philosophies. Unfortunately, the DNC will ensure that neither one of them, or for that matter any true progressive, will ever stand a chance at winning their party's nomination. This is why I have reregistered as a Republican. I am tired of lending my support to candidates that cannot seem to rise to more than a mere couple of percentage points. The Democrats cannot sell their message to the people, because they have none. Now the Democratically controlled Congress actually has managed to fall below the Bush Administration in its approval ratings. And finally there are particular voters that actually get out to the polls on wedge issues that will always hurt the Democrats. Abortion and Guns are both non-issues in my mind, along with gay unions. I have an opinion on all three, but I don't think they are of such importance compared to the issues that really matter (see priorities). Ron Paul would actually cross that divide, whereas all the Democrats are guilty by association.

The Democratic Party has abandoned true progressive ideals.

Yes, the Republican Lite Party is owned and operated by the very same corporate interests. Whoda thunk it?

Third parties – Why bother?

Green Party? Reform Party? Constitutionalist Party? Libertarian Party? There is plenty of talent and good ideas, but the chances of winning a presidential bid in the present electoral system is about as likely as winning the state lottery two weeks in a row.

It's the primaries – tell the media to be quiet! (Or better yet, just stop listening)

We should be looking for the candidate that best represents our interests, not the candidate that the network news deems fit. Nor should you vote the "lesser of two evils" in order to "win". What are we "winning" anyway?

What are our priorities again?

I'd say, that number one is getting out of Iraq and just about everywhere else. Secondly is our economy and our monetary policy. Thirdly is rescinding all these horrible "free trade" agreements that have sent our jobs overseas where labor and environmental protections are not upheld. And finally, we should ensure that our government is truly representative of the people and make certain that our liberties are protected. Ron Paul gets an A on all of the above. Kucinich does almost as well, but he doesn't see a problem with our monetary policy (the Federal Reserve) and he supports the IRS and the Federal Income Tax. As long as those two things remain in place, there will be big, bureaucratic government and the military-industrial complex. Gravel does better, since he sees a connection between the IRS and a loss of sovereignty. No other candidates stand near these issues.

Growing autocratic nature of U.S. Government – Free Republic or Autocratic Empire? You decide.

This is the question of the century. Maybe even the next millennium!

Unifying messages and populist movements, and why they scare the bejesus out of the establishment.

See if the more support Ron Paul gets, the more the media will try and smear his character. Ask yourself why the corporate controlled media would do such a thing. I doubt the media will find much dirt on Paul, and he is smart enough to see them coming. So far, the worst anyone can come up with is guilt by association, since he received campaign contributions from some unsavory people. Apparently he also has some problems with the theory of evolution. Yet he is hardly alone. I don't see how any educated person can deny evolution as fact, but Paul doesn't actually go that far. I don't see why this should be reason not to vote for him. Maybe I wouldn't hire him as a science professor, but I have no doubt he can handle himself in the office he is running for.

Yeah, but can Ron Paul win?

Short answer: yes. He is a populist candidate, but he is smart enough to run as a candidate from one of our two major political parties. H. Ross Perot was the last populist candidate who ran independently in 1992. Even after dropping out of the race and later reentering, he was able to garner an unprecedented 19 percent of the popular vote. No third party candidate in recent times has rallied such a showing. I believe it was due to the populist nature of Perot's campaign, and had he not initially abandoned his bid for the presidency; I believe he likely would have actually stood a chance at winning a number of electoral votes, perhaps even upsetting Clinton's chances. Remember that we were in an economic recession at the time with an incumbent president who had upset many fiscal conservatives. I think that by the best estimates, 2008 will be a year of recession and stagflation. There is even a likelihood that our continued monetary policies will see another major devaluation of the dollar, in which case Americans will assuredly be open to a discussion of new economic policies. Such policies would undoubtedly include a major reduction in spending abroad. The only candidate besides Kucinich and Gravel who is against the continued occupation of Iraq, happens to be Ron Paul. His message is a unifying one that crosses all sorts of political ideologies, and it is common sense to most Americans. His message is a message of freedom and the responsibility inherent in maintaining liberty.

Once inaugurated, what can be done, actually?

