Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 27th, 2011 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default Paul 2012 campaign

12 Days Till Iowa: Ron Paul Is Not a Politician
By Joe Klein | @JoeKleinTIME | December 22, 2011 | 582

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul at a town-hall meeting in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, on Dec. 21, 2011

Washington, Iowa

I watched Ron Paul deliver his stump speech — to large and loving crowds — twice on Wednesday, and he did a very strange thing for a political front runner. He emphasized the things traditional Republicans are least likely to approve of in his libertarian appeal. He began each speech with a long, discursive section on foreign policy — citing George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush, among others — and spoke of the perils of entangling alliances, the military-industrial complex and nation building. He minced no words. He said the money we saved overseas could be used to bolster programs like Social Security and Medicare, until we transition away from them. Then he devoted another long section to civil liberties, to his opposition to the Patriot Act and the illegality — he believes — of assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda leader who was an American citizen, in Yemen. This was not political comfort food.

He didn’t spend much time at all on the stuff he favors that Republicans love — cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget in a year, cutting five Cabinet departments, lowering taxes, restricting abortion and so forth. And yet the audiences seemed thrilled with him, gave him standing ovations, replete with cheers and whistles, before and after each speech. Afterward, when he took questions, they tended toward the worshipful:

“How do you stay so fit?”

“Who’s going to be your Vice President?”

“Do you think [Iowa Governor] Terry Branstad and the party establishment have it in for you?”

Whatever you might say about Paul, this is not politics as usual. He’s not a great speaker; he rambles in a thin voice, garbling some of his best applause lines. He doesn’t give the same speech twice but wanders around through his favorite topics — last time I saw him, in October, he gave an extended, abstruse lecture on currency policy. Now that he’s a front runner in Iowa, he hasn’t trimmed or changed his message at all, except, perhaps, to become more defiantly at odds with the Republican establishment.

He can sum up his philosophy in a paragraph: “[The Washington establishment] believes that if you have the freedom to keep what you earn and take care of yourself, you won’t do it. They want to do it for you — and they’ve been trying for the past 70 years, since the Great Depression. But we’ve learned that government can’t do it either.”

This is a bit too neat for my taste, but it has far more resonance now than it has had in the past. Part of it is Paul himself — he is who he is, and given the Trump-Cain-Newt-Mitt disappointments, he is a man who can be trusted. That is enormously important this year. He is palpably different from every other candidate in the race: he doesn’t seem at all like a politician. I’m not sure he is one. Another part of his sudden appeal is the sense that nothing seems to work these days. “I was a Democrat. I voted for Obama last time,” said a truck driver and, yes, stand-up comedian named Dave Johnson after Paul’s speech in the town of Washington. “But look what he’s done. The bailouts, the spending. Right now, he wants to cut Social Security taxes even though the trust fund is in trouble. I voted for him because I thought he was going to be the opposite of Bush — end the wars, reduce the deficit, improve the economy — and we’ve only gotten more of the same.”

Paul seems more comfortable dealing with abstractions like the money supply rather than the day-to-day problems of actual people. When he gets a real question, he fumbles about and eventually seeks refuge in the free market. In Mount Pleasant, a man asked what Paul would do about retraining people who had lost their jobs. “There are about 1,000 jobs available for trained welders here in Iowa,” the man said. “What do we do to train them?” After some circumnavigation, Paul suggested we go back to the days of apprenticeships that paid less than skilled craft jobs. O.K. But there’s a more up-to-date free-market answer: be more like Germany, where companies advise vocational schools on their curriculum and develop programs that train young people for technical production and construction work. (I saw Jon Huntsman give a chapter-and-verse response to this question a few weeks ago.)

In Washington, Paul took a question from a young woman who had survived cancer. “We have good insurance,” she said. “But what happens if my husband gets laid off? I now have a pre-existing condition. Where do we get insurance?” Paul acknowledged that it was a tough question. In the old days, before the government mucked things up, the churches ran a lot of hospitals and would take all comers. “The insurance companies and drug companies control Obamacare,” he said, which is not inaccurate, but is also not very comforting either.

And that is where Paul’s libertarianism falls down. This is a complicated society, undergoing an ever more rapid transformation in the midst of a potentially long economic slump. There are a lot of people who have lost jobs and need help getting new skills (admittedly, the current government training programs are, as Romney points out, a complete, ineffective mess). There are a lot of people who can’t get insurance — certainly not at a reasonable price.

On an even more basic level, it would be nice to believe that people could take care of themselves without government help, but it just hasn’t proved true: programs like Social Security and Medicare — which run directly against the Jeffersonian-libertarian tradition — were necessary because people couldn’t take care of themselves. The elderly, especially, had trouble paying medical bills after their working days ended. The American people, through their government, decided to make a rudimentary deal, to make sure their parents didn’t starve or sleep in the streets and were able to get medical care. There was nothing unconstitutional about that — just as there’s nothing unconstitutional about requiring people to have medical insurance now. The deal was made with the consent of the governed. In the real world, these are the most popular programs the government offers — about 80% of the American people are happy with them.

