The stranglehold of the mainstream (and even most of the so-called “alternative”) press on information they deem “unsafe” for the American public’s consumption has suffered a fatal blow.
According to the MSNBC post-debate poll, the very network that carried the first GOP Presidential Primary Debate, Ron Paul won hands down - but you wouldn’t know that if you read only the usual press accounts of the event.
The headlines seen from a Google News search using the keyword “debate”, at the time of this writing show only this:
“John McCain Wins First GOP Debate” (Fox News) “Who Won the First GOP Presidential Debate? (Answer provided in article: “Mitt Romney” - National Review Online) "Republican Presidential Debate Gives No Clue on GOP Leader in Race” (Axcess News)
Apparently the Axcess News editors don't have a clue - unlike actual debate viewers.
A news search for the keywords “won debate” reveals this:
“Noonan, Pundits: Romney Won Debate” (NewsMax)
"Giuliani Wary of Repeal of Roe” (Washington Times)
No need to go any further with this. Only one outlet (Earth Times) showed a headline that Ron aul won - but it was just a reprint of the Paul campaign’s post-debate news release, not an actual valuation by a media outlet’s reporter or pundit.
Unsurprisingly, not a single report of the actual political news story of the decade, namely, that a virtually unknown “dark horse” beats even the media favorite Romney handily - and utterly crushes the rest of the field.
Now you know why you can’t believe the press. Wanna bet the South Carolina debate will not have a post-debate poll published? After all, Fox News is the network chosen to carry it. Read this account of how Fox is trying to control the event. They don’t want to mess up the party for their home boy, Mitt “Conme”.
Just in order to preserve the evidence (in case someone at MSNBC might consider tampering ith it later), I kept screen shots of the actual poll results and printed a hard-copy as well. You never know.
Poll1 Poll2 Poll3
Recent results are even more favorable (yes, it's still up today, May 5th).
This MSNBC poll shows one or two things that nobody in the Liberty Movement would have xpected this early on:
1. Americans are absolutely ready for Ron Paul’s message of Liberty under a small, non- intrusive government that doesn’t meddle in other countries’ affairs.
2. American conservatives - yes, even Republicans - are no longer mouthpieces of the neocon media’s talking points. They can actually think for themselves and even ignore attempts to ignore Ron Paul during the post-debate “analysis” stage of the carrying network Who would have thought?
If you search Google News for “Ron Paul debate” you, finally, get this:
Alex Wallenwein, J.D., is a former attorney in Houston, Texas, and a grass-roots activist for the rule of law and American liberty. He organizes the Houston 4 Ron Paul 2008 Meetup.
I had thought Paul was not to my political thinking but was sane. After reading:
"If Ron wins the election, "they" (the left-wing and right-wing and “center-wing” political, financial, and press establishment) for the first time ever, will be faced with the prospect of an American President absolutely wreaking havoc on their welfare state machinations. The IRS, the Federal Reserve, the NAU - everything will be up for grabs. The UN will lose the US as its single draft-horse. Let them finance their own BS. Ron will probably evict them from US soil. They don't like us anyway, so they can gladly go somewhere else. The issue of exactly where is hereby committed to your sound discretion."
I now doubt that. The UN, of course, is for the most part the tool of the US, but is still one of the best hopes for world peace, despite its problems. Dismantle welfare? No taxes? Wonderful -- let's just declare we are no longer the United States but a collection of warlords with no social values whatever -- while the country sinks into the sea.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Saturday, May 5, 2007 at 6:01:34 PM
Social values can and do exist without government sanction or enforcement. "Warlords?" 'Been watching too much Mad Max, I suppose? How does that follow from an absence of welfare state ideology? To some, government will always be the doer and giver of everything. I resign myself to that fact.
However, since government is manned by people (incidentally the same types that usually make up the "warlords" contingent, albeit with a somewhat more polished vocabulary), I prefer to give them less power, rather than more. The power to reach into my and other peoples' pockets in order to accomplish what they deem to be "socially just" is something they are not entitled to under the Constitution.
I am not willing to trade the rule of law that limits government power for somebody else's welfare ideology that increases it. Power tends to corrupt humanity more than the ability to keep what you earn and decide yourself what tpo do with it. Luckily, 71 percent of those who took the C-SPAN poll at CapitalNews.com agree.
Freedom still has a chance. I thank Ron Paul and these polls for making that abundantly clear to Americans.
Alex
by
Alex Wallenwein (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 15 comments)
on Saturday, May 5, 2007 at 8:36:41 PM
What is society except when people join together and agree to share resources so that eveyone can live better? When you use the phrase "welfare state" that's trying to enforce an invalid frame: that a state is for something OTHER than the people's welfare. The Constitution says the US is to, among other things, promote the general Welfare.
"I prefer to give them less power, rather than more. The power to reach into my and other peoples' pockets in order to accomplish what they deem to be "socially just" is something they are not entitled to under the Constitution."
Warlords is the result of "everyone for himself" thinking -- and the founders understood well the idea of 'united we stand; divided we fall' and 'if we do not hang together we shall assuredly hang separately'. (No, I don't watch Mad Max).
The point of the US is SUPPOSED to be that we don't give the 'government' power but that we ARE the government. A nation which does not have social justice is useless. Again from the preamble, the US was formed to "establish Justice".
AAMOF, Section 8 of the US Constitution says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes". Which Constitution are YOU reading?
"Freedom still has a chance."
Freedom is not isolationism. If you want to try that then live on a deserted island for a while and see how 'free' you end up being while you scrabble in the sand looking for food -- until you get, injured, or just too old to scrabble anymore. Most libertarians don't have a clue about what a 'social contract' is, or about social responsibility: you want freedom but no responsibility. You're supposed to get over that when you grow up, and know about 'working with others' -- like with the UN -- which the US STARTED BTW.
You want keep what you "earn" -- what do you earn without the infrastructure, the courts, the monetary system, the pool of knowledge and tooling from all the other people, and all the rest of what is needed for you to work? Nada! That's what you 'earn' all by yourself -- and an indication of that is that you get money, which you can spend at public stores, driven to on a public highway, for products which are dependent on the national and world system, including the social system.
It's only governments, as imperfect as they are, and social contracts which allow you to have any degree of freedom at all -- unless you like eating sand crabs and living in a hut. Government is created by people, screwed up by people, and at the moment it needs to repaired by people -- but that won't happen if you fail even to understand why we need a UN as a vehicle to work with other peoples to try to bring some sort of stability to the world, or the need for social justice.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Saturday, May 5, 2007 at 11:49:11 PM
Section 8 of the US Constitution says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes". Which Constitution are YOU reading?
You have to read the entire Constitution.. Section 9 of the Constitution says "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"
The current income tax is unconstitutional. Because it is an unapportioned tax.
by
pec615 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 9:06:36 AM
The power to reach into my and other peoples' pockets in order to accomplish what they deem to be "socially just" is something they are not entitled to under the Constitution." is incorrect.
As for the income tax the following ammendment (which is now part of the Constitution) cover it.
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.NoteHistory
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 2:48:04 PM
The Income Tax of 1894 would leave the burden of the tax to be born by professions, trades, employments or vocations: in that way, ...is a direct, unapportioned tax on occupations and labor... Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co. 1895 ( The Supreme declared such unconstitutional)
So the Socialist billionaires went back to the drawing board and came up with the 16th Amendment.
Three years after the 16th was allegedly ratified by the states. The Supreme Court affirmed in 1916 Brushaber case.
"The amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case" Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
A couple of other rulings:
...by the previous ruling (1916 Brushaber) it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category on indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged...The Sixteenth Amendment Created no new Taxing authority.. -Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
The 16th Amendment does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects (ie, State Citizens), but merely removed all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. -Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
We pay income taxes because we no longer understand the constitution and we live in fear of prosecution from the IRS.
There are several Supreme Court rulings on what "income" is, in the future maybe I will post. Hint; It is not wages earned on labor.
by
pec615 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:06:19 AM
I think the core difference between your thinking and mine is that you don't trust people to act kindly toward each other without government making sure that they do. I believe people are very well capable of treating each other (and their surroundings) well, and they do have a concern for the "welfare" of others. Example: Your concern for others wasn't allotted to you by government, was it?
I trust people outside of government more than those within government, because within government they gain too much power and they have too much opportunity to abuse it. Example: Bush. In a libertarian-type society, at least those who want to lord it over on others have to work hard and get rich before they can do it. In government, all they have to do is to con others into electing them - or into supporting their stupid revolution.
If someone wants to "do good", that's great - but let them do it with their own money. Forcing others to cough up to support what they themselves don't want to do, socially, just isn't right. That creates graft and corruption on a far larger scale, and it devalues the individual.
Alex
by
Alex Wallenwein (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 15 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 7:19:54 PM
Blue Pilgrim, I think you are mistaken about a few of Dr. Paul's positions.
Firstly, he doesn't support isolationism. He prefers free trade and diplomacy, and has spoken out against the sanctions on Cuba and Iran on a number of occasions. He just doesn't support violent intervention in other country's affairs.
While he himself is against welfare (and there are valid economic reasons to distrust welfare programs like minimum wages and unemployment pay), he certainly wouldn't be against the states or local government implementing what ever sort of welfare programs they wanted. He reasons, as did the people who wrote the constitution, that most social powers should be left to more local governments, since people can have far more of a say in local governments than federal ones. I think we can all agree that local city, county and state welfare programs are far more likely to be successfull than federal ones.
As to the people's earnings being based off of our government, that is certainly true to an extent (most people, after all, get along fine without the government having to step in in any way), but thats why we pay taxes. We pay for those things which sustain our system and way of life.
Its not that Dr. Paul and other Libertarians feel that socialism you write about is a bad thing, its just that they feel forcing it on someone IS bad. People, as you point out, form contracts and relationships on their own, out of their own free will. While it is the responsibility of government to enforce these contracts, it is not government's responsiblity to dictate them and force people into them at gunpoint.
Mostly its the change in the definition of the words "welfare" and "justice" over the years. People reading the constitution today can get a very different picture of it than the people who ratified it and empowered it over 200 years ago.
I am skeptical government socialism can work at the federal level, mostly because of how enormously complicated economies are, and how little self-interest politians have in actually bothering to implement sound economic policies. When was the last time you heard a politian talk about the pros and cons (as an economist might) of unemployment pay? I've certainly never heard any admit that their social programs might have the oposite of intended effects (such as the FDA actually reducing the quality of drugs available and increasing costs enormously, few people would dispute this today).
by
gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 7:28:07 AM
“While he himself is against welfare (and there are valid economic reasons to distrust welfare programs like minimum wages and unemployment pay), he certainly wouldn't be against the states or local government implementing what ever sort of welfare programs they wanted. He reasons, as did the people who wrote the constitution, that most social powers should be left to more local governments, since people can have far more of a say in local governments than federal ones. I think we can all agree that local city, county and state welfare programs are far more likely to be successful than federal ones.”
I don’t agree that local city, county and state welfare programs are far more likely to be successful than federal ones. For one thing, city, county and most RED states don’t have the funds to provide “welfare programs like minimum wages and unemployment pay.” Most RED states and their citizens receive more money from the government than they pay in taxes. For another thing, repression and corruption is much more entrenched at the city, county and state level. Economic inequality is even greater in rural communities where a handful of Big Frogs rule their ponds like fiefdoms.
What you advocate is a sharecropper society dominated by local tyrants.
.
by
rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 9:29:39 AM
Federal money is often returned to the states, so I don't think its important who actually taxes it. It comes from the people either way.
I don't agree with your feudalism example at all. Suppose, for example, there were some business owners in Georgia who paid their employees significantly less than ones in other states, because living expenses were a lot lower. Then, the Federal government sets minimum wages too high for that area, putting those businesses out of business and causing local unemployment. The people of that region might object, but they have very little say in the government on a federal level. They do, however, have a lot more say in government on a local level, for obvious reasons. If the minimum wage was set locally, it would be far easier to change it.
States rights is one of the issues the founders built into the constitution to protect against the tyranny of the majority, as the above example illustrates. The special interests of one area of the country should not apply to the whole country, and the will of the majority should not be universally applied to the whole country without checks against tyranny. Rural communities could inact legislation to stop these Big Frogs in their pond far more easily on the local level than they could by lobbying the federal government.
by
gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 11:08:55 AM
America has never suffered from a “Tyranny of the majority.” Never, not once. We are and always have been ruled by plutocratic minority. They own the politicians, the courts, the police, and use to the media to influence the opinions of most people through mass market propaganda and lies. They control the economy and use carrots and whips to instill and enforce corporate values (Winner take All) instead of egalitarian values.
Rural communities are always Company Towns of one kind or another, and the poor slobs who live there, owe their souls to the Company Store. Anyone who speaks out against the Company are branded as “Enemies of the People.”
Our founding fathers were not Saints. They owned slaves, indentured servants and considered women as chattel. Only White Men (the landed gentry) were allowed to vote and they kept their fat thumbs on the Scale of Justice.
The “Good old Days,” were only good for those with wealth and power. Conservatives have always resisted every effort of the “little people” to break out of that feudalistic system.
.
by
rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 7:26:33 AM
"The only legitimate function of government is the reactive defense of the individual's negative RIGHTS to life, liberty and property. It only retains that legitimacy by performing that function without ever violating those three rights in the process." Bryan Morton
The smallest minority is the individual.
Taxation cannot be correctly and explicitly defined without simultaniously defining theft.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." Benjamin Franklin
The thief can always find justification for theft.
