The Uncomfortable Truth

Me And Barack

2008-06-21T04:45:10Z

Last week I was explaining to a very good friend my position on Obama and his chances of actually being nominated, or elected. I am told she was somewhat taken aback by my arch position. It is possible she thinks I dislike the candidate. After all, I stated my belief he is a fascist.
I personally like the man. I want very much for Obama to be the man many people believe him to be.
If I had only two choices in November, he would get my vote. (Thank god I have more than two choices.)
I love it when he shoots his mouth off and says stuff like Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount tells him that Jesus would have no problems with gay marriage. It’s true! It’s damned controversial too! A tough sell in the Bible Belt! The last thing Christians want to hear is the truth of Christ’s teachings. But, I digress.
Anyway, the “handlers” come in and spin what he actually said into something more palatable to the wider audience.
Actually listening to our enemies’ concerns without all the BS posturing? What an excellent idea! Oops! Here come the handlers.
When the government/corporate media jumped on the Rev. Wright for essentially telling an uncomfortable truth, these handlers told Obama to cut the man loose.
Again, I would love to see a man with his moral character and vision elected president. Unfortunately, with Obama, we get all the handlers too. OK, so maybe Obama isn’t a fascist—I misspoke—his administration will be.
One of Obama’s advisers is a fellow named Zbigniew Brzezinski (pronunciations differ), one of the founders of the Tri-Lateral Commission. If you think the Council on Foreign Relations—of which McCain and Obama are both members—holds goals contrary to America’s, Google the TLC. These guys invented the “New World Order” Bush the First spoke so fondly of.
The guys who advised Bush are advising Obama. There will be no fundamental differences in Obama’s presidency. His handlers will not allow it.
Hope will not make it so.

Oil Crisis--NOT!

2008-06-17T04:53:32Z

The biggest lie we’re hearing lately is about America’s oil crisis
It seems that when people are paying $75 to fill up the tank in their economy car, you have their attention. It’s a shame the media has to deceive people once they get their attention.
America has an energy crisis—we don’t use it efficiently enough. Our crisis only becomes an “oil” crisis because our government/corporate media does not want us to lose our focus on oil.
We are told that wind energy is impractical—we lack the infrastructure to deliver it. As I was driving up the Skyway to Paradise recently—in a fresh gale—I passed under several sets of high-voltage transmission lines strung along the ridge, despoiling the view. I wondered, how hard would it be to put a series of wind generators along that ridge-top and the thousands of other ridge-tops over which high-voltage transmission lines already are strung? The view is already ruined. Personally, I find that renewable energy has a beauty all its own. As much as I abhor mega-corporations, I have to give GE credit for the wind turbines they have developed in the past few years. They have one unit that will power 2500 homes. It is truly an objet d’art.
A wind generator--strong enough to power the typical household--can be mounted on the typical house with zero investment in infrastructure. A generator strong enough to recharge a “commuter” car could be mounted damn near anywhere.
Another huge myth is being spread in transportation circles. It goes something like, “The energy used by electric vehicles is the same amount of energy used by cars—it just comes from somewhere else. Further, just as much CO2 is released when the electricity is generated.
Bull.
Electric motors obtain 90% efficiency. The best a gasoline motor can do is 24%--the rest is lost to heat. Electric cars can go three times as far for the same amount of energy.
Where and when the wind blows, electric cars are virtually free to drive!
Of course, the wind doesn’t blow everywhere, or reliably enough in many places, but that’s not the point.
The point is, no one is even talking about the simple ideas!
We don’t have to make oil companies even richer to solve our energy problems. The energy is all around us, we just have to make wise use of it.

Forty Years

2008-06-06T10:30:00Z

It’s hard to believe it’s been that long.
I awoke with anticipation and worry. Did Bobby Kennedy survive the night? He had not been doing well when I had gone to sleep the night before but doctors were saying there was hope.
I half-ran to the family room to switch on the TV so it would have time to warm up while I washed my face (you had to do that back then). As I came down the hall I saw that my sister had gotten there first. The news was written on her face.
Maureen was sitting on dad’s chair quietly sobbing. We weren’t really taught to be demonstrative so, not wanting to embarrass her, I did not make my presence known. I did watch her though.
I was ten at the time, and though more politically savvy than your average ten-year-old—and all of today’s dittoheads--the only thing I really understood about Kennedy was that he was JFK’s little brother: JFK was America’s only Irish-Catholic president, and that was good enough for this Irish-Catholic kid.
My sister, on the other hand was old! She was thirteen. She knew who the next president should be.
I can still recall the utter sadness I witnessed that day.
I cry now at the memory as I write this.
I realize now I cried as much for my sister as I did for Bobby.
RFK’s assassination was a personal tragedy for me. Those bastards! They made my sister cry!

I’m glad the truth is finally coming out.
A new feature documentary, “RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy” will be released in England, later this month (click HERE for the link).
When it gets to the US, please make an effort to see it.

The Bradley Factor

2008-06-04T05:07:36Z

It looks as of Barack Obama has the nomination of his party all sewn up. However, looks can be deceiving.
It’s comical to watch on the government/corporate media.
There stands Hillary, not giving up just yet. And why should she?
Contrary to what we are hearing, those much-vaunted superdelegates are not committed until the third day of the convention, when they actually cast their votes.
The whole concept of superdelegates began in 1982 when the Democrats decided the “liberals” were taking too much control away from the seasoned party members. The idea was that by having people who actually knew how to win elections help decide the nominee, a more electable nominee would be chosen.
I think that between now and the convention, Hillary will step up and make more plain what she has been trying to say all spring.
She will be reminding the superdelegates of the Bradley Factor.
Tom Bradley, in case you do not know, was the Black Democratic candidate for governor of California back in 1982. Coincidence? Yeah, probably.
Anyway, Tom Bradley was easily beating George Deukmejian in the polls. The race was “all but over,” etc.
Until the racists got into the voting booth.
As I sat with my then-future wife, watching the returns, I explained to her that there was no way Bradley could win. She refused to believe me, having grown up in an upper-class suburb, the child of one of Mr. Bradley’s business partners.
Nobody likes to admit it. Hillary is trying damned hard to be politically correct about it, but the ugly, uncomfortable truth is that an huge numbers of White folks will not vote for Obama because he is black. Neither will large numbers of Hispanics. (Most Asians won’t either, but they do not make up a large voting bloc, so strategists don’t really care about them.)
In the media they refer to them euphemistically as “working class,” and point up their education—or lack of it.
In West Virginia, they are kindly called “rural.” I guess terms like “ain’t too bright” and “hicks” would be politically incorrect.
In California, I call them rednecks. They’re prejudices are more subtle—and they will lie to pollsters so as not to appear racist.
Whatever you call them, they vote. And they won’t vote for Obama.
A few weeks ago, a democratic strategist was quite blunt when he said the democrats “[C]ould not win the presidency with just the African-American and the intellectual vote.”
He was right. Especially when they are up against a genuine former POW/Hero who has served his country, and who has a son in the current fight.
At least with Hillary, they will have a seasoned fighter. They will get a team that knows how to win.
Anyone who tells you this is over before the convention in August is crazy.
My money is on Hillary.

Talk, do NOT Appease!