My guess is a whole lot more than Giuliani or Clinton. The "war" in Iraq is opposed by 70 percent of Americans, so it shouldn't be that difficult for us to end our occupation. Paul would do a good deal to balance our budget, bring jobs home and stabilize our economy. Paul would also rescind all these gross violations of our liberties, like the Patriot Act. All of this would be far better than any of the corporate sponsored candidates.

Issues that seldom get discussed and the sorry state of "debate" in the media.

A few issues that come to mind immediately are monetary policy, economic policy, strategic power and policy abroad, government's true responsibility, just to mention what pops into my head. Nothing of any substance is ever debated in the media, and those "hot button" divisive issues are just shouting matches between hot airbags. A Paul presidency, or any true populist candidate would force a national dialog. It is about time we have such a thing, since most Americans are woefully ignorant on the real issues.

What is our responsibility as citizens?

We must take back our government and seek empowerment. We must insist upon our national sovereignty. We must elect populist candidates and unseat these career politicians once and for all. And finally, we must ensure that government remains of, by and for the people!

And if it comes down to Neoliberal Autocrat A or Neoliberal Autocrat B?

Or Neocons, if you prefer (it's all the same poor philosophy; fascism by another name). I suggest we either boycott the election or write-in "no confidence" on the ballot. I am not going to lend credence to a failed and fundamentally undemocratic election.

Conclusion.

This may very likely be our last chance at saving our republic. Now is the time for each and every one of us to act. We must save our heritage and pass something of value on to the future generations. May God help us.

The inevitable collapse of the dollar

People And Power: Death of the Dollar

Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America

It is upon us unless we all take to task our fundamental duty as patriots.

Ten Reasons not to Vote for Clinton

1. Clinton voted to give the President unprecedented powers to illegally invade a nation that posed no threat to U.S. security, bypassing Congress and openly defying our Constitution.

2. Clinton has continued to vote for massive appropriations for the continued Iraqi occupation.

3. Clinton has been complicit with the large majority of Democrats in posing no real opposition to the growing tyranny and power-hungry Executive branch under the Bush-Cheney regime.

4. Clinton has stated that "all options" are on the table for dealing with Iran, which is code for the nuclear option. Clinton will continue our illegal occupation of Iraq, and undoubtedly entangle us further in the Middle East.

5. Clinton has received millions from the Corporate Lobby. It should be obvious who she "represents".

6. Clinton is the consummate politician. Her rhetoric and her actions do not jibe.

7. Clinton's record as Senator, and her husband's record as President both support the Neoliberal (Neo-Con) agenda. They are both pro Big Government and pro Big Corporate Monopolies.

8. Clinton has made no statement at any time regarding the amount of power that has been obtained by the Executive branch during the past seven years, and she'd likely be content as the next American Emperor. It is doubtful she would do anything to restore our rights and liberties.

9. Clinton is the media "darling". This alone should be reason to question her motives and allegiance. Hint: it doesn't lie within the bounds of the Constitution.

10. 1980 (Bush Sr. V.P.), 1984 (Bush Sr. V.P.), 1988 (Bush Sr. Pres.), 1992 (Clinton Pres.), 1996 (Clinton Pres.), 2000 (GW Bush Pres.), 2004 (GW Bush Pres.), 2008 (Clinton Pres.?) Notice a pattern?

Please note that the mere fact that Clinton is a woman has nothing to do with my top ten reasons not to vote for her.

Penn and Teller Defend Ron Paul vs. Luntz and Fox News

Most thinking people would say that Faux News is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the NeoLiberal Fascists (or NeoCons if you prefer). Yet we all are suckers for poll numbers. Don't believe the polls. Vote your conscience. Ron Paul blew the other Republican candidates away in the Fox News debate. He was asked only three questions, the moderator inferred that he got his "marching orders" from Al-Qaeda, and Giulliani cackled like a clown and cued his supporters to heckle Paul (over 1,000 of Giulliani's supporters were given tickets whereas Paul's supporters were allowed a mere handful regardless of the fact that wherever Paul goes he generates far more public support than any other candidate). Yet even still, when the text message polls were taken by Fox News, Congressman Paul won by a landslide 38% compared to Giulliani (the runner up) who managed to get 12 percent. Sean Hannity tried to bury the results and inferred that Paul supporters sent multiple messages (but the truth is that only a single vote could be made per phone). The Fox spin-machine then went into high gear attempting to explain away such support.

read more | digg story

Why Is the Dollar Losing Value?