The last big case of diethylene glycol poisoning which broke out in the US killed over 100 people, and prompted the law which requires the FDA to pre-approve drugs before they are allowed in the marketplace. However, I think nearly everyone could agree that more than 100 people die every year for lack of access to drugs the FDA does not let us use, or makes extremely expensive (when compared to European and Canadian non-generics).
The problem with judging the worth of preventative agencies based upon their preventions is that you never see what might have been in place of those agencies. The internet is a perfect example of an incredibly complex system which works very well without the intrusion of government force. I can't imagine any government regulation actually improving the internet, but fortunately its been relatively untouched.
At any rate its pretty moot, since Dr. Paul's platform doesn't involve him wontonly axing government programs like these (except maybe our pre-emptive military conflicts).
by
gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 7:44:23 AM
Anything that can cause significant harm to people, where money can be made by harming people, should be regulated. The Internet is being regulated more and more, and scrutinized by agencies more and more due to child predation, scams, identity theft, and much more.
You just don't get it.
Libertarians will be the death of us all.
John
by
John R Moffett (79 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 591 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 9:08:22 AM
There isn't any medium where money cannot be made by exerting force or fraud on people. People can be mugged on sidewalks, but we don't regulate who can walk on sidewalks, we jail muggers. And muggings are undoubtably more common than identity theft.
To me, trying to regulate the internet seems more than silly to me. I'm not familiar with the legislation on it, but I cannot think of any real way to regulate a packet-switched network (as oppposed to a circuit-switched network like cable TV) unless you can regulate every or nearly every node in the network, which is impossible in today's world. In any case, private solutions to problems that arise from the internet (like identity theft) are widespread, and have certainly outpaced government solutions to the problems.
I don't mean to say they are all useless, but frankly I cannot remember any time I depended on a federal government agency for any sort of protection.
by
gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 10:57:19 AM
Let me guess, you never eat, and don't take any medications. The only reason there is what little safety there is in the food or drug supply is due to government regulation of business.
The sidewalk is not a money making business, so you'll need to come up with a better example than that about a lack of regulation.
The internet could be regulated without much fuss if all packets had unremovable origin headers. Removing or altering the header would block further propagation.
John
by
John R Moffett (79 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 591 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 12:29:17 PM
As for what Paul thinks, I haven't studied that very carefully and posted here in reaction to what Mr. Wallenwein wrote: "wreaking havoc on their welfare state machinations" and evicting the UN from US soil is off the wall and cause incredible damage and misery, and also betray all those who has paid into the system over the decades.
I see much of the argument now is in terms of very specific policies, such as who sets a minimum wage -- and that can be discussed -- but the principle of a minimum wage is a different issue, and very important to uphold. As for states' rights, that's an important principle, but it's hardly absolute -- just ask the Blacks what the results of 'states' rights' were until the feds enforced the end of segregation. Without that intervention the southern states might be in flames now. Libertarianism is fine in moderate doses, but to support an ideology that people can't organize on anything other than a local level is absurd and goes against the lessons of history, and the reasons why nations were created in the first place. Do not people have the right to organize and establish government on a national or world level?
The problem with the FDA is that's it's largely now under the control of special interests -- the pharma industry -- and that's largely a result of the mad drive towards privatization, not an inherent flaw. Look at history to see what horrors were inflicted on people by snake-oil salesmen and quacks before there was any regulation. Because a government agency is not working properly is hardly a reason of itself to dismantle it rather than fix it. If your roof leaks is that a reason to tear down your house?
'Positive rights' are every bit as legitimate as 'negative rights' -- without the former the latter become meaningless. How can you have the right to liberty if you can't get enough to eat?
For those who want to live wihtout government and taxes, let them buy an island somewhere, and live off sand crabs by scrabbling on the beach if they must -- and allow those of us who want an organized society continue to work on that.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 3:18:55 PM
I do not watch the so called Mainstream Media, nor do I watch the so called entertainment spewed out by the Military/TV Complex. As a matter of fact what they have to say about the Republican dog and pony show the other night is only interesting as a gauge of their latest propaganda ploys. From the clips I have seen on the net, though, Dr. Paul, as expected, cleaned the clocks of the walk-on zombie slaves of the warlords. Not only is he the only sane Republican on the scene today, he also stands taller than any of the Democrats that are running ... and I am a (former) life-long yellowdog Democrat. He gets my vote, hands down ... and President Paul will be the Founding Father of the New America.
by
JacksonHolly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 7:53:31 PM
Gov't censored media, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations: They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon. They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina. They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps. They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus. They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing. They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't. Vote for Dr. Ron Paul and reverse these trends. Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title): http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
by
Lorring II (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 11:39:40 AM