There is vast frustration with … with … everything right now. And so it’s not a bad moment to review the most basic assumptions of our public life, to question the most basic functions of government. It may well turn out that we’ve tried to do too much. It will certainly turn out that we didn’t have the Keynesian discipline to run budget surpluses when times were good to pay for the deficits when times were bad. (Paul’s hero Friedrich Hayek had a meeting of the minds with Keynes on that point after World War II.) It may be that we need a different sort of safety net for a more competitive global economy. It may be that we’re going to have to do with less.

It’s these sorts of times that raise up people with simple answers: ideologues and demagogues. Paul is an ideologue and — we’re lucky — an entirely honorable one. His is an important voice. It helps frame the debate; it helps keep his opponents honest. The big surprise is that the harsh measures he advocates seem almost a comfort in the sea of blather that is inundating Iowans this week. But, I suppose, the real story here is, finally, the total discomfort with the sort of no-risk, no-sacrifice nonsense that politicians have been selling for the past 40 years.
 
Old December 27th, 2011 #2
Cale Sparks
anti-American
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,052
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
It’s these sorts of times that raise up people with simple answers: ideologues and demagogues. Paul is an ideologue and — we’re lucky — an entirely honorable one. His is an important voice. It helps frame the debate; it helps keep his opponents honest.
"Honorable" so long as kike system-control these last 70 to 100 years isn't mentioned. Ron Paul is doing a great job in this election confronting jew-power in this country without explicitly naming the rats as the perpetrators that they are.
The jew would like to see Paul as a pleasant safety valve who will finish in 3rd or 4th place, then just fade away.
After a year or two in obscurity he can then be involved in a tragic automobile accident.
__________________
The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
- Hitler
 
Old December 27th, 2011 #3
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,632
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cale Sparks View Post
The jew would like to see Paul as a pleasant safety valve who will finish in 3rd or 4th place, then just fade away.
Exactly.

This is why RP has been "allowed" in the first place. The problem for the tribe is that he is doing better than desired, mainly because of the desperately poor choices available in the Repub melange of candidates.

The tribe certainly has not given up on their agenda at this time, since RP can still be winnowed down in the primary process and if not there then at the convention. Nevertheless, he has clearly become much more of a concern, hence the very early playing of the race card. Surely the ZOG had planned to hold onto the card for the general election campaign (of course they'll play it there too), but it now seems to have been decided that RP needs to be "nipped in the bud".

If and as RP continues to gain popular support the desperation of ZOG will increase exponentially, since under no circumstances can they allow RP to actually occupy the White House. (Even having him leading the general election ballot will be found unacceptable: too much rick of an embarrassment.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cale Sparks View Post
After a year or two in obscurity he can then be involved in a tragic automobile accident.
I disagree here. If RP can effectuate the "safety valve" of 3rd or 4th place, then he will have performed satisfactorily and will be seen as no longer a threat. His political views will be said to have been weighed in the balance anf found wanting.

The real danger for RP will be if he continues to move ahead. As far as I've seen reported Cain has been the only candidate given Secret Service protection to date. If none of the other Repubs have any security beyond their own efforts (and for that matter even SS protection can conceivably be worse than no protection), then a "lone wolf" nutcase is all it will take for ZOG to have matters set back to rights.

It ain't like it's never been tried before...
__________________
No way out but through the jews.

Last edited by notmenomore; December 27th, 2011 at 01:20 PM.
 
Old December 29th, 2011 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default



Gee...whosoever could they be trying to make Paul look like?
 
Old December 29th, 2011 #6
Donnie in Ohio
Switching to glide
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Morrison Hotel
Posts: 9,396
Blog Entries: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post


Gee...whosoever could they be trying to make Paul look like?
He should start making speeches with two German Shepherds sitting beside the podium just to freak them out.
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder
 
Old December 29th, 2011 #7
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by notmenomore View Post
Exactly.

This is why RP has been "allowed" in the first place. The problem for the tribe is that he is doing better than desired, mainly because of the desperately poor choices available in the Repub melange of candidates.

The tribe certainly has not given up on their agenda at this time, since RP can still be winnowed down in the primary process and if not there then at the convention. Nevertheless, he has clearly become much more of a concern, hence the very early playing of the race card. Surely the ZOG had planned to hold onto the card for the general election campaign (of course they'll play it there too), but it now seems to have been decided that RP needs to be "nipped in the bud".

If and as RP continues to gain popular support the desperation of ZOG will increase exponentially, since under no circumstances can they allow RP to actually occupy the White House. (Even having him leading the general election ballot will be found unacceptable: too much rick of an embarrassment.)



I disagree here. If RP can effectuate the "safety valve" of 3rd or 4th place, then he will have performed satisfactorily and will be seen as no longer a threat. His political views will be said to have been weighed in the balance anf found wanting.

The real danger for RP will be if he continues to move ahead. As far as I've seen reported Cain has been the only candidate given Secret Service protection to date. If none of the other Repubs have any security beyond their own efforts (and for that matter even SS protection can conceivably be worse than no protection), then a "lone wolf" nutcase is all it will take for ZOG to have matters set back to rights.

It ain't like it's never been tried before...
Deep and excellent insights.

I see Alex is becoming somewhat of a Ron Paul junky, as well.

Here's some hot stuff from www.ronronpaul.com, entitled "Is the Fix In"??

Do you suppose the kikes have already decided to rig the vote count if their race card and other anti-Paul strategies don't beat Paul in Iowa ??

Iowa GOP moving vote-count to 'undisclosed location'
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 12/27/11 7:15 PM EST


Threats to disrupt the Iowa Republican caucuses next week have prompted state GOP officials to move the vote tabulation to an "undisclosed location," POLITICO has learned.

The state party has not yet told the campaigns exactly where the returns will be added up, only that it will be off-site from the Iowa GOP's Des Moines headquarters. The 2008 caucus results were tabulated at the state party offices, which sit just a few blocks from the state capitol.

Activist groups including the Occupy movement have indicated that they'll attempt to interrupt rallies in the closing days before next Tuesday's caucuses.

The AP reported today that Occupy is making plans to even attend some caucuses and vote "no preference," but not disturb the voting process.

But Iowa Republicans are also bracing for other threats, sources say, including hacking.

Iowa GOP Chair Matt Strawn wouldn't comment on the plan to move the vote-counting except to say they're increasing security measures.

"The Iowa GOP is taking additional safeguards to ensure the Caucus results are tabulated and reported to the public in an accurate and timely manner," Strawn said. "We are not commenting on specific security procedures."


"
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old January 14th, 2012 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Ron Paul’s Results from Iowa and N.H.: the Rest of the Story

by Bob Adelmann
Friday, 13 January 2012

The exit polls following the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary showed something remarkable that somehow missed the evening news: Paul consistently won the votes of the young, the disaffected, the independent, as well as discouraged Democrats. CNN’s exit polls in New Hampshire showed Paul winning almost half the voters aged 18-29 (compared to Romney’s 26 percent), and splitting the vote with Romney in the 30-to-39 age bracket. Paul also won 35 percent of unmarried voters, 40 percent of those who had never voted in a primary before, one-third of the independent vote, and nearly half of those with no religious affiliation. He also took a third of those who characterized themselves as “somewhat liberal” in their outlook.

These results were startlingly similar to the results of exit polls taken following the Iowa caucuses: Paul won the majority of voters under age 40. By age bracket, Paul won 50 percent of caucus-goers aged 17-24, 45 percent of those between age 25 and 29, and a third of those in the 30-to-39 age bracket.

Paul’s press secretary, Gary Howard, tried to explain this phenomenon: “Congressman Paul has a strong and consistent message that resonates with a wide range of people, but young people in particular appreciate his honesty and his character. They realize the mess that the establishment status quo politicians have put us in, and recognize that Ron Paul is the only candidate seriously challenging the status quo.”

What exactly is that “strong and consistent message?” Maureen Mackey, writing for the Fiscal Times, suggested that if Paul were elected president, “You could probably smoke in public places, drive gas-guzzling cars, keep your shoes on at airport security, and pray in public schools.” But it might also be for his position on other substantive issues. For instance:

• He signed a pro-life pledge from Personhood USA, a non-profit Christian ministry that seeks to ban abortion.

• He wants to balance the budget by slashing $1 trillion his first year in office by shuttering agencies such as the Departments of Education, Interior and Energy.

• He wants to audit the Federal Reserve which would lead inevitably to its termination.

• He wants to end the Department of Agriculture’s supplemental nutrition program for women and children.

• He wants to bring home all the troops (and so-called non-military contractors) from Afghanistan and Iraq.

• He wants to legalize marijuana.

He has taken consistent if not popular positions on such issues as the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 which he, as the lone Republican, voted against. He has opposed such boondoggles as the M-1 tank: “Billions of dollars have been spent on the M-1 tank over the years and yet there has never been a need for it — it was purely a military-industrial complex boondoggle to serve [their] interests,” he declared.

He says that if “taxes are the price we pay for civilization, [then] we are doomed,” and has consistently and publicly repeated his stand to eliminate the income tax altogether. He doesn’t like union thuggery and their excessive influence in Washington: “Union power, gained by legislation, even without physical violence, is still violence.”

His strongest stand which appears to resonate most powerfully with his young constituency is on freedom of the individual: “Government should not compel or prohibit any personal activity when that activity poses danger to that individual alone.”

What’s remarkable is how a 76-year-old man, at least two generations removed from his primary supporters, continues to gain pluralities and often majorities from them. It is the message of freedom that’s getting across.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...t-of-the-story
 
Old January 14th, 2012 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Ron Paul’s achievement

By Charles Krauthammer [one of the most poisonous of the neocons]

There are two stories coming out of New Hampshire. The big story is Mitt Romney. The bigger one is Ron Paul.

Romney won a major victory with nearly 40 percent of the vote, 16 points ahead of No. 2. The split among his challengers made the outcome even more decisive. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were diminished by distant, lower-tier finishes. Rick Perry got less than 1 percent. And Jon Huntsman, who staked everything on New Hampshire, came in a weak third with less than half of Romney’s vote. He practically moved to the state — and then received exactly one-sixth of the vote in a six-man contest. Where does he go from here?

But the bigger winner was Ron Paul. He got 21 percent in Iowa, 23 in New Hampshire, the only candidate other than Romney to do well with two very different electorates, one more evangelical and socially conservative, the other more moderate and fiscally conservative.

Paul commands a strong, energetic, highly committed following. And he is unlike any of the other candidates. They’re out to win. He admits he doesn’t see himself in the Oval Office. They’re one-time self-contained enterprises aiming for the White House. Paul is out there to build a movement that will long outlive this campaign.

Paul is less a candidate than a “cause,” to cite his election-night New Hampshire speech. Which is why that speech was the only one by a losing candidate that was sincerely, almost giddily joyous. The other candidates had to pretend they were happy with their results.

Paul was genuinely delighted with his, because, after a quarter-century in the wilderness, he’s within reach of putting his cherished cause on the map. Libertarianism will have gone from the fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position of prominence in a major party.

Look at him now. He’s getting prime-time air, interviews everywhere and, most important, respect for defeating every Republican candidate but one. His goal is to make himself leader of the opposition — within the Republican Party.

He is Jesse Jackson of the 1980s, who represented a solid, African American, liberal-activist constituency to which, he insisted, attention had to be paid by the Democratic Party. Or Pat Buchanan (briefly) in 1992, who demanded — and gained — on behalf of social conservatives a significant role at a convention that was supposed to be a simple coronation of the moderate George H.W. Bush.

No one remembers Bush’s 1992 acceptance speech. Everyone remembers Buchanan’s fiery and disastrous culture-war address.

At the Democratic conventions, Jackson’s platform demands and speeches drew massive attention, often overshadowing his party’s blander nominees.

Paul won’t quit before the Republican convention in Tampa. He probably will not do well in South Carolina or Florida, but with volunteers even in the more neglected caucus states, he will be relentlessly collecting delegates until Tampa. His goal is to have the second-most delegates, a position of leverage from which to influence the platform and demand a prime-time speaking slot — before deigning to support the nominee at the end. The early days of the convention, otherwise devoid of drama, could very well be all about Paul.

The Democratic convention will be a tightly scripted TV extravaganza extolling the Prince and his wise and kindly rule. The Republican convention could conceivably feature a major address by Paul calling for the abolition of the Fed, FEMA and the CIA; American withdrawal from everywhere; acquiescence to the Iranian bomb — and perhaps even Paul’s opposition to a border fence lest it be used to keep Americans in. Not exactly the steady, measured, reassuring message a Republican convention might wish to convey. For libertarianism, however, it would be a historic moment: mainstream recognition at last.

Put aside your own view of libertarianism or of Paul himself. I see libertarianism as an important critique of the Leviathan state, not a governing philosophy. As for Paul himself, I find him a principled, somewhat wacky, highly engaging eccentric. But regardless of my feelings or yours, the plain fact is that Paul is nurturing his movement toward visibility and legitimacy.

Paul is 76. He knows he’ll never enter the promised land. But he’s clearing the path for son Rand, his better placed (Senate vs. House), more moderate, more articulate successor.

And it matters not whether you find amusement in libertarians practicing dynastic succession. What Paul has already wrought is a signal achievement, the biggest story yet of this presidential campaign.

[email protected]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...duP_story.html

[1300+ comments thru link]

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 14th, 2012 at 07:49 AM.
 
Old January 14th, 2012 #10
Cale Sparks
anti-American
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,052
Default

Krauthammer and his ilk would like nothing better than to see Paul get that convention "legitimacy" then quietly depart.
What the kikes and their neo-con henchmen do not want to see is a Paul 3rd party candidacy which would legitimize the ridicule and destruction of the republican party.
__________________
The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
- Hitler
 
Old January 18th, 2012 #11
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-tries-s...230233634.html

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (AP) — Mitt Romney tried doggedly Wednesday to sidestep the political furor he had started a day earlier by revealing he pays federal taxes at a rate of about 15 percent, less than millions of middle-income American families.

Facing a new controversy, his campaign confirmed that Romney has money invested in the Cayman Islands but said he was not getting any tax break.

Newt Gingrich, his main rival in this weekend's South Carolina primary, poked at Romney anew and disclosed that his personal tax rate is more than double that of Romney.

Just before Saturday's South Carolina voting, Romney is trying to wrap up his push for the Republican nomination, but it's been anything but smooth. He's spent nearly two weeks answering questions and criticism about his personal wealth and tenure at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, and those subjects are sure to come up again in Thursday night's debate.

Gingrich slapped at the GOP front-runner, saying in Winnsboro that he himself paid 31 percent of his income in taxes for 2010, more than twice what Romney said he paid. Gingrich's campaign said the 31 percent was the effective federal rate on income, apparently not including Social Security payroll taxes.

Gingrich told reporters that he is not criticizing Romney for paying a tax rate below what many wage-earning Americans pay. Gingrich has proposed a plan that would give Americans the option of paying a 15 percent flat tax — which he notes is the same rate Romney is citing.

"My goal is not to raise Mitt Romney's taxes but to let everyone pay Romney's rate," Gingrich said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he intends to push it anew on Thursday. "If Mitt Romney intends to be our nominee, he needs to open up his tax records today, no later than tomorrow by debate time," Perry told CNN on Wednesday.

There may be more fallout.

Romney's campaign was confronted with new questions about his finances Wednesday when ABC News reported that Romney has millions of dollars of personal wealth in investment funds set up in the Cayman Islands, known as a tax haven for Americans. The report said that Romney had the ability to pay a lower tax rate by investing in funds located offshore.

A spokeswoman for Romney's campaign confirmed that the Romneys have money in the Caymans. But the campaign did not say why. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul also said: "ABC is flat wrong. The Romneys' investments in funds established in the Cayman Islands are taxed in the very same way they would be if those funds were established in the United States. These are not tax havens and it is false to say so."

Aides to the former governor refused to expand on the information, declining to say how large his investment is in the Cayman Islands and why it is there, as opposed to in the U.S.

Nor would the campaign say whether Romney has investments anywhere else outside the United States. Advisers said Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis and that he does not have control over how they are managed.

Romney also refused to answer repeated questions from reporters about his Cayman investments during a stop at a barbecue restaurant in Lexington. Outside Hudson's Smokehouse, Romney simply smiled for cameras as he pushed through the crowd and boarded his campaign bus.

While a supporter rushed to Romney's defense, the former Massachusetts governor tried to duck the issue entirely on Wednesday, making no mention of his tax returns or tax rate during a rally at Wofford College here and declining to take questions from the news media. Instead, he delivered his standard campaign speech and assailed Gingrich, who has been running second in opinion polls in South Carolina.

Romney aides, too, refused to comment about his tax returns or details of his tax rate when pressed. His campaign held a conference call featuring surrogates who tried to cast Gingrich, the former House speaker, as an unreliable leader, but the wealth and taxes issue showed no signs of going away.

At an event in Rock Hill, S.C., Romney kept away from the issue of his taxes, but he criticized Republicans who "jumped on that bandwagon" of criticizing free enterprise. "My goodness, I listened to Speaker Gingrich the other night talk about the enterprises I've been associated with," Romney said. "I'm proud of the fact that I worked in the private sector, that I've achieved success."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has endorsed Romney, sought to help by defending Romney's tax status on TV. But that may have backfired when Christie, on NBC's "Today" show, suggested Romney put out his tax returns "sooner rather than later."

"It's always better in my view to have complete disclosure, especially when you're the front-runner," Christie said.

After months of resistance and under pressure from Republican presidential rivals, Romney now says he will release tax information for 2011 — but not until April, close to the tax filing deadline and when, presumably, the GOP race will have been decided.

Romney disclosed for the first time on Tuesday that, despite his wealth of hundreds of millions of dollars, he has been paying in the neighborhood of 15 percent, far below the top maximum income tax rate of 35 percent, because his income "comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past." During 2010 and the first nine months of 2011, the Romney family had at least $9.6 million in income, according to a financial disclosure form submitted in August.

Further focusing attention on his wealth was Romney's offhand remark to reporters that his income from paid speeches amounted to "not very much" money. In the August disclosure statement, he reported being paid $373,327.62 for such appearances for the 12 months ending last February, a sum that alone would him in the top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers.

It recalled other politically awkward moments for Romney in which he unintentionally put a spotlight on his own wealth, including his offer to wage a $10,000 bet with Texas Gov. Rick Perry during a GOP debate last month over a disagreement on health care policy. He also joked to a group of voters that, since leaving Bain in 1999, he has been "unemployed."

Romney has been consolidating GOP support before Saturday's South Carolina primary in which a victory could all but seal his nomination.

But the focus on his wealth is an unwanted distraction for him as he seeks to win votes in a state where the unemployment rate, at 9.9 percent, is among the highest in the nation, and amid rising public concern over income inequality. President Barack Obama's campaign advisers contend voters are unlikely to back a wealthy Republican with financial-industry ties at a time of lingering economic distress.

And White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday that, "as a matter of fairness, it does not make a lot of sense for millionaires and billionaires to be able to pay taxes at a much lower rate than somebody making $100,000 a year."

The maximum marginal U.S. income tax rate of 35 percent applies — in theory more than practice — to households with taxable income of over about $388,500.

But like many wealthy people, the Romneys have been helped by changes in federal tax policy that have placed much lower tax rates on investment income — from dividends, interest and capital gains from the sale of stocks and other assets — than on wages and salaries, the source of income for most Americans.

Under the Bush-era tax cuts strongly supported by most Republicans, such income, including gains on securities held for a year or longer, is subject to a tax rate of 15 percent.

In addition, the Romneys are able to claim another tax break because of his 15 years with Bain. Although he retired from there in 1999, Romney is still able to benefit financially from the firm's profitable investments and from "co-investment" deals in which he can invest alongside Bain.

A provision in the tax code treats profits earned by private equity funds such as Bain and hedge funds as "carried interest" — and thus subject to the 15 percent capital gains rate — rather than as ordinary income.

In addition, only income up to $106,800 is subject to the separate payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare, so the wealthy often pay much lower effective rates on their total income than other Americans.

According to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, an average federal tax rate of 15 percent — including both income and payroll taxes — would apply to households with taxable incomes of from $75,000 to $100,000.

Those with incomes below $94,000 earn less than 4 percent of their income from capital gains, interest and dividends, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while such investment income represents 43 percent of the income of households earning more than $1.87 million a year.

Obama and his wife paid federal taxes of just over 25 percent of their 2010 income of $1.7 million, mostly from the books he's written.

Perry and his wife paid roughly 24 percent of their 2010 income of $217,447.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old February 25th, 2012 #12
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Default Contacted by a local Ron Paul campaign worker

He got my email address from the RP campaign staff. So I phoned him this morning. Seems the Missouri caucus is March 16th. The Missouri delegates will be chosen then. The Missouri primary (or straw poll), was about a week ago.

Anyway, I blasted jew wars big time to this fellow, and at length. Though it was obvious it made him a bit nervous, finally he said to me, "You're preaching to the choir". Suggesting clearly that he is jew-wise but doesn't like to talk about it, at least to strangers on the phone.
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old February 25th, 2012 #13
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder View Post
He got my email address from the RP campaign staff. So I phoned him this morning. Seems the Missouri caucus is March 16th. The Missouri delegates will be chosen then. The Missouri primary (or straw poll), was about a week ago.

Anyway, I blasted jew wars big time to this fellow, and at length. Though it was obvious it made him a bit nervous, finally he said to me, "You're preaching to the choir". Suggesting clearly that he is jew-wise but doesn't like to talk about it, at least to strangers on the phone.
Just got back from a regional Ron Paul strategy meeting in Springfield. 7 or 8 counties represented. Standing room only and the lounge was packed all the way to the front door. At least 400, and probably more. 306 W. Commercial street.

80 percent below 40, and 60 percent below 30, in my estimate. They cheered so loudly everytime RP's name was mentioned, my ears are still ringing a little.

We were instructed to bring at least 5 other voters with us on March 17 to our county caucuses, and to cast our votes for declared RP delegate candidates ONLY. This is my first caucus, so I'm not sure what to expect, otherwise.
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire





Last edited by Rounder; February 25th, 2012 at 05:39 PM.
 
Old March 1st, 2012 #14
Ty Grant
Junior Member
 
Ty Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 160
Default Ron Paul Meeting In Michigan Small business- CSPAN Pass it on!

http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/R...10737428565-1/
 
Old March 14th, 2012 #15
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,679
Default

Ron Paul’s Hour of Decision

Is Ron Paul running for president in the wrong party?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...r-of-decision/
__________________
Christianity and Feminism, the two deadliest poisons jews gave to the White Race


''Screw your optics, I'm going in'', American hero Robert Gregory Bowers
 
Old March 27th, 2012 #16
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Ron Paul Upsets Santorum in Missouri Caucuses Buoyed By Huge Youth Turnout
by Hamdan Azhar

The final outcome of Missouri’s lengthy caucus process may not be known for months. Early results, however, indicate that Ron Paul may well walk away from the state with the most delegates. Yesterday, his supporters overwhelmed the largest pooled caucus – Jackson county, responsible for sending 179 delegates to the state and congressional district conventions – winning over two-thirds of the available delegate slots. Mr. Paul also swept St. Louis, winning all of the city’s 36 delegates.

Missouri’s second and third largest caucuses, which convened last Saturday, reported similar results. In Greene county (111 delegates), Paul backers won nearly 60% of the delegate slots. In St. Charles (147 delegates), they so thoroughly dominated that the county GOP chair, allegedly a Santorum supporter, adjourned the meeting and called in the police to prevent the election from taking place.

In each of these counties, Paul supporters were outnumbered by Santorum supporters by at least 4-to-1*. Against these daunting odds, the Ron Paulers emerged victorious due to their unmatched grassroots organization and their ability to turn out the youth vote. In Greene county, party insiders said they had “never seen so many young people at a Republican caucus.”

Missouri’s results – a shot in the arm for the Paul campaign – have led many observers to conclude that Mr. Paul’s caucus strategy is working better than they had anticipated. His strong performance follows several events in recent weeks that suggest that Ron Paul supporters – energized by the message of limited government and fiscal conservatism – are quickly taking over the leadership of the Republican party at the state and local levels across the country.

Earlier this month, in Las Vegas, Paul supporters were elected to two-thirds of the board positions in the Clark County Republican Party after winning more county convention delegates than any other candidate at the caucuses – including Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, in Iowa, the state co-chair of the Paul campaign was elected as the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party in February. Last week, Paul supporters swept all the delegate slots in two of Seattle’s largest legislative district conventions.

Such accomplishments belie the mainstream media’s efforts to marginalize Ron Paul’s candidacy. The Associated Press’s projections, for example, report the Texas congressman as being last in the delegate count. Election analysts, however, insist that those projections are driven by a failure to understand the rules governing delegate allocation in caucus states. Josh Putnam, election expert and professor of political science, agrees. The AP delegate count, he admits, is based on “a fantasy proportional allocation of delegates in the non-binding caucus states.”

Heading into the Missouri caucuses, the New York Times reported that Rick Santorum was "frantically wooing voters" in an attempt to secure a "second victory." Since then, the Times' caucus blog has maintained complete silence about Ron Paul's unexpectedly strong performance in the state.

With his likely victory in Missouri, Mr. Paul has shown once again that his campaign – fueled by the passion and determination of millions of grassroots supporters across the country – should not be written off too quickly. He has more than doubled his voter base since 2008, intends to compete aggressively in Texas and California, and continues to upend the establishment narrative at every turn. Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, all available evidence suggests that the Ron Paul movement will continue to be a significant force in American politics for decades to come.