Why Is the Dollar Losing Value?
A Closer Look at the Dollar and the Euro and What the Dollar's Drop Means for You

By CHARLES HERMAN
ABC NEWS Business Unit
Sept. 20, 2007 —


The Canadian dollar has reached parity with the U.S. dollar for the first time since 1976. They are now equal in value. The euro also soared to its highest-ever level against the dollar, trading above $1.40 for the first time since the currency was introduced in 1999.

So why is the dollar plunging, and what impact does that plunge have on U.S. and world markets? Here's a look at some of the reasons for the dollar's fall, and the consequences


Why the Weak Dollar?

There are several reasons. First, there's the difference between the interest rate in the United States -- the one the Federal Reserve just dropped by half a percentage point to 4.75 percent -- and the interest rates of other central banks around the world.

When the United States dropped its rate, other banks did not follow. Now the spread between the interest rate at the European Central Bank (home of the euro) and the Federal Reserve (home of the dollar) is smaller than it has traditionally been, and that has weakened the value of the dollar against the euro. Put another way, you would get a better interest rate return holding a euro than a dollar.

Second, central banks around the world have been diversifying their holdings away from dollars to euros, British pounds and so on. That means there are more dollars out there in currency markets available to purchase. More dollars floating around means diminished value.

What Effect Does This Have?

Look at the record-high price of oil. Even if the same amount of oil is being pumped out of the ground, since it is traded in dollars and the dollar has weakened, the price of oil has increased to make up for the lost value of the dollar, creating a sort of vicious cycle.

Oil-producing countries don't want to keep all the dollars they are getting for their oil, since it's worth less, so they are diversifying and converting their dollars into euros or other currencies. That pushes more dollars back out into currency markets, which in turn pushes down the dollar's value.

One analyst told ABC News that Russia used to have 90 percent of its financial reserves in dollars. It now has 45 percent in dollars, 45 percent in euros and 10 percent in British pounds.


What Does This Mean in the U.S.?

The news is mixed. It's good, because it makes what we produce here cheaper to sell in foreign markets, and that in turn spurs exports of our products around the world. That translates into more manufacturing and more jobs. For example, BMW and Mercedes Benz want to build cars in the United States, because they can do it cheaper in nonunion states than in Germany, where they'd pay labor and parts in euros, and then bring the cars to the United States, where they would be too expensive to sell at a profit.

But a weak dollar is bad, because it leads to inflation in this country. Imports from foreign countries will become more expensive, and in particular, oil will be more expensive. That puts pressure on businesses to increase prices for anything that uses oil or products that come from overseas. One benefit for American shoppers is that China has largely pegged its currency to ours, so that keeps the price of Chinese-made goods low and therefore, keeps a check on inflation.


U.S. Treasuries, Bonds, Mortgages, Stocks

What does a weak dollar mean for all that, and why should I care? If the dollar falls too much, foreign investors and banks won't be so interested in buying T-bills and bonds that keep the U.S. government and businesses humming. That's because the interest rate might not be enough to compensate for inflation. In other words, whatever is earned would be worth less money.

To attract buyers, the T-bills and bonds will sell for less and have higher interest rates. And since many mortgages are tied to these interest rates, that might mean mortgage rates won't drop anytime soon. Also, a weak dollar might scare away foreign investors who don't want to own stock in U.S. companies.


What About Foreign Investors?

Could there be a wholesale dumping of U.S. dollars by foreign governments and investors? Maybe. But that would be executing a sort of "nuclear option."

If China were to dump its reserves of dollars into currency markets, that would dramatically lower the value of the dollar. All those bonds and T-bills that the country holds would drop in value, as inflation would erase any gains from the investment. China would be less able to sell its goods to the United States because the dollar would be too weak, and Chinese products would be more expensive.

If Saudi Arabia were to call for oil to be traded in euros, "that announcement would be the end of the U.S. dollar," said Ashraf Laidi, chief currency analyst at CMC Markets. But he said that would never happen as long as the United States and Saudi Arabia are allies, and the U.S. continues to negotiate arms and other deals with the world's largest oil producer.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures