The World Endorses Ron Paul

The Two-Minute Case for Ron Paul

Romney Got $10 Million Federal Bailout at Bain

Mitt Romney received a $10 million bailout from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 1991, an event that runs contrary to the multimillionaire’s current anti-bailout position.

Documents obtained by the Boston Globe show that the FDIC negotiated a $10 million forgiveness with Bain & Co. while Romney was chairman and CEO in 1993.

The negotiations were part of a deal designed to reduce the debt load at the company, which was near bankruptcy. The FDIC had been forced to seize Bank of New England, who was a creditor of Bain’s.

In 2008, in a New York Times op-ed titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” Romney argued  that “Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”

In May of 2011, Chrysler succesfully paid  the U.S. Treasury back $5.1 billion from its federal bailout, while a study found  that 1.14 million jobs were saved by the bailout of the auto industry.

The Romney Con

Mitt Romney is a two-faced phony! The man is consistently inconsistent on all political matters. He is a big government Neo-Conservative who receives massive contributions from Wall-Street lobbyist.  There is a candidate who values honesty, morality and consistency. The one, the only, Ron Paul.

What If They’re Lying to You About Ron Paul?

What if, Judge, what if?

Rick Santorum Opposes Limited Government?

Following Rick Santorum’s confusion regarding war, he also seems undecided regarding his support for limited government and individual rights, or more big government fascism. I think it depends on the day, no maybe the paycheck? Ah, who knows…

Rick Santorum 2006 Senate Ad

Rick Santorum, just like the other GOP candidates, is a greedy politician who follows the dollar trail. Please don’t waste your vote, Ron Paul has stood by his word for 30 years. This country needs a fresh start!

Christianity and War (Part3)

Part 1: http://twentiesfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/christians-and-war-part1/

Part 2: http://twentiesfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/christians-and-war-part2/

Why? Why have so many religious people gotten it so wrong? As I have explained in many of my articles on Christianity and war over the years, there are many reasons: thinking that the war in Iraq was in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks, believing that Saddam Hussein was another Hitler, supposing that Iraq was a threat to the United States, seeing the war in Iraq as a modern-day crusade against Islam, assuming that the United States needed to protect Israel from Iraq, viewing Bush as a messiah figure, equating the Republican Party with the party of God, blindly following the conservative movement, deeming the American state to be a divine institution, failing to separate the divine sanction of war against the enemies of God in the Old Testament from the New Testament ethic that taught otherwise, having a profound ignorance of history and primitive Christianity, reading too much into the mention of soldiers in the New Testament, possessing a warped “God and Country” complex, holding a “my country right or wrong” attitude, and adopting the mindset that brute force is barbarism when individuals use it, but honorable when nations are guilty of it.

I believe the two greatest reasons religious people have gotten things so wrong are American exceptionalism and American militarism.

Many Christians are guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry. They have bought into a variety of American nationalism that has been called the myth of American exceptionalism. This is the idea that the government of the United States is morally and politically superior to all other governments, that American leaders are exempt from the bad characteristics of the leaders of other countries, that the U.S. government should be trusted even as the governments of other countries should be distrusted, that the United States is the indispensable nation responsible for the peace and prosperity of the world, that the motives of the United States are always benevolent and paternalistic, that foreign governments should conform to the policies of the U.S. government, that most other nations are potential enemies that threaten U.S. safety and security, and that the United States is morally justified in imposing sanctions or launching military attacks against any country that refuses to conform to our dictates. These are the tenets of American exceptionalism.

The result of this American exceptionalism is a foreign policy that is aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and meddling. This is why U.S. foreign policy results in discord, strife, hatred, and terrorism toward the United States. We would never tolerate another country engaging in an American-style foreign policy. How many countries are allowed to build military bases and station troops in the United States? It is the height of arrogance to insist that the United States alone has the right to garrison the planet with bases, station troops wherever it wants, intervene in the affairs of other countries, and be the world’s policeman, fireman, social worker, security guard, mediator, and babysitter.

The other reason religious people have gotten things so wrong is American militarism. Americans love the military, and American Christians are no exception. There is an unseemly alliance that exists between certain sectors of Christianity and the military. Even Christians who are otherwise sound in the faith, who treasure the Constitution, who don’t support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who oppose an aggressive U.S. foreign policy get indignant when you question the institution of the military. It doesn’t seem to matter the reason for each war or intrusion into the affairs of another country. It doesn’t seem to matter how long U.S. troops remain after the initial intervention. It doesn’t seem to matter how many foreign civilians are killed or injured. It doesn’t seem to matter how many billions of dollars are spent by the military. It doesn’t even seem to matter what the troops are actually doing – Americans in general, and American Christians in particular, believe in supporting the troops no matter what. Americans are repulsed by the serial killer who, to satisfy the most basest of desires, dismembers his victims; but revere the bomber pilot in the stratosphere who, flying above the clouds, never hears the screams of his victims or sees the flesh torn from their bones. Killing women and children from five feet is viewed as an atrocity, but from five thousand feet it is a heroic act. It is sometimes suspicious when a soldier kills up close, but never when he launches a missile from afar.

Christians of all branches and denominations have a love affair with the military. To question the military in any way – its size, its budget, its efficiency, its bureaucracy, its contractors, its weaponry, its mission, its effectiveness, its foreign interventions – is to question America itself. One can condemn the size of government, but never the size of the military. One can criticize federal spending, but never military spending. One can denounce government bureaucrats, but never military brass. One can depreciate the welfare state, but never the warfare state. One can expose government abuses, but never military abuses. One can label domestic policy as socialistic, but never foreign policy as imperialistic.

It is the U.S. government that is the greatest threat to American life, liberty, property, and peace – not the leaders or the military or the people of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, or Yemen. And as James Madison said: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” Christians should vigorously dissent the next time some warmongering politician says there is some great evil in the world that must be stamped out by the U.S. military. As John Quincy Adams said: “America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.” Christians should stop regarding the state’s acts of aggression as benevolent. Christians should stop presuming divine support for U.S. military interventions. And because just war theory merely allows Christians to make peace with war, they should reject it just as they would any theory of just piracy or just terrorism or just murder. It is Christians that should be leading the way toward peace and a foreign policy of nonintervention. It is Christians that should be leading the way toward the ideas of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul Doubles Vote Tally, Captures Equal Number of Delegates As Romney/Santorum

Ron Paul heads to New Hampshire having more than doubled his 2008 Iowa vote tally, secured an equal number of Republican delegates as Romney and Santorum, and is projected to beat Santorum into a strong second-placed finish in next week’s primary.

After weeks of intense and sustained smear attacks by the establishment media, during which Paul was labeled everything from “dangerous,” to “disgusting,” to “racist” and even called a “terrorist,” the Texan Congressman still managed to secure 26,219 votes compared to 11,841 votes in 2008 – finishing third behind Romney and Santorum.

Crucially, Paul has obtained an equal number of delegates to both Santorum and Romney – seven in total.

“Paul may actually be the real winner of the first Republican voting contest,” writes Grace Wyler . “That’s because Paul’s massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates — the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.”

In comparison to Ron Paul doubling his tally, Mitt Romney received marginally less votes than he did in 2008 despite the millions of dollars his campaign spent in the state. Indeed, as Michael Brendan Dougherty notes , “75 percent of Republican Caucus-goers want someone that isn’t Mitt Romney – a result that reflects polls nationwide.” Romney is also expected to perform poorly in the southern states, where his brand of big government isn’t welcomed.

Saying he was the recipient of “one of three tickets out of Iowa,” Paul noted that Rick Santorum’s surprise showing is highly unlikely to be replicated anywhere else, and that he and Romney were the top two going into next week’s primary.

Santorum received a blow on the eve of voting yesterday when his own nephew penned an op-ed warning that his uncle was “another big-government politician who supports the status quo,” urging people to vote for Ron Paul.

Although Romney is the clear frontrunner in New Hampshire, Paul is currently running a strong second according to the New York Times’s caucuses projection . Paul is forecast to take 19.1 per cent of the vote, with Santorum significantly behind with just 5.2 per cent of the projected vote.

Two recent polls out of New Hampshire  also show Paul holding down a strong second-placed finish, with Santorum nowhere to be seen. Paul is also forecast for a 3rd place finish in South Carolina  and Florida behind Gingrich and Romney.

“We’ve had success reintroducing some ideas Republicans have needed for a long time. And that is the conviction that freedom is popular,” Paul said in his speech last night. “Let’s go back to to this real old fashioned idea, this dangerous idea: let’s obey the Constitution,” he added, urging his supporters to press on to New Hampshire with renewed momentum.

by Paul Joseph Watson

The Police State is Coming

America is opening up a new warfront and it’s in your own backyard. It’s in your neighbor’s house, it’s three states over and it’s on the other side of the Mississippi.

That’s what a new legislation could lead to and the consequences are dire and constitutionally damning.

The United States Senate is set to vote this week on a bill that would categorize the entire USA as a “battlefield,” allowing law enforcement duties to be dished out by the American Military, who in turn could detain any US citizen as a war criminal — even coming into their own homes to issue arrests.

The National Defense Authorization Act regularly comes before Congress for changes and additions, but the latest provision, S. 1867, proves to be the most powerful one yet in raping constitutional freedoms from Americans. Move over, Patriot Act. Should S. 1867 pass, lawmakers could conjure the text to keep even regular citizens detained indefinitely by their own military.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, has explicitly stated that the passing of S. 1867 would “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial, writes Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H) sits on the same side of the aisle and agrees wholeheartedly. “America is part of the battlefield,” says the lawmaker.

America’s Military is already operating in roughly 200 countries, dishing out detention and executions to citizens of other nations. As unrest erupts on the country’s own soil amid a recession, economic collapse and protests in hundreds of cities from coast-to-coast, is it that much of a surprise that lawmakers finally want to declare the US a warzone?

Maybe not, but if the Senate has their way, the consequential could be detrimental to the US Constitution.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president — and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world,” adds Anders. “The power is so broad that even US citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”

“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?”asks Anders.

Just like its supporters, the provision has attracted its share of critics as well. The Obama administration has threatened to veto the bill if it makes its way through Congress, but given the president’s poor standing among the American public (his disapproval rating is at its highest ever in recent polling), a hawkish Republican could usurp Obama as commander-in-chief as the 2012 election is less than a year away and the unemployment level stays stagnant and sad. With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul, the frontrunners currently vying for the Republican Party’s nomination for the presidency have remained outspoken in their support for not just increasing American military presence overseas at a time when the Pentagon’s budget dwarfs many governmental sectors, but in adding provisions to the Patriot Act itself to further remove freedoms from the people.

During last week’s GOP debate televised on CNN, former House speaker Newt Gingrich said that the country must“try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties and security.” That same night, pizzaman Herman Cain said suspected terrorists should be killed before identified and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested that Muslims should be profiled by the American government because, “obviously,” they are the group “that are most likely to be committing these crimes,” speaking broadly of his assumption of those that construct terrorist attacks.

“I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,” responded Rep. Paul. “You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state . . . So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.”

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) has already aligned himself as an opponent of the legislation, but needs to garner the backing of others if he wants to keep Congress from enacting the provision. “One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on US soil,” the Senator said in a speech last month. “Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the US military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”

Udall isn’t the only one on Capitol Hill that has seen a problem with the provision, which was developed under shady circumstances. The text itself was drafted in secrecy in a closed-door meeting by US Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, two of the biggest names in Washington. No hearing was held to discuss the details and it was passed in a closed-door committee meeting, reports Infowar’s Paul Joseph Watson.

Watson continues to conjure up a list of characteristics that the Department of Homeland Security have identified as traits of domestic terrorism, calling into question past maneuvers from the government that led to those owning guns, buying gold and even donating to charity being considered America’s enemy. At last week’s debate, Ron Paul added that “It’s anybody associated with organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated,” referring to how the government can use its discretion — or lack thereof — to bring terrorism charges against its own people. Calling into question the recent execution of two Americans with alleged ties to Al-Qaeda, Paul added, “So, that makes all Americans vulnerable, and now we know American citizens are vulnerable to assassination.”

The provision itself passed in the House all the way back in May, and only now is going before the Senate. Justin Amash, a Republican representative from Cascade Township, was one of the five House Republicans that voted against it. “It is destructive of our Constitution,” he writes on his Facebook page. It would “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the president.”

Given that the passing of the provision would allow for legally lengthy and questionable detention, it becomes bizarre why Sen. McCain, a former prisoner of war, would pen such a bill. McCain was imprisoned in North Vietnam for over five years in a camp where he was detained and tortured before entering American politics.

“The president should not have the authority to determine whether the Constitution applies to you, no matter what the allegations,” adds Amash, who also writes, “Note that it does not preclude US citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.

“Please urge your Senators to oppose these outrageous provisions.”

As a solution, Sen. Udall has offered a counter act, being dubbed the Udall Amendment, that would keep S. 1867 from its critical consequences and would instead require lawmakers to examine the necessity of detaining citizens domestically, and instead would make Congress consider whether any detention legislation is needed at all.

In the meantime, Anders and ACLU are calling on Americans to voice their concerns to the US Senate. As political posturing keeps the country divided and the branches of government fight to find a solution to the crumbling economy, infrastructure — and now the Constitution — a solution to this problem is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the assaults on Americans that is underway.

-Written by RT News.