*In Missouri’s Feb. 7 primary – meaningless, since it awarded zero delegates - the ratio of Santorum votes to Paul votes was 3.8 in Jackson county, 4.3 in St. Charles county, and 4.5 in Greene county. Ron Paul won the majority of the county-level delegates in Jackson and Greene counties, and is expected to do the same in St. Charles when it holds its rescheduled caucus on April 10.

Reprinted from PolicyMic with the author's permission.

March 27, 2012

Hamdan Azhar is a New York-based writer and statistician. His commentary, which has been featured in the Huffington Post and the Christian Science Monitor, engages critical issues involving foreign policy, civil liberties, and international affairs. To read more of his work, visit his website.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/azhar1.1.1.html
 
Old April 7th, 2012 #17
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,679
Default

An Open Letter to Ron Paul

by Justin Raimondo, April 06, 2012

Print This | Share This


Dear Ron,

A lot of my readers are big fans of yours: on those rare but pungent occasions when I have criticized you, I’ve gotten lots of "blowback" in the comments section and in emails sent directly to my inbox. Whenever I praised you, I’ve enjoyed a veritable avalanche of favorable feedback. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with non-libertarians who praise you to the skies. Many people beyond the narrow confines of the libertarian movement are watching your campaign with great interest, and rooting for you — especially those who are concerned about our foreign policy of perpetual war. A lot of these people are not actually registered Republicans – although some have registered just to be able to vote for you – and that appears to be part of the problem.

You’ve captured the youth vote in practically every contest, while losing among the older set and among hardcore Republican voters. In short, the demographic you do best in winning over is the least likely to be able to vote in a closed Republican primary. I would estimate that roughly two thirds to three quarters of your constituency is outside the ranks of the GOP. In view of these realities, I have a question:

What is the endgame?

Yes, yes, I know, the campaign is educating people, building a movement, and it’s necessary to take the long view. Yet I also know I am not the only one wondering what will happen in the short term.

There has been a lot of speculation, not only among your friends and admirers, but also in the media, about the prospect of a "deal." This is not based on anything you have said or done: every public statement coming directly from you has indicated quite the opposite. Listening to what you actually say in interviews, in response to questions about endorsing Mitt Romney, leads one to conclude it’s highly unlikely bordering on downright impossible.

So what now?

Look, we don’t endorse candidates here at Antiwar.com, for a number of reasons, but I can’t ignore the many emails I’ve gotten from my readers, who are wondering about the answer to that question.

It’s been exciting, even for a non-participant like me, to watch as you mobilize thousands at rallies all across the country, cheering your call to dismantle the Empire and bring the troops home. You were the voice of the majority during the debates, calling for getting out of Afghanistan immediately – not in a year or two or three, not conditional on the generals’ diktat, but now, with no conditions or excuses. That’s a major reason why you have inspired many people to get involved who would never have considered supporting a Republican candidate for any office, let alone President of the United States.

Yet, as the primaries wind down, and Romney gets closer to his seemingly inevitable victory, we are hearing, time and again, that certain individuals high up in your campaign are trying to make some sort of dubious deal. Business Insider reports:

"Sources close to the campaign told Business Insider that, behind the scenes, there have been ongoing discussions between the two campaigns that appear to include, or at least be the precursor to, an eventual deal. ‘The courtship has been underway for a long time,’ a source who declined to be named, talking about internal campaign affairs told Business Insider. ‘They are smart enough to know that he [Paul] can’t win the nomination or get a Cabinet position … but Ron Paul has to go somewhere.’"

I don’t believe this "source," Ron, not even for a minute: if there has been a "courtship," it’s been entirely one-sided, with the Romneyites suffering from a bad case of unrequited love. Just seeing the look on your face when asked by Bob Schieffer about an endorsement is enough to convince me of that — not that I needed all that much convincing.

On the other hand, the last sentence in the quote above is completely accurate: after Tampa, you do have to go somewhere. And the movement you inspired wants to know where you are taking them: is it only as far as Tampa, or will you go all the way and launch a third party campaign?

"You don’t have to be a math genius to know that it is going to be very hard for us to get to Tampa with 1,144 delegates," says your campaign manager, Jesse Benton. "Short of Dr. Paul being the nominee, there would be a substantial price for us to throw our support behind someone else."

I don’t know what Benton considers "substantial," in this context, but I can’t imagine what the Romney camp could possibly offer you in exchange for an endorsement, and neither can the Business Insider: their piece lists a number of scenarios – the promise of a cabinet position for Rand Paul, a speaking slot in Tampa, concessions on the party platform – and then dismisses each and every one.

If I were 76 years old, I know I wouldn’t be sprinting around the country making speeches and tirelessly spreading the message of liberty: I’d be sitting on my deck, taking it easy, watching somebody else cut my lawn. But you’re in much better shape than I am, and besides that I can see you’re clearly enjoying yourself – especially the crowds of young people who cheer you wherever you go.

The fun doesn’t have to end in Tampa: if you decide to run an independent campaign for the White House – a strategy some of your supporters are already urging on you – your celebration of liberty and peace can continue right on up until November, and beyond. Because a third party candidacy will leave a legacy, a lasting monument to your campaign and the movement it created: a viable third party alternative to the twin parties of war and Big Government.

