Showing posts with label defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defense. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

A Case against Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy and a Rebuttal

A Case against Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy.

Propagator of liberal pseudo-reality

A keen observation of academia reveals that the largest, most active constituency of Ron Paul supporters roughly parallels that of President Obama. Ron Paul’s largest base is an amalgamation of liberal anti-war activists, liberal university professors, and liberal college students. And like the President, Ron Paul and his fervent constituency promote liberal pseudo-realities.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Immediately, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the liberal Main Stream Media took up the propagandist campaign, “Why Do They Hate Us?” This campaign was one of the most successful “Blame America First” campaigns since the Vietnam War. Liberals eagerly accepted the erroneous premises and conclusions of this campaign, as it reinforced their animus for America. Unfortunately, Paul and supporters also embraced the false reality proposed by this campaign.

In their rush to blame America, liberals failed to ask an essential question: Who are “They” that hate us?

“They” are terrorists: who hate for no reason at all, who hate for the sake of hating, and who justify terrorism with any available delusion. American military bases are just a convenient excuse for terrorists to hate us. Even if we isolated ourselves on the North American continent, as Paulists propose; the terrorists would still hate us and still try to destroy us.

And yet, liberals, in absolutely schizophrenic logic, conclude, on the one-hand, that all Muslims hate us because we have military bases on Muslim land. And then, simultaneously, on the other hand, liberals self-righteously lecture us about “moderate Muslims” and that we are not to assume that all Muslims hate us. One thing was made absolutely clear for liberals: the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were America’s fault.

So for logical observers, it is astounding that during debates Ron Paul parrots the excuses and rationalizations of the irrational, hate-mongering terrorist, Osama bin Laden. There is little doubt that Osama bin Laden would be still alive, if it were up to a President Paul. Paul’s allegiance to international law (see policy on interrogation techniques), as well as pandering to his anti-war base, would have precluded military action into another sovereign country.

(For the record, like conservatives that happen to be African American, there are moderate Muslims that reject the imposition of radicalism; as is evidenced by Indonesia and Jordan.)

Bases on Muslim Land

Ron Paul’s rationale for his isolationist policies is his liberal-based insistence of Muslim anger over United States military bases on Muslim land. Paul’s erroneous talking point is that:

The United States would not like it if Muslims put military bases in the United States.

This argument not only ignores facts, but also promotes an anti-American pseudo-reality:

Bully America, with aggressive malice and greed attacked Saudi Arabia (and other countries) and took their land for military bases.

The reality is that Saudi Arabia (and other countries) welcomes these US military bases as protectorates against the historic aggression of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and the looming future Iranian aggression. The placement of US bases around the world has been legally authorized through international agreements and treaties between the USA and cooperating nations. The pseudo-reality of “America the Aggressor”, promoted by terrorists, liberals, Ron Paul and his supporters, is central to their anti-American policy for isolationism.

Does America need a President Paul, who believes that Status of Forces Agreements between the US and her allies are equivalent to an act of war by an enemy force invading the United States?

December 20, 1983

In the pseudo-reality of liberals, there are only 3 events that define their view of history: the Vietnam War, the second Iraq War, and December 20, 1983. This last event was when President Reagan’s envoy Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein. This has solidified the liberal assertion that:

America is no better than our enemies, because we just replace one dictator with our own dictator.

They fail to recognize that we were in the middle of the Cold War, as well as dealing with a very belligerent Iran. So our choices were: 1) Work with Hussein against Iran and the Soviets; 2) Depose the dictator Hussein, nation-build, impose democracy; while simultaneously holding the USSR & Iran at bay; or 3) the liberal and Paulist preference --- retreat to North America and surrender the Middle East and its petroleum resources to the USSR.

No matter historic, current, or future conflicts; the third choice of appeasement and surrender is a central foreign policy tenet of liberals and Paulists; the descendants of Lindbergh’s “America First” isolationists.

American Empire

Liberals and Ron Paul falsely propagandize that America is imperialistic. What evidence do they have of that? After World War II we rebuilt and left Europe and Japan. America, after purchasing the Philippines from Spain via the Spanish-American war, granted them independence in 1946. America left Kuwait after we liberated it from Saddam’s Iraq. To label America imperialistic is to fundamentally misunderstand: American exceptionalism, American societal values, and America’s fundamental devotion to freedom for all. Americans, as a whole, would stand against any attempt at national imperialism.

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

Non-intervention; the Feint of Isolationists.

Just as Obamacare (regulations that eliminate private health insurance companies) is the liberal ruse to gain single-payer (government) health care; Ron Paul’s non-intervention policy is a bid for isolationism.

There are two important fundamental foreign policy principles that Paulists choose to ignore.

Strategic Proximity

The strategic proximity of our internationally hosted military bases is an important protectorate for our allies and deterrents for our enemies -- Peace through Strength. If there was another world war, the isolationists would have us waste lives and treasure, “on the beaches and battlegrounds of Europe” and “on island-hopping across the Pacific” to regain our former bases from an entrenched enemy. This liberal utopian/isolationist ignorance would also waste all the past lives (World War II, the Korean War, etc.) sacrificed to gain these strategic bases.

Power Vacuum

A fundamental principle of all human history (past, present, and future) is the absence of power vacuums. Whether local, state, national, or geopolitical; whenever a power vacuum occurs it is quickly, often violently, filled. The isolationist, embarrassed by our sole superpower status, would have the United States retreat to the North American continent; effectively surrendering our allies, our interests, our economy and the entire globe to Communist China and/or a reconstituted USSR; as these nations would quickly and easily fill the vacuum we left. We already see this in the Gulf of Mexico and South America, as China & Russia are filling the energy and foreign policy vacuums left by the Obama administration’s lack of engagement.

The “anti-war” movement is actually pro-war. Without the stabilizing effect of a freedom-loving American superpower on the world stage, the resulting power vacuum would result in convulsive turmoil, war, and suffering. Local, regional, and global powers would violently struggle to fill the vacuum.

Unlike Reagan and conservatives, who see America as a “Shining City on the Hill”; Paulists and liberals do not believe America is a force for good in the world. On the contrary, they view America as the central problem in the world; a bully that needs to be cut down to size.

“Non-interventionist” Gambit

The “non-interventionist” gambit retorts that Ron Paul would have America retreat from international militarism, but not international trade. How does one trade, when Communist China or a reconstituted Soviet Union confiscates the international assets of US businesses, controls the natural resources and trade of the whole eastern hemisphere (along with their current efforts in South America)? The resulting forced isolation would be the surrender of our international trade and ultimately our national liberty.

Do the “non-interventionists” reject America, preferring Communist China as the sole world power? Do they support a policy in which America’s national liberty is forfeit to the mercy of a global Communist China? It would seem that liberals and Paulists, in their utopian fervor, place more faith in Communist China than a sound American government? Are we the global leader or the global pacifist?

We can’t afford Strategic International Military Bases.

On National Defense, Ron Paul’s website states: “Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.” And yet, Ron Paul insists that America cannot afford our strategic military bases around the world.

Paradoxically, the contradictory remedy to this fiscal argument is in Ron Paul’s own “Plan to Restore America”, in which he proposes the elimination of 5 national departments (Education, Energy, HUD, Commerce, and Interior), the transformation of entitlement programs; as well as other governmental austerity measures, including eliminating defense department waste and corruption. Ironically, such measures would preclude the fiscal necessity to dismantle strategic bases.

If Paul truly believes in the primacy of National Security, then why does he promise that a primary objective of his administration will be the unnecessarily abandonment of America’s strategic bases?

It leaves the logical observer to conclude that Ron Paul’s national defense policy is “Isolationism through Weakness.”

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

Other Notes

Ron Paul: American President or Iranian Advocate?

‘nough said.

The Score Card

Obama: Promised to close Gitmo; has not.

Paul: Promises to close Gitmo and our strategic bases.

Obama: Promised to afford terrorists constitutional rights

Paul: Violating their liberty to reject America’s constitutional rights and values; Paul promises to impose his values and America’s constitutional rights on terrorists. (What part of “to ordain and establish this Constitution OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” does Ron Paul not understand?)

Obama: Promised to be friends with Iran; recently applied sanctions.

Paul: Promises to be friends with Iran and opposes sanctions.

Obama: Constantly insults our ally Israel.

Paul: Promises to abandon our ally Israel.

Obama: Uses drone strikes to kill terrorists.

Paul: Condemns the killing of terrorists.

Obama: Killed Osama bin Laden.

Paul: Would not have committed “such a criminal act of war”, across the borders of a sovereign country providing terrorist havens.

How is it that Ron Paul is considered conservative and yet is more naïve about national security than Obama? To nominate someone that is weaker on national security than Obama would be a strategically colossal political blunder.

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

From Ron Paul’s advocacy for Iran’s anti-American regime, to being an apologist for terrorists, to his indignation of America’s global superpower status; one wonders if a President Paul will indulge, like his predecessor, in another international apology tour for what Paul perceives to be American indiscretions.

Source:  TPN By: James Flowers

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT RON PAUL ABOUND AND IT'S TIME TO CORRECT THIS.

It is a duty to know the truth about a Presidential Candidate

By Edna Mattos

12/5/2011

It’s impossible to understand politics unless you understand liberty – that we should all be free, and that all of our inalienable rights come from our creator and not government.  Once you understand this, it is easy to differentiate good government from bad.

I became a Ron Paul supporter when I fully understood what inalienable rights meant to me personally.  We’ve all heard that inalienable rights are granted by our creator and that government exits to protect them.  But do we live it, breath it, and really believe it?  Many of us take this for granted, and many more of us, simply do not care. What follows is informational only and not to be construed as trying to dissuade anyone from continuing to support whichever candidate they prefer.  My candidate is better than your candidate is not the intent that I wish to convey in this article.  I only want to correct some misinformation.  I will start with those issues that some consider impediments when considering Dr. Ron Paul as a viable presidential candidate.

Ron Paul does not support Israel: This is completely false.  But, before I tell you why, let me first say that the U.S. does not, and has not, supported Israel for years.  The U.S. Government told Israel to cede the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians from which attacks are launched against Israel.  We called them racists when they built their wall to protect themselves.  Our government made Israel deny Jews property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as a precondition for peace talks with the Palestinians.  Our government has accepted Hamas as a legitimate actor in Palestinian politics.  Our government made our support for Israel at the UN conditional on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.   The U.S. encouraged Israel to give back the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt for the sake of peace and nothing changed.  The U.S. told the world that Israel must revert back to the 67 borders and split Jerusalem in half leaving them completely and totally unprotected for peace.  Between 2006 and 2010, we allowed the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission to condemned Israel in 20 of its 25 resolutions.  The U.S. is now demanding that Israel go back ‘to the damned table’ and negotiate peace.  Israel has always conceded their land for peace, and there is no more to give.  Has our government implemented any recent policies that would send a message to the world that they need to lay off Israel?  The answer is no, our U.S. foreign policy is restricting and weakening Israel’s defenses.  The foreign aid that the U.S. sends to this region helps Israel’s enemies to further their attacks and hostilities against them.  Ron Paul believes that by stopping all foreign aid to this region, Israel will be in a much stronger position militarily.  He believes the U.S. needs to get out of Israel’s way and allow them to protect their national sovereignty anyway they see fit.  Make no mistake, there will be war in this region and the U.S. will be in no position to help Israel.  America is broke, we cannot afford any more wars.  We cannot continue to borrow money to give away to foreign governments that hate America or, to anyone else for that matter, without it negatively impacting our own defenses.