2008-05-29T03:48:43Z

A lot of propagandists on the right would have you believe that talking to someone is exactly the same as giving in to them. They are smart enough to know better, but they take advantage of their listeners’ ignorance. The problem is that their lies get repeated ad nauseum throughout the internet—increasing exponentially the stupidity factor.
Have you seen the stupidity out there lately?
In case you need some background, the short version:
Seventy-some-odd years ago, when Adolph Hitler was beginning his conquest of Europe, then British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, met with Hitler and caved in to his demands--in the interests of peace. Chamberlain “gave” the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
We all know how that turned out.
From this, the lesson has been learned that one never gives in to dictators.
Presently, some would have us believe that simply talking to the people who have righteous disagreements with us amounts to the same thing that Chamberlain did.
Recently Jimmy Carter was pilloried by the media because he met with Hamas, the duly-elected representatives of the Palestinian people.
“Blessed are the peacemakers . . . . . who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” And, oh yeah, “Love your enemies.”
But, I digress.
There is no single definition of terrorist. We can call Hamas a terrorist organization, because they want to see the destruction of Israel. The US could be called terrorist because we would like to see a “regime change” here and there.
So?
We can call the president of Iran a terrorist, but does that make him one? Sheesh! The guy’s got lower poll ratings than our own president—if you can believe that—does anyone in Iran even listen to the fool?
I had to give Barack Obama points for saying he would talk to our enemies. He lost those points when he backtracked on that statement in an appeasement of his own to the corporate-controlled media.
Pussy.
SOMEbody needs to talk to these clowns.
Somebody needs to sit across from the table and tell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that his rhetoric is scaring the women and children, and would he please refrain. Tell him that if he doesn’t, we have a smart-bomb with his name on it. You can get more with a kind word and a bomb than you can with a kind word.
What’s so hard about that?
What is so wrong with that? (Other than the fact it is in complete contradiction with that whole “love your enemies” idea.)
This is talk, not appeasement.
But we need to listen, too. Iran is bordered by two nuclear powers, with a third nation in civil war on another border. You think they might have some legitimate concerns here? Just who the Hell are we to decide if another nation can have the same weapons we have already made use of?
“But they’re a terrorist nation.”
Says who? American media? The same media that just regurgitates the government line? The same media that hasn't done a decent investigative report since Watergate? The same media that bows to the wishes of its handful of stockholders--who also own stock in "war-profitable" companies?
The truth is we know very little about Iran and we will never know if we don't sit down and talk to them.
Hamas? Their beef with us is that Israel is our ally. We make it clear to them that if they mess with US interests—and that does NOT mean our oil supply—we will take out their leadership. And we will keep taking it out until they act like civilized people. Their problems with the Israelis are NOT our problem. Let the Israelis handle it.
Pakistan? I’ve said it before: We give them a month to turn over Osama. After that, we will see to his destruction. (We might call them first and tell them to evacuate.)
That is the key, however. We have to back up our words.
Two decades ago, Iranian-backed Shias were kidnapping Americans of the streets of Beirut with apparent impunity. The story is they tried it just once with a Soviet citizen. The next day, a prominent Shia leader was kidnapped by the Soviets. The leader’s genitalia was then delivered to Shia headquarters. Within an hour the Soviet was released.
The story may or may not be true, but the Soviets did not have any of their citizens held prisoner for years as we did.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best, but you can’t “talk softly” if you don’t talk at all.

Gay Marriage

2008-05-23T02:42:01Z

As we all know by now, the California State Supreme Court recently “legalized” gay marriage.
This topic is a gold mine of essays. Here's five short ones.

I imagine the so-called conservative types are having a collective conniption fit. (Picture me smiling!) Seriously though, conservatives are wont to conserve the principles our country was founded upon—and that does not include straight democracy. Never forget: the US is a republic.
Since the founding fathers would abhor the concept of people voting directly on the issues, how can a good conservative circulate petitions to overturn the ruling and still adhere to his principles? I suppose if I ever make the acquaintance of a principled conservative, I could ask.

A few years ago, the faux conservatives were circulating petitions because Vermont—maybe it was Massachusetts—legalized unions between gays. The real conservatives knew Article IV, Sec 1 of The Constitution, the “Full faith and credit” clause, would trump any initiative.
Not that it will make one bit of difference, but I imagine millions of dollars will be go to make media-types rich as the intolerant impotently try to stop the inevitable. Of course, this is why the media-types are hyping this issue.

I was listening to some fellow from the Atlanta Constitution on the radio last week and he was talking about “equality.” Of course, it’s always about the equality. He and the host were mixing it up and during the discussion, the topic of health insurance came up. The topic only surfaced; how the insurance industry started the whole discussion of gay marriage was not mentioned.
Gay marriage is all about the money. Believe me, our representatives care about the rights of gays about as much as they care about the rights of the rest of us—damned little.
To get divorced, you have to get married. To get a divorce, you need a lawyer. It goes without saying that the supremes are lawyers—as well as most of California’s legislators.
Call your insurance company. Tell them you have AIDS or that you are HIV positive. Ask them what your premiums will be.
That’s right. You can’t get insurance. The insurance companies aren’t in the business of losing money. They won’t insure for diseases that carry astronomical costs.
But if your partner works for the government or certain companies, because of laws already on the books, you may be able to get health insurance. Of course, it’s expensive. But who cares? The cost is spread out; in the case of local governments, the cost is passed on to you and I. Of course, not every city or county in California covers domestic partners. Many companies do not. Making gay marriage the law will make sure that the insurance companies can profit off of more Californians. People with terminal diseases who aren’t married to someone with mandated coverage will just have to settle for being less “equal.”

I think a legitimate argument can be made for “What’s next?” By that I mean, if gay marriage is legal, is there a possibility that polygamy or interspecies marriages would come next? Interspecies marriages may be a bit of a stretch, and of course this is a “slippery slope” argument—and therefore fallacious. Yet, if the question is between “consenting adults” who is to say how many consenting adults should be in the marriage? After polygamy, then what?
A contributor to my local paper answered that question for me just this morning. Admittedly, I had not given any thought to the subject of an incestuous marriage--that's really weird--but why not? IF the adults are consenting.

Personally, I don’t give a damn. I think the government should not be involved in anybody’s personal relationships. There is no reason they can’t live with whomever they want. Why should there be?
If the so-called conservatives wanted to “protect” marriage, they’d pass laws to make divorce harder—or maybe provide counseling to anybody who even thinks about getting married in the first place!
Speaking of all those so-called “Christian Conservatives.” Why can’t they get over the fact that God made us all different? I mean, they claim to put their faith Him, then second-guess what He does! I don’t get it.

Mission (Not) Accomplished

2008-05-02T02:07:59Z

As we all know, five years ago today, President Bush spent a boatload of taxpayer dollars to stage his “Mission Accomplished” gig on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. At the time many people believed this war was over. I did. As cynical as I am, I believed him. Perhaps I only wanted to believe him. On the other hand, he’s got the sincere act down pretty good. (When you can fake sincerity, you can fake anything.) I realized soon enough that it was just another lie in what has turned out to be a bottomless pit of prevarication.
According to the Associated Press, Bush tried several ways to modify this whopper, including a flat-out denial that The White House had anything at all to do with the banner flown right over his head.
Finally, after five years, I saw a story today on the Drudge Report entitled “White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner.”
Alas, the headline was misleading—as is usual for the Drudge Report. The story didn’t say the president admitted to any error that day. It seems that the president’s spin meisters have finally settled on the canard that he was referring to the aircraft carrier’s mission in the war.
Oh.
THAT’S what he meant!
Who knew?
I guess this means the war is back on. Which is good in a way.
I mean, it’s ludicrous to think we’ve lost 3,900 soldiers waging peace!
How will it look in the history books that we killed close to a million innocent people after the war had been won?
Who knows? Maybe the Iraqis, realizing the mission is not accomplished yet, will give up their silly demands that we stop killing them and get the Hell out of there. Maybe all those Godless peace mongers will give up their pleas too.
It’s also good that the president realizes what all intelligent Americans have known for some time. (I have had doubts that he ever would.) That means he is now smarter than a dittohead—somewhat like being taller than an midget, but it is an accomplishment of sorts.
Hmmm, another banner, maybe?
Seriously, though.
Last month, Bush said, "While this war is difficult, it is not endless."
I wonder if we’ll have to wait five years to find out what he meant by that?

Winter Soldiers

2008-05-01T03:52:05Z

The term “Winter Soldiers” is derived from the writings of Thomas Paine. In his first Crisis paper, he wrote critically of “Sunshine patriots” and “summer soldiers.” The term honors those who stick it out when times are tough.
In more recent times it was used to describe hearings held in 1971 that described atrocities committed by our soldiers. John Kerry testified at those hearings and drew the wrath of the idiots on the Right when he ran for president.
Even more recently—just a few weeks ago—in Silver Spring, Maryland, a summit was hosted by Iraq Veterans Against the War.
(I would like to thank Tom Gascoyne, publisher of The Chico Beat, for enlightening me on this—I sure as hell didn’t catch this on the FAUX news channel.)
According to The Nation magazine, several soldiers testified of atrocities they themselves had committed while bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. Several soldiers were prepared to testify under oath in a Court of Law.
For a link to the summit hearings click HERE
It seems that the difference in the VietNam hearings and the Iraq hearings is only of detail—the horrors recounted are about equal.
Could this be why suicides by returning soldiers are at their highest levels ever?
We’ve destroyed the nation of Iraq, we’ve destroyed close to a million Iraqis.
Now, this war is destroying the very people who have to fight it.
Wouldn't now be a good time to end it?

If FOX News Had Been There

2008-04-22T03:54:32Z

A tip o' the hat to Joe Shaw--From Outside The Box

Will The REAL Patriot Please Stand Up? '

2008-04-04T16:56:28Z

It is not my habit to simply cut and paste articles from the news, But I could not resist this one!
Nothing needs to be added to this.

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines. In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.) The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation. What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated. While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections. Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country? After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities. This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, who has been in the news for comments he made over the last three decades. Since these comments became public we have heard criticisms, condemnations, denouncements and rejections of his comments and him. We've seen on television, in a seemingly endless loop, sound bites of a select few of Rev. Wright's many sermons. Some of the Wright's comments are inexcusable and inappropriate and should be condemned, but in calling him "unpatriotic," let us not forget that this is a man who gave up six of the most productive years of his life to serve his country. How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many. While words do count, so do actions. Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism.
This article appeared in this morning's Chicago Tribune

Are We There Yet?

2008-03-20T03:13:23Z

Do you remember what you were doing five years ago today?
I remember I was talking to one of my students about the war that had just started.
I told him that, “We’ll still be there in five years, and you will probably have to go fight it.”
Well, he hasn’t had to go, and we are still there.
I may have only been half-right, but at least the kid isn’t dead like the almost 4,000 other Americans, or the anywhere between 100 and 600 thousand Iraqis.
My student asked how I could possibly know that.
“Simple,” I replied, “I’ve studied history—unlike our President.”
I explained that history has demonstrated what happens when you remove a strongman from power. You get chaos.
I pointed out an example that had occurred in his own lifetime: the Death of Yugoslavia’s dictator, Josep Tito, led to a bloody, years-long war in the Balkans (that continues to this day). Dictators may be SOBs, but they know how to keep the peace.
I further pointed out that Iraq was a “new” country (1922) with arbitrarily drawn borders that did not take into account the ethnic and religious differences of the people that lived there.
He asked me about the differences between Shiites and Sunnis. I replied that I did not understand them, but those differences were serious enough that these guys kill each other over them. I pointed out that neither branch of Islam has too much affection for the Kurds, and that the only solution to insure the peace would be to carve it into three countries.
I still believe that.
Shortly after the war started, it ended, or so we thought.
I mean, Gosh!, there’s the president standing under a big banner saying “Mission Accomplished.”
The troops will be coming home soon, right?

OK, so we redefined the mission. To what I am not sure.
“We’re going to be there until we have victory.”
Oh, OK.
What is victory?
There are no WMDs in Iraq.
That is a victory.
Saddam is dead.
That’s a victory.
Are we going to establish democracy?
Democracy in Palestine has brought Hamas to power. We don’t dare establish democracy.
There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.
We could call that a victory.
We’ve built the world’s largest embassy complex in Baghdad and we’ve got nineteen brand new military bases over there (plus the two in Afghanistan that most folks haven’t heard about). The US will be there forever.
That’s a victory of sorts. At least the oil is secure.
Listen to Fox news. There’s a victory every day!
I saw on the real news the other day a young Marine down at Camp Pendleton, getting ready to go on his FIFTH deployment. The poor young man looked at the camera and said, “I don’t wanna go.” Can you blame him?
I guess victory for him would be getting home alive.
Until and unless somebody with a pair gets up and defines what victory is, the only answer to the question, “Are we there yet?” has to be:
“We’re not headed there anymore.”

Obama’s Preacher: Get On The Smear Train!

2008-03-15T03:38:01Z

Have you received the e-mail? Have you seen the video?
The right is all atwitter over comments made by Barack Obama’s preacher.
These comments were not made by Obama, of course, but those in power will stop at nothing to smear the guy.
The argument goes something like, “This guy married Obama and his wife! My God, what kind of judgment does Obama have?”
I watched the video. HERE is the page with the link.
What did the man say that was untrue?
As a nation, we’re mighty damn lucky we won’t be judged by God! We enslaved an entire race of people—and some of our leaders justified it with the Bible, no less! We’ve allowed the abortion of millions of children. Do you think God might have a problem with a few of our actions against our fellow man?
Does the Trail of Tears ring a bell?
How ‘bout Wounded Knee?
Maybe those on the Christian Right—now there’s an oxymoron—think the wholesale slaughter of innocent Iraqis in the pursuit of American interests would be a pardonable sin. I sure as Hell don’t.
True enough, no man can know the mind of God, but if the Bible is any indication, people who have acted like our nation has, might be in a world of hurt in the next life.
Again, we should be glad America won’t be judged.
The good Reverend also made comments about 9/11. Ah, 9/11. Soon to be the new third rail of political debate.
Yup, the Reverend says that 9/11 was God’s wrath for our brutal imperialism throughout history.
Maybe it was!
It’s just his opinion.
I never agreed politically with my clergymen, but then, I was raised a Catholic.
I don’t agree on a lot of things with the friend that sent me the video.
So?
How is that a reflection on my judgment?
If anything, this tempest-in-a-teapot shows Obama’s tolerance for all views. Something Obama’s opponents are sorely lacking.
Don’t get me wrong.
I wouldn’t vote for Obama at gunpoint. The man is a member of the same anti-Constitutional cartel that the other two belong to. Granted, he has charisma in spades (can I say that?), but a charismatic, good-looking, Black fascist is still a fascist. His election isn’t really going to change anything.
Even as I write this, Obama is playing the political game, condemning his minister’s words but not his ministry. You see? He’s a team player!
Gag.
The man told the truth and expressed his opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
I can’t wait for November 5th!

The National ID Card

2008-03-09T20:04:08Z

I can't really add to this.

The Only Man Who Can Beat Hillary

2008-02-01T03:25:30Z

I have news for the Republicans.
If they honestly think they can win in November, they are lying to themselves.
We all know somebody who does not vote--maybe someone who doesn’t even bother to register—because either they have no interest in charade at all, or they realize the truth: there is no difference between the two major candidates. It has been said the last time we had an actual choice was in 1964—and we blew it.
According to the Census Bureau, a potential twenty million people would vote if voting were worth it. Personally, I know my vote doesn’t matter but it maintains my right to write this blog. There are untold others who feel as I do, but 20 million is a good number to keep in your head for a moment.
I am quite positive that Hillary will be nominated. This, in spite of Barack’s recent surge. She simply can get her hands on too much money to lose. If I am wrong, and the Republicans do not do something drastic—like setting off a suitcase nuke and declaring martial law—they cannot turn the tide of antipathy the last eight years have generated. Hillary will win.
Accept it.
Ask 100 people if they think there is any real difference between the candidates. How many will tell you there isn’t any? Count how many times you hear, “Yeah right, they’re all owned by somebody.”
I get the same response.
What if the Republicans put up a candidate who actually was different? What if we had an actual choice? Two candidates who were as different as night and day?
Do you think it might persuade those twenty million to get up and vote?
Forty percent of voters vote Republican. Forty percent of the voters vote Democrat. Regardless of who the candidate is (these are the brain-dead). This equates to roughly fifty million votes for each candidate. These people will vote the party line every time, no matter what. It is accepted as a truism in politics. It is persuading the other twenty percent that is the job of the tricksters, er, campaign workers.
Fortunately, for the Republicans, there is a man on their ballot this year who IS different! He is the one man that you don’t hear too much about in the popular media, but he is all over the internet where the younger—and non-poll-taking—crowd abound. What news you might hear is “that he can’t win,” “Unfortunately... it’s over for [him].”
Bull! He can’t win if you don’t vote for him.
The man is Ron Paul.
The precise reason you won’t be fed any information about him is that he is different. You have to find out about him on your own. You have to become involved. You have to make the effort.
Here is a good place to start.
The Republicans know damn well that their core forty percent will vote for him. They know damn well that those twenty million non-voters would also vote for Dr. Paul. (Why they don't want Dr. Paul is the subject of another essay.)
Do the math. That man would start out with seventy million votes against Hillary’s fifty.
If you are a Republican, educate your friends to this simple fact.
If you are a Democrat, pray the Republicans don’t get smart!

A Man For All Reasons

2008-01-29T01:04:45Z

Are you against abortion?
Forget for the moment that abortion is a “wedge issue” designed to keep us divided. Do you think Roe v Wade should be overturned? There is only one candidate for president who will work towards that end.
Ron Paul.
On the other hand, do you think the federal government has no place telling a woman what she can do with her body? There is only one candidate for president who will work towards that end.
Ron Paul.
Did your job get shipped overseas? Did you know that corporations get tax breaks to do that? Would you like to change the unfair tax codes that allow that? There is only one candidate who will do that.
Ron Paul.
Are you worried how you will weather the upcoming recession? Are you tired of making less money than your parents, while “the rich get richer?” There is only one candidate who has promised to fix our economy PERMANENTLY so we will never again have to worry how to provide for our families.
Ron Paul.
There is no more important long-term crisis facing our country that the National Debt. It is currently around nine trillion dollars and growing at 17,000 dollars per second. Most candidates for president want to borrow even MORE money to salve our current fears. There is only one candidate who will not only reduce and eliminate the debt; he will enact laws to make sure we never have one again!
Ron Paul.
Are you against illegal immigration? All the candidates but one are internationalists. Internationalists—by definition—do not believe in borders. Can you guess which candidate will secure our borders and make America safe?
Ron Paul.
In November, we will have a clear choice. We can vote for more of the same, or we can vote for
Ron Paul.