Polls show you getting as much as 17 percent of the vote in a three-way race – and those are just the starting numbers. It’s a long way until November, and a lot can happen: another economic crash, another war, another federal power grab so egregious it makes the PATRIOT Act seem like a mild precursor.

Republicans and conservatives argue that a third party campaign on your part would ensure President Obama’s reelection, a scenario I don’t think is all that credible. If Romney loses it will be because most people simply don’t like him, don’t trust him, and don’t want him anywhere near the Oval Office.

Yet even if it’s true your third party run would cost Romney the election, then isn’t it clear the Republicans deserve to lose? In the face of overwhelming public opposition to their warmongering, the other three GOP presidential contenders have relentlessly advocated escalating our overseas commitments: all three have explicitly threatened to go to war with Iran. Far from listening to your warnings about the dangers inherent in such a position, it’s clear they have nothing but contempt for your foreign policy views. Nor have they made any significant concessions on the domestic front: they’re all big spenders, Big Government "conservatives," and if they ever got into office they would continue along the same path.

In short, Republicans need to be taught a lesson, one they will never forget. By disdaining the substantial and growing libertarian wing of the GOP, and ignoring the desire for peace on the part of the larger public, they have earned nothing but defeat. You have said you are trying to save the Republican party, but it’s too late for that: what’s needed now is for someone to save the country from the GOP.

Yes, the Democrats also pose a major threat to liberty and peace, but the Republicans, I would argue, pose a much deadlier menace because their leaders and much of their base are unabashed militarists and dogged opponents of the Constitution. When it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties, the Obama administration is just as bad if not worse, but the difference is rhetorical: the Republicans openly proclaim their intent to continue and escalate our policy of permanent warfare, and take great pride in their willingness to throw the Bill of Rights overboard in the name of an endless "war on terrorism." Obama, on the other hand, is careful to sugar-coat his authoritarianism and belligerent foreign policy in terms of "liberal" bromides and appeals to "pragmatism."

The best thing that could happen would be for the GOP to split, with your supporters hiving off, leaving the GOP remnant to become a primarily southern-based regional party. This is their future, in any event, in spite of your energetic efforts to "save" them. Unfortunately – for them and for us – they don’t want to be saved.

In looking at the Ron Paul web sites, of which there are several, and speaking with a number of activists, I’ve encountered the following argument against taking the third party route: the Paulians, they say, are in this for the very long term. They mean to take over the GOP at the local level, and eventually dominate it at the national level. One blog entry estimated it would take them 20 years or so to accomplish this goal.

Twenty years? By that time, if we aren’t dead we’ll be wishing we were. If this country doesn’t change course soon, in 20 years we’ll be bankrupt and well into our senescence as a nation — a declining empire beset on every front, with the last tattered remnants of our Constitution thrown to the four winds. Indeed, we are almost at that point right now.

Dr. Paul, I know I speak for many of my readers when I say you have accomplished what none of us thought was possible: you opened up the political debate in this country, not only in the GOP but more generally. Now you have the chance to take that achievement and build on it: not by telling your supporters they have to wait 20 years or more before they can hope to effect real change, but by forging ahead and taking the next logical step in our long, harrowing, and yet energizing journey to reclaim our country and our old republic.

In this radio interview with WMAL, you come pretty close to saying you will consider going third party "when the votes are counted" – i.e. after the Tampa convention, at the end of August. Unfortunately, the Libertarian party national convention is being held in May. While running on the LP ticket is just one possibility, it seems like the most viable. In spite of there being several declared candidates, the LP nomination would be yours for the asking – but you have to ask for it. LP rules forbid nominating a candidate who hasn’t declared his intention to actively seek the nomination.

The other viable alternative is running for the "Americans Elect" nomination. Yes, I know the whole "Americans Elect" operation seems dubious on the face of it, but they qualified for ballot status in 35 states and counting. The "Ron Paul Draft" is already the top-vote getter in the Americans Elect nomination process, which runs through early May, with more than double the number of votes of the nearest competitor.

In fact, Americans Elect does not require candidates to accept their nomination until after they win their Internet primary (held in late June). Throughout May and June, you can expect your supporters to campaign for your nomination as the Americans Elect candidate, regardless of what you do right now.

There is also the independent option, which means getting on the ballot in all fifty states via petition, like Ross Perot did – but that seems prohibitively expensive.

Ron, I know you’re out there speaking to huge crowds – 10,000 at UCLA, even as I write – and how thrilled you must be by this kind of reception. And I know you’re remembering the time when those crowds amounted to a few dozen, at most – and I imagine how gratified you must feel. Finally, the pro-peace pro-liberty camp is making some progress – but it doesn’t have to end in Tampa. Please consider carrying the banner of peace and liberty all the way to November and beyond – because the future of the country, and the peace of the world, depends on it.

Sincerely,
Justin Raimondo
April 5, 2012


http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...r-to-ron-paul/
__________________
Christianity and Feminism, the two deadliest poisons jews gave to the White Race


''Screw your optics, I'm going in'', American hero Robert Gregory Bowers
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.
Page generated in 0.79774 seconds.