"[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, 1821

Ron Paul is an isolationist.  This is also completely false.  Dr. Ron Paul believes in a ‘non-interventionist’ foreign policy as did our founding fathers.  Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." George Washington similarly urged that the US must "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”  Many refer to war as propaganda and a racket

(you may want to listen to this video: http://citruscountycitizens.ning.com/video/war-is-a-racket-libya-the-real-story). 

Ron Paul believes that we should take care of our own problems first. His creed is millions or billions for defense, and not one cent for empire building.   Ron Paul is in favor of a strong national defense, but we will not be in any position to help anyone, if we cannot first help ourselves.  Our government is fallible when it comes to foreign policy.  Our annual national security budget is now $1.2 trillion dollars and growing.  Our young men and women need not be risking their lives to protect foreign empires.  Our government lies and exaggerates issues that happen in the home front, so it is conceivable that they are also lying about their reasons for foreign intervention  in the middle east.  The globalist and the elitists do have a foreign policy agenda, and it may not necessarily be to spread democracy around the world.   (Listen carefully to this video http://citruscountycitizens.ning.com/video/war-is-a-racket-libya-the-real-story.)

Please understand, that this is all food for thought.  You always have the right to believe whatever it is you want.  But, then again, we need to question our leader’s motives and, we need to rethink some of our positions that are based on what neocon and progressive war mongers in our government spread for their own reasons.  Ron Paul supports the true position of freedom and conservatism which is nonintervention and peace, without nation building.  He does not accept, irrefutably, what our government peddles, and this is how it should be.  We need to move away from the foreign policy disasters we’ve had under Clinton, The Bushes, and the Obama administrations, otherwise, the world will detonate from war because that is where they are taking this.

Dr. Paul would let Iran get the nuclear bomb:  This is false and misleading also.  Dr. Paul does not believe that the way to stop Iran is by continuing to issue threats and/or sanctions because they haven’t worked so far.  If Iran wants to go nuclear, there is very little that the U.S. can do other than to declare another war.  Russia, China, Germany and France would have something to say if the US invaded Iran, or engaged in any form of military action.  In fact, many believe that they may be already preparing for this.  Dr. Paul respects all governments and all religions, and as President his policies would defuse some of the tensions that are currently taking place in this region.  Under Ron Paul's leadership and for the sake of world peace, we may get a short reprieve to defuse this escalating issue.  The middle east conflicts are going to be hard to resolve, especially since the U.S. is forcing Israel to accept the negotiations offered by the Palestinians which will resolve nothing, and then you have the Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan conflicts on the sidelines.  And, the situation is now escalating in Pakistan.  The current actions by our government will never solve the hostilities that are taking place in this region because they hate our interference, and because we are inflaming an already dangerous situation with our interventionist foreign policy.  It’s time to try something different, because nothing else has worked.  We need to remember that America is broke, we do not have the funding to engage in any more wars.

One of the most important enumerated powers of the Federal government is to protect our national sovereignty against any foreign invasion.  It’s important to stress that Dr. Paul is a true constitutionalist that follows the Constitution to the letter.  Dr. Paul will diligently, and unfalteringly respond to any form of attack against the U.S. 

Dr. Paul wants to legalize drugs.  This is also false.   Dr. Paul wants to get the Federal government out of the drug business by turning this over to the States to control.  If any drug is considered illegal at the Federal level, it will most likely continue to be illegal at the State level, unless the State and its people decide differently. 

Dr. Paul is authentic, what you see is what you get.  He is principled, trustworthy, consistent, honorable, noble, truthful, sincere, plainspoken, wise, ethical, honest, educated and smart.  In all the years of public office, he has never voted to raise taxes, or voted for an unbalanced budget, or voted for any kind of federal restriction on gun ownership, or voted to raise congressional pay.  He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch or has taken a government-paid junket.  He voted against the Patriot Act, voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley which was created as a result of the Enron scandal and it’s costing taxpayers millions; he voted against regulating the Internet, voted against the Iraq war, does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program,  returns portions of his annual congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury every year. Dr. Paul is also against a National ID, and he is against all bailouts.  Lobbyists avoid knocking on his door.  It has been said that even under great pressure from the Texas branch of the American Medical Association and the Texas Medical board, Dr. Paul refused to accept Medicare and Medicaid payments even as he served many of the poorest residents in his county.  Unquestionably, he has set the bar for standards for politicians higher than anyone else. 

Did I mention that he is called the Champion of the Constitution? Or, that he tried to warn legislators about the housing bubble with Fanny and Freddie a decade before it occurred, but no one listened?  He also has been warning about the Student Loan bubble, and the possible collapse of the U.S. dollar, and the dealings in Wall Street, and many are still not listening.  Or, that because of his persistance for the first time in 100 years the Federal Reserve was audited, and it was not even a complete audit by any means.  It was discovered that they gave themselves, their crony bankers in the US and abroad, and their favorite corporations, $16 trillion dollars over three years without congressional approval!  Why wasn't more made of this raid on our Treasury by the media and on Capitol Hill?  Because they are all somehow benefiting from this theft.  Why is Dr. Paul’s forecasts so accurate, and powerful?  He understands the monetary cycles and is a disciple of the Austrian school of economics.  He knows what the problems are, and he has the solutions to fix them.  He also believes that we must return to the gold standard, stop the Federal Reserve from raiding our treasury of trillions of taxpayers dollars, and stop them from printing fiat currency before we reach the point of no return.  One of the reasons is that it will prevent overall inflation as it did for over 100 years before the Federal Reserve was established, because gold cannot be created like paper money or computer generated money. The cruelest tax of all is inflation caused by the Federal Reserve printing and borrowing that lowers the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar, and that it is at the root of why the U.S. dollar is now at the point of collapsing.

As President, Dr.Paul will cut spending, end the Income Tax, bring our troops home, end foreign wars, stop foreign aid, secure our borders, fix health care, repeal the unconstitutional Patriot Act, return power to the States (as in the 9th and 10th Amendments), balance the budget in the first year, abolish corporate subsidies, return spending to 2006 level, abolish all unconstitutional Executive Orders, abolish the Department of Energy, cut back EPA funding, get us out of the United Nations, get rid of the Federal Department of Education giving more power to the States and local boards, abolish the Department of Energy, audit the Federal Reserve with the initial intention of reducing their powers.  He endorses free trade but rejects membership in NAFTA.  To stand with the American people, Dr. Paul will take a salary of only $39,336 annually, equal to the average pay of U.S. workers, instead of the $400,000 current presidential salary.  Now which other candidate do you think is principled and determined enough to accomplish this?   None!

Ron Paul will serve the American People, not the special interests, not the military industrial complex, not big corporate Wall Street, and certainly not the political establishment.  He doesn’t hedge his bets, he says what he feels, and does what is right by the American people and for the preservation of our U.S. Constitution!  And, please believe that it needs preserving!
Other Ron Paul Information: 

He is the most searched candidate on Youtube, Facebook and Google.

He has delivered 4,000 babies.

He is the only veteran running for office.

He has received more donations from active military that all candidates combined.

The overwhelming majority of donations come from folks like you and me.

He is a man of consistent principled integrity and a Christian leader who does not use religion for political gains.

He is pro life.

His supporters are very loyal.

He is appealing more and more to a vast number of young Americans.

He is the author of eight books.

He was a frat boy.

He is a pretty good baseball player and was a track star in college.

He is leading in the Independent polls against Obama.

Many Democrats disillusioned with Obama’s foreign policy in New Hampshire and other States are now supporting Ron Paul.

Many Herman Cain supporters are now supporting Ron Paul.

Ron Paul told the Trump ‘you’re fired’ and declined to be part of his reality TV debate circus to take place at the end of December because to do so would diminish the status of the office of the presidency.  And, Mr. Comb-over is seeing red.  I agree that this is a step-down-type of debate, and it should be boycotted by every American who takes presidential elections seriously. 

My personal opinion is that we need a president who will follow the Constitution and inspire other politicians to do the same.  Dr. Paul is the only politician who has reliably shown unwavering adherence to the Constitution.  The rest of the candidates will continue to drift away from our founding principles, perhaps even more.  And, very little will change.  Under Ron Paul’s plan he will create jobs and turn our economy around.  Many of us recognize that Ron Paul is not the best statesman, but many concerned citizens are hearing his message nevertheless, because he is honest, sincere and genuine.  The only one with a consistent constitutional message.  We either accept our U. S. Constitution in its entirety, or we might as well shred it.  No candidate is perfect, that is true, but why would anyone want to pick the most imperfect of them all, when you can vote for Ron Paul.  Ron Paul supporters are growing by the minute, a fact that many politicos and elitists are afraid of.  Ron Paul has a brilliant mind, read his books and see for yourself.  He is the only constitutional candidate running that will return our country to the founding principles of liberty and freedom even if it is for only a few short years.

This man is real folks.  Our country needs this principled American in the White House and it is up to us to make this happen.  Too much is at stake.  We cannot afford to settle for less.

If you agree with this article, please help spread this message to all. 

May God bless America and may HE help Americans continue to be loyal to our U.S. constitution to the end!

For Liberty,

Edna - http://citruscountycitizens.ning.com/profiles/blogs/misconceptions-...

Monday, August 1, 2011

The Latest on the Debt Crisis Deal and Some Input From Marco Rubio

Rubio on the Senate floor regarding our debt crisis (the ease with which he delivers a smackdown to John Kerry is a nice added bonus):

Rubio: 07.30.11

YouTube Video | Senator Marco Rubio | Sen. Rubio: “Save The Whole House or It Will All Burn Down”

I would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that compromise that’s not a solution is a waste of time. If my house was on fire, I can’t compromise about which part of the house I’m going to save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down. We either save this country or we do not. And to save it, we must seek solutions.

That, my friends, is what hitting it out of the park looks like. Here is the complete text of Sen. Rubio’s remarks (as provided by Rubio’s press office):

Senator Marco Rubio

U.S. Senate Floor Speech

July 30, 2011

Sen. Rubio: “Thank you, Mr. President.

“I rise here on the Senate floor today to speak on the tremendous issue that’s captivated, and rightfully so, the attention of our country.

“Let me start by saying that I do not enjoy nor relish the partisan role of attack dog. I never found any fun in that. I don’t think it’s constructive. I don’t intend to become that here in the Senate.

“I also have only been here for seven months, which means I haven’t been here long enough to think any of the stuff that’s going on is normal. And I certainly don’t think any of the stuff that goes on around here too often is normal. So I think the fact that I’ve been here seven months has served me well in that regard.

“Let me begin if I can. One of the things that I’ve noticed this week is that Washington is full of people from all over the world and all over the country that have traveled here this week to come and watch their government at work and see the monuments of the city and found themselves in the middle of this debate.

“So I think it’s important to remind people what we’re debating because although it is a difficult and important issue, it is not a complicated one to understand. It’s pretty straight forward.

“And here’s the way I would describe it the United States of America more or less — these are rough numbers but they’re accurate – spends about $300 billion a month. It has $180 billion a month that comes to the federal government through taxes and other sources of revenue and that means that in order to meet its bills at the end of every month it needs to borrow $120 billion.

“Now, for much of the history of this country, there have been increases in the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. But what has happened over the last few years is that it’s no longer a routine vote because the people who give us our credit rating are saying too much of the money that you spend every month is borrowed and we want you to show us how over the next ten years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of what you spend.

“And so that’s why, for years, where the debt limit was routine vote, it no longer can be. It’s not something that was made up in some conservative think tank. But the reality that we cannot continue to borrow 40% to 41% of every penny that the government spends has brought us to this point.

“So you would think that seeing that, our government and our leaders here in both parties would react to that immediately and work on it.

“And I’ve heard lot of talk today about delaying tactics and delaying votes. I would argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the last two and a half years.

“In the two years before I even came here, this chamber neither proposed nor passed a budget. It is a startling figure that for the last two years this government has operated without a budget. So think about that. Two years have gone by without a budget. The first two years that the President was the president, no budgets.

“Some people would say, well, that’s because of partisanship in Washington. Well, that’s not true. In the two years before I got here, both the House and Senate were controlled by members of the Democratic Party, which are the President’s party. In fact, in this chamber for at least one of those two years, 60 votes, 60 out of the 100 members here caucused with the Democrats. And as you recall, on Christmas Eve of the year 2009, they were able to pass a health care bill that was very controversial because they had the 60 votes in the President’s party.

“Over two years, no budget. In fact you know how long it has been since this chamber proposed a budget? Forget passed a budget, proposed a budget? 822 days. That’s a long time. A lot of things have happened in the last 822 days, but proposing a budget is not one of them out of this chamber.

“So then I got here – and we got here in January, seven months have passed, still no budget. Again, not budget passed, proposed, offered. Here’s our budget. Still no budget. 822 Days and every single day that I’ve been here.

“Now, in the last seven days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a proposal from the esteemed senator from Nevada, the majority leader. You would think, has he brought it to the floor to vote? Not until last night. So, again, offered a proposal over the weekend and still for six days we sat around and what did we do around here? Nothing. It was never brought to a vote.

“You would think these issues would have been worked on in January, February, March — nothing. This chamber has done nothing. You talk about delay tactics? They’ve been delaying for two and a half years.

“Now the President doesn’t have the luxury of some of these things. He has to propose a budget by law, and he did. Let me tell you how ridiculous the budget was. Not a single member of this Senate voted for it, including the Democrats. It is a budget that didn’t lead with the debt limit; in fact, it increased the debt. That’s how absurd the budget was.

“Where is the President plan? We haven’t seen it. We haven’t seen it. Here’s the President’s plan: a blank sheet of paper. He doesn’t have a plan. He hasn’t offered a plan. Again, if this were a Republican president, I would say the same thing.

“I do not understand how an issue of this magnitude, of generational importance, the President of the United States has not offered a plan. If someone has seen the president’s plan, please send it to me because no one else has seen it. It does not exist.

“So this has been the plan all along, by the way. The plan all along was not to take a position, to let the days count down until we got to this point with 72 hours to go and then force a vote on something that they wanted. I believe that that has been the plan the entire time. And you can see it carrying itself out.

“You want to know why people all across America get grossed out about politics? It’s by watching this kind of stuff happen.

“And instead let me tell you what we’ve seen for the last few days. First of all, for today and for much of this time I have heard all these attacks and name-calling. If we had $1 billion for every time I heard the words “tea party extremist,” we could solve this debt problem.

“So all this name-calling, so I said let me read some quotes about this debt limit and I found some pretty extremist quotes.

“Here’s one.

“It says, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt.” A quote from a tea party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from March 16 of 2006 from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“I found another extremist quote. This one says, “Because this massive of accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against a debt limit increase.” Well, that must be from a tea party extremist member of the House, right? No. This is March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

“And last but not least, here’s a quote from September 27 of 2007. It says, “I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt limit yet again. Clearly we need to change course and this debt limit bill is just another reminder of that.” And that is from the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. On that date in 2007.

“And yet now these same quotes in this context, what we’re talking about raising the debt limit more than has ever been raised in one vote, is extremism? This name-calling is absurd and it sets this process back.

“The other thing I hear — oh, it is not reasonable. This is a waste of time. This bill can’t pass the Senate when they talk about the House bill. So now it disqualifies the bill the fact that it can’t pass in the Senate.

“Well, guess what? The Senate bill can’t pass in the Senate — the Senate bill can’t pass in the Senate.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Will the Senator yield for a question?”

Sen. Rubio: “Yes, I’ll yield.”

Sen. John Kerry: “I thank the Senator for doing that. That’s become somewhat unusual in the Senate today. So I truly appreciate it.

“I would ask the Senator, as ironic as it may be that on occasion people in the past have indeed voted against a debt limit — both Republicans and Democrats alike — is it not true that in those situations those votes did not hold the nation hostage, did not come at a moment of enormous economic fragility as we are in today, and did not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly every time?

“Is that not true?”

Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts, I would say two things.

“The first is that those votes — put it to you this way. If the Senator from Illinois at the time, Senator Obama, had had his way, we’d be in the same position we are in now. Because he had voted against the debt – and I recognize the President has now said that the debt limit is — he made a mistake and he wouldn’t have said that were he here today.

“My point, I would say to the Senator from Massachusetts, is that rhetoric two years ago was not considered extremist language and now that rhetoric, which by the way I have not found. I think it is a myth. There may be a handful of people in the building both in the House and Senate perhaps that believe that the nation doesn’t have to raise the debt limit. But by and large everyone recognizes that something must be done about the debt limit.

“What we have also said – I speak for myself. Let me not speak for any other member of this chamber or the next.

“What I have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt. And that the debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt, because the crisis that America faces is not one that I have defined.

“But one that has been defined by the rating houses and rating agencies who have said if you do not get your spending in order, we don’t care whether you raise your debt limit or not, we will downgrade you.

“And what that means for every American is an increase in their interest payments.”

Sen. John Kerry: “Will the Senator further yield for a question?”

Sen. Rubio: “Yes.”

Sen. Kerry: “Mr. President I appreciate what the Senator is saying. I would just say first of all that everybody understands the danger of the rating agencies right now.

“The problem is, we got to reach across the aisle and negotiate. We’ve got to come to agreement. Right now there’s not a lot of negotiating going on.

“I would ask the Senator, if he doesn’t agree that there is an enormous difference between — the Senator a moment ago said if he had gotten his way. But the whole point is, everybody knew he wasn’t about to get his way. That was a truly symbolic vote.

“Today, however, is it not true we are on the brink of a default and the absence of negotiation or the absence of a settlement presents us with a far more serious consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today?”

Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts I would say it’s impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn’t offer a plan. How do you negotiate with someone who will not offer a plan and will not put it on the table?

“But the finger pointing of who has a plan and who doesn’t have a plan is relevant, but it’s not the central issue here.

“I would also say that in March of this year, March 30 to be exact of this year, I wrote an op-ed piece that ran in The Wall Street Journal and it outlined the things I was looking for to be a part of this debate. And I was told on March of this year that we didn’t have enough time to do all those things. Although later on we found out perhaps we did, this grand bargain and I am prepared, as I stand here today, if there is a meeting going on right after this, I’d love to be a part of it.

“I am prepared to discuss the things that I believe we need to do not just to raise the debt limit. Raising the debt limit is the easiest thing. That’s one vote away. The hard thing is to show the world we are serious about putting our spending in order so we can show people we’ll able to pay our bills down the road.

“And that is a combination of things that I have outlined very clearly, not just on March of this year inThe Wall Street Journal, but in repeated speeches on this floor.

“And those are the things, we need to do two things.

“Number one is we need to grow our economy because while the debt is the biggest issue in Washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing America. And if we could get more people back to work, we would have more people paying taxes, and if we had more people paying taxes, we’d have more revenue for government.

“And so that is the first thing we need to do, is figure out how to create jobs in America and I think there is bipartisan agreement on things we can do to do that.

“The President himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity in the State of the Union. Let’s do it.

“We’ve all talked about tax reform. Flattening and simplifying our tax code. And if there are things in that tax code that do not belong there because they are the product of good lobbying instead of good policy, then let’s go after those things. We’ve talked about that. Let’s talk about that.

“I think we all agree that there has to be some changes in discretionary spending, but we also agree that doesn’t solve the problem. That’s a small piece of our overall budget. That we have to save Medicare because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. That we have to save Medicaid because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is.

“And I can tell you that history will back up what I’m about to say and that is that there is no government run by conservatives, Republicans, put whoever you want there, if you give government the opportunity to spend more money than it has, it will do it. It will do it every time.

“That’s why I believe there are at least 20 members of the Senate in the other party who have supported some version of the balanced budget amendment and yet it’s something we cannot even get a vote on much less discuss in the Senate.

“So I believe there can be compromise on those outlines but here’s the last thing I would say.

“I believe my time is about to expire so let me close with this.

“Compromise is fantastic.

“I would love nothing more than to leave this building tomorrow night having said the republic still works. I was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from states far from mine with views different from mine but who love their country so much that we were able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe.

“I would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that compromise that’s not a solution is a waste of time.

“If my house was on fire, I can’t compromise about which part of the house I’m going to save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down.

“We either save this country or we do not.

“And to save it, we must seek solutions.”

Cross-posted at Sunshine State Sarah and the Minority Report

The latest deal, hyped as the great compromise, provides for exactly $4 billion in savings this year. That’s right, $4 billion… essentially nothing! It promises fantasy cuts in future years, which will never happen. It guts defense spending with budget cuts to be shared 50-50 between the Department of Defense and entitlement programs, though entitlement programs are close to three times the size of the defense budget.

There will be a ‘Super’ committee to propose more cuts down the road. The House side will have three Republicans and three Democrats. Earth to John Boehner. You have a majority in the House. Why the hell don’t you have a majority on that committee?

The debt ceiling deal provides for the immediate raising of the debt ceiling, thus fueling the continuing, endless increase in the size of government.

And do you realize that if we don’t repeal ObamaCare, every penny we are saving in this pathetic bill without the guarantee of a balanced budget. will be eaten up with those increases alone? Plus Moody’s wanted at $4 Trillion in spending cuts bill… and this one would only reach $3 Trillion if they really did everything they promised… so we might lose out AAA credit rating anyway. And maintaining our AAA credit rating was the only reason to even consider raising the debt level.  Also, the Dem’s keep saying there are no tax hikes in the latest “Grand Compromise”, but in reality, word is that Obama just plans ‘not’ to extend the Bush tax cuts next time around… to they’ll get their tax hike too.  So finally, if the American people are to get anything out this, the GOP needs to demand a yay vote on the separate Balanced Budget Amendment before passing any version of this… After all the Dems, including Obama, keep saying they are all for balancing the budget and that they would vote for a balanced budget amendment in a separate bill… so let’s do it now, FIRST!

Chances are that this bill will not pass both the House and Senate. Neither the right nor the left is happy. And again… they are asking congress to pass and the American people to accept a bill that nobody will time to read. Didn’t we learn our lesson on that trick?!?

As Rubio mentions, this plan of no plan, so the Dems and Obama could push through whatever they wanted at the last hour was always the plan!  And let us not forget the elephant in the room… Obama’s plan, in his own words has always been to fundamentally transform America.  He just left off the the words: into a second rate country!

Wow… a Palin-Rubio ticket is sure looking good to me… but he’d be a great addition to any ticket!!

Monday, July 18, 2011

The Manchurian Approach to National Security

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton – the Noisy Room
Hat Tip: Brian B.

Leon Panetta is a leftist radical who should never have headed the CIA, period, much less be confirmed as Secretary of Defense. He poses a massive security risk and he has never been vetted – at all. For background on Panetta’s radical communist ties, visit the following research by Trevor Loudon and Cliff Kincaid:

Panetta stands to be confirmed as Secretary of Defense soon if nothing is done. Just another brick in the Cloward and Piven strategy. Almost certainly Panetta will have two overriding objectives after being confirmed and both spell very bad news for the US, the Western world at large and our way of life.

First on his chopping block will be billions in defense budget cuts. In essence, emasculating our military and weakening our forces to the point of no return. Baring our throats to our enemies across the planet who are at this moment savoring the blood and death to come of the last superpower and freest country ever to grace the planet.

Second, Panetta is laying the foundation for further implementation of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine. And he has powerful friends indeed on both sides of the progressive aisle (at the forefront is John McCain) backing his move to grant President Obama powers that not only render Congress totally toothless and irrelevant, but also bestowing the powers of a dictator upon our Commander in Chief. Panetta stated that the president can unilaterally use military force, without congressional authorization to “protect our national interests.” Listen to his language concerning the War Powers Act and the right of the President to wage war:

John McCain: “Does it worry you if the Congress begins to tell the commander in chief as to exactly … what the president can or cannot do in any conflict?” asked McCain.

Leon Panetta: “Senator, I believe very strongly that the president has the constitutional power as commander in chief to take steps that he believes are necessary to protect this country and protect our national interests,” said Panetta. “And obviously, I think it’s important for presidents to consult, to have the advice of Congress. But in the end, I believe he has the constitutional power to do what he has to do to protect this country.”

Notice the careful language here. Let me translate… Panetta and Obama ‘hope’ that the Congress will back his military dictates. They ‘hope’ that our leaders will see things their way. But if not, tough cookies folks. If the President decrees, so shall it be. From Wikipedia, we see the definition of a dictator:

A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator. It has three possible meanings:

  • A Roman dictator was the incumbent of a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
  • A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples’ freedom.
  • In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

I would say our government, with Panetta at the helm and Obama ruling over all, fits the bill quite nicely indeed.

From CNS News:

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says Congress “shall have Power … to declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” At the constitutional convention in 1787, James Madison of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed that the word “declare” war be inserted in place of “make” war in this passage so that it would leave the president the limited power to “repel sudden attacks.” Madison’s proposal was adopted.

Madison notes from the Constitutional Convention clearly indicate that the drafters of the Constitution meant to deny the president the power to initiate military action by the United States except when necessary for self-defense. “The Executive should be able to repel and not to commence war.”

President Barack Obama expressed this same interpretation when he was a presidential candidate. On Dec. 20, 2008, he told the Boston Globe: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

When it suited Obama, he was against unilateral authorization of military attack. Not so any more. Now it suits his one world Marxist agenda and he is greedily digging in for a big helping of R2P. Witness the actions in Libya and now Yemen. On the chopping block: Syria and then for the coup de grâce – Israel. It’s barreling towards all of us with murderous, evil intent and Israel’s fate is not hard to discern in the military tea leaves. Obama just rendered a 30 day ultimatum to Israel demanding they return to the suicidal 1967 borders where they would be virtual lambs to the slaughter for the Islamists. If they don’t comply, well then, America will be forced to withdraw her support from her staunchest ally. UN sanctions will ensue and if financial extortion is not fruitful, well, military intervention will have its day.

Obama justifies the Libyan conflict by saying it threatens our interests in the region. But the Constitution is being flaunted and totally ignored here. Libya posed no military threat to us and did not wage war against us. Yemen – Obama is not even bothering to give an excuse on this incursion. It was a ‘covert’ operation until a few days ago. And if Americans don’t like it – too freaking bad.

Panetta sees it this way:

Panetta said it was “very important” for the president to consult with Congress after he takes military action, saying that “hopefully” Congress will agree that military action is necessary.

“[O]nce those [military] decisions are made, in order for those decisions to be sustained, that it’s very important to work with the Congress and seek the best advice and counsel of the Congress and hopefully get the Congress’ support for those actions,” said Panetta.

Panetta is a leftist radical who is very, very dangerous. If he becomes Secretary of Defense, Panetta and Obama will finish what Obama began – the dismantling of the strongest military the world has ever seen and the bankrupting of America to boot. Libya and Yeman, along with Afghanistan and Iraq have already broke the American bank. But wait, there’s more to come with Syria and the treacherous Judas treatment of Israel to come.

With Obama the anointed Manchurian President (whose Marxist strings are being pulled masterfully) and Panetta as his chief henchman, national defense will take on a whole new meaning to Americans. A very personal meaning.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

THE GLOBALISTS’ TAKEOVER OF AMERICA: Part 3 – WEAKEN MILITARY & CIVILIAN DEFENSE

By: AJ

President Obama placed our soldiers under UN NATO control for his war in Libya without consulting the United States Congress. Using our soldiers and our military assets according to what the “international community” global elites decide is clearly what Obama is interested in doing.

Another example of weakening America’s military defense was Obama’s push to enact the START Treaty. In short, the START Treaty places decisions about America’s defense in the hands of Russia and the global elites. Since when has an American president ceded our ability to defend our country by placing it in the hands of globalists who hate America? Obama has done the unthinkable… but there’s more.

The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine employed by the UN and advanced by Obama is beyond dangerous. Within the globalist’s charter is the ability to deem civil rights violations an offense warranting military action against the offending country.

No U.S. President in their right mind would ever condone R2P because of the simple realization that, at any time, R2P could be used against America. Obama is well aware that America is hated by other countries and their intent is to destroy our free market system and our way of life; numerous videos provide irrefutable evidence of this, as well as Middle East countries calling for “Death to America!” What would stop the UN global elites from claiming U.S. violations to warrant international military action?

Aren’t the liberals, led by George Soros, Obama, Eric Holder and their Marxist “community organizers,” calling for prosecution of the Bush administration for war crimes? “War crimes” (subject to the global elites’ definition of such) falls under the R2P charter too. Imagine future U.S. administrations that aren’t ‘in’ with the global elite’s like Obama; the global elites already have imagined it.

It’s no coincidence that Obama joined the UN Human Rights council and brought forth “abuses” committed by America. The “abuses” weren’t stoning women to death, suicide bombings or killing gays. No, it’s worse than that. According to President Obama, America is committing abuse by enforcing the laws of our land with regard to people who illegally cross our border.

Obama’s rules of engagement on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq have been hidden from the American people. Few know that when Obama took the helm as Commander In Chief, he deliberately enacted procedures which place our soldiers at greater risk of injury and death to ensure they will be unable to succeed. Requiring that they receive approval from an attorney before they fire on the enemy and handing out awards to soldiers who do not fire on the enemy are just a couple of the unspeakable things Obama has done to harm our soldiers.

Soldier suicides, including National Guardsmen and Reservist’s, have skyrocketed under Obama’s command. In the past 5 years, a total of 975 suicides occurred – of which 543 (56%) were under Obama’s watch in just the past 2 years. 2009 saw 242 suicides and 2010 brought 301 suicides.

Now the President’s comrades, to include those in the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Unions and Weather Underground (terrorist’s Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Mark Rudd, etc.), want to decrease military spending. Obama starts a third war and his cohorts call for reductions in defense spending knowing that it will squeeze our military to the brink of collapse.

Obama’s unspeakable rules of engagement, START Treaty, R2P and his push to decrease military funding – along with everything else he is doing to subvert our military defense capabilities – represent his intention and actions to weaken America’s military defense.

In addition, the globalists (including Obama and Hillary Clinton) intend to enact the Small Arms Treaty which will restrict gun ownership for American citizens under the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. Harm our soldiers and disarm our citizens and America is ripe for attack and invasion on our own soil. Couple the Small Arms Treaty with the President’s Executive Order granting international police (INTERPOL) full immunity on American soil, along with the National Civilian Security Force that Obama has been creating, and the clear and present danger to America is obvious.

The danger to America is reinforced by Eric Holder’s DOJ secretly arming Mexico’s drug cartel to put American citizens at greater risk in border states and Obama arming radical Islamists in Libya to put American soldiers at greater risk under UN control in Libya.

It’s stunning to see how Obama is actively aiding and abetting the destruction of America in every possible way.

If there is a military or Constitutional expert willing to examine the totality of President Obama’s actions that are weakening America’s military and civilian defenses, the time to do so is right now – without hesitation.

Is there anyone up to the task who hasn’t been bought off by the global elites?

Reference:

THE GLOBALISTS’ TAKEOVER OF AMERICA: Part 1 – COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY

THE GLOBALISTS’ TAKEOVER OF AMERICA: Part 2 – DE-INDUSTRIALIZE AMERICA

Related:

1. NATO “hopeful” of more planes in Libya soon

2. New Start treaty is a huge mistake

3. “Responsibility to Protect” – The End of National Sovereignty As We Know It?

4. An NCO recognizes a flawed Afghanistan strategy

5. Army Reserve, National Guard Suicides Doubled in 2010

6. Terrorist Mark Rudd’s Warning on the Destruction of America’s Defenses

7. Mark Rudd Repents Army Targeted Bombs – Now Supports Peaceful Destruction of the Military

8. Communist Party’s “Friend” Barack Obama, Calls for Tax Hikes, Reduced Military Spending

9. Obama and Clinton cede to UN small arms treaty

10. UN Office for Disarmament Affairs

11. Executive Order 12425

12. Article analyzing implications of EO 12425

13. DoD Directive 1404.10: “DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” dated Jan 23, 2009

14. Soros-supported RAND Corporation Report: “A Stability Police Force for the United States” 2009 [to circumvent the Posse Commitatus Act]

15. After ATF Blows Deadline, Issa Issues Subpoena for Project Gunrunner Papers

16. Feds Caught Smuggling Guns To Mexico Drug Cartels

17. Pentagon Planning How to Arm Libyan Rebels Against Qaddafi Forces

Source:  THE GLOBALISTS’ TAKEOVER OF AMERICA: Part 3 – WEAKEN MILITARY & CIVILIAN DEFENSE at the Noisy Room