Archive for September 11, 2011
MSNBC’s First Read continues attracting votes for its post-Presidential Republican Debate poll. As of 3:30 a.m. Sept 9, more than 205,000 votes have been cast. Ron Paul has widened his lead over Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Paul has 57.1%, Romney 14.5%, and Perry 12.4%.
Despite the thunderous “thumbs up” for Paul, mainstream media continues to virtually ignore the poll results and the comments about a candidate that the public has enshrined yet the media continues to write him off as not a serious contender for the Presidential nomination. MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, and L.A. Times all called the debate a Romney vs. Perry event.
“The New York Times, like everyone else, frames last night’s debate a clash between Perry and Romney,” states First Read from MSNBC/NBC.
Those writing short comments in the poll have even slammed the website for disproportionate graphs of the on line straw vote results. Paul’s green line reflecting 57% (over 117,500 votes) is only twice as long as that of second place finisher, Romney, who has received about 25,500 votes.
A non-supporter of Paul stressed the bar graph is “really deceptive,” then ponders whether the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart is “on to something about Ron Paul and the media.” Another admits that in 2008 he voted for Obama. However, the “independent” voter repeats that three years ago the candidates were elitists chosen for us. “They are trying to do it again. The press will not make my choice. Dr. Paul does not waiver and explains himself well. We the people are fed up with elite telling us how we should think.”
A California attorney also questions the pre-determined Romney/Perry express:
“The media attention to those two losers calling them a winner, compared to the poll by the American people that clearly shows Ron Paul by more than 2:1 over Romney? This is just more proof that the media is attempting to control the political outcome. People, do not be fooled. Ron Paul says what he means and means what he says. How come they are so afraid of Ron Paul? Is it because that the federal reserve is going to be shutdown? I mean how the hell can they print money with no value and lend it to us at interest? Biggest scam of them all if you ask me……”
One writer stated on Sept. 8 at about 4 a.m. that the Paul poll win was fueled solely by Paul supporters using the internet. But, the writer’s prediction backfired — “by midday tomorrow, Paul will have slid to his proper place, midway to the bottom.”
Instead , he has widened his lead in first place.
LIMITED TO THREE QUESTIONS
Respondents emphasize that Paul received only three questions during the debate, but “every time he was allowed to talk, he rocked it.”
More specifically, “Dr. Paul is the only one who has never wavered from his set goals which are truly in line with liberty and real conservative values,” a respondent wrote.
“Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan library” has attained over 50 pages of comments from poll voters. And, those commenting have Ron Paul on their mind.
“Ron Paul is the only guy who understands what truly ails America,” the most recent posting reads. Another stated, “the cowardly media is despicable for ignoring him.”
Following President Obama’s jobs speech, John Huntsman, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have appeared, for instance, on Fox News.
One writer admits that he does not agree with all that Paul advocates. Still, he believes the words from a twelve term Congressman resonate:
I mean the guy is a 12-term congressman, so obviously when people are allowed to actually hear his message it resonates with them.
Furthermore, these debates are structured in such a way that makes genuine discussion about the issues very difficult. Candidates get a limited amount of time to respond, which is understandable, but it means that they have to condense their arguments into easily digestible sound bytes. It waters down the issues and it makes the American people stupider because they are only exposed to simple arguments and not given the chance to listen to a more articulate and complex argument, like the kind Dr. Paul makes.”
One “vexed” respondent stated that Paul knows “nothing about national security.” But, the writer has obviously not spoken with military families — Paul already leads a poll amongst those serving in the Armed Forces. He’s also a member of another minority — he’s one of the few veterans running for the Presidential office.
Interestingly, one writer complains about Paul, but he states that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, another candidate overlooked by media, “did a much better job than all the rest.” Still, Newt’s not his choice for the job: “If Sarah Palin runs, I’m campaigning for her, Obama out 2012.”
Finally, one of those voting in the poll analyzes that “Paul by his 40 plus years of writing and speaking to youthful populations, Ron Paul has already set [the nation] on a path to healing. Due to the life and times of Dr..Ron Paul we now have what we need to overcome.” The writer suggests that whether he wins the most votes in the dash for the Oval Office, “ Ron ,Paul has already won” by shaking and waking Americans to see through the myths foisted upon them by the media. In essence, the popularity of Dr. Paul means that Americans are done with apathetic listening, now, they are ready to think seriously about the responsibility and consequences of choices made at the ballot box.
So, what’s next? CNN’s Tea Party debate. Will that network be more objectivie? So far, they have limited their poll to only THREE GOP candidates? Guess they do not have the ball to put all the names in the poll and let the internet voters do the rest.. But if they have only three listed candidates, they have removed America’s right to vote for the candidate of not the media’s choice, but the people’s choice.
Perry’s Finger-Wagging Was All Part of Ron Paul’s Clever Plan
By Elspeth Reeve
Updated: September 11, 2011 | 4:06 p.m.
September 9, 2011 | 4:53 p.m.
Since Wednesday’s Republican primary debate, photos have circulated among Ron Paul fans of Rick Perry sassily wagging his finger in their libertarian hero’s face during a commercial break. A pro-Paul witness reported that Perry was “menacing” his fellow Texan, though the Reuters photo caption more dryly describes it as a “talk.” What actually happened? Doesn’t matter: it was all part of Paul’s master plan.
“What it shows is that Rick Perry is a very aggressive, in your face person… He puts his hands on people, he tries to show that he’s the alpha dog, he tries to psychologically intimidate people and gets in people’s faces.Some people like that, but other people like someone who’s going to be a more thoughtful president, not a bully.”
updated 9/8/2011 5:29:45 PM ET
Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s GOP rivals sharply criticized him during Wednesday night’s debate over his 2007 executive order mandating that teenage girls be vaccinated to prevent cervical cancer — a move that drew strong opposition at the time from social conservatives and was later overturned by the state Legislature.
But they failed to bring up a key part of the story that fueled the Texas controversy and which Democrats are poised to pounce on: Perry’s order came after the drug company that manufactured the vaccine hired Mike Toomey, his former chief of staff, as one of the firm’s top lobbyists in Austin.
Toomey, who is now running the main “super pac” backing Perry’s candidacy, was retained by pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., maker of the Gardasil vaccine, which is designed to prevent the human papillomavirus, or HPV, an infection linked to cervical cancer in women.
His hiring was part of an aggressive lobbying push in Texas by the drug company, which also donated $16,000 to Perry’s gubernatorial campaigns in the two and a half years prior to the executive order. Merck paid Toomey between $260,000 and $535,000 in lobbying fees between 2005 and 2010, according to state lobbying records.
Although Perry’s GOP foes never brought up the connection during the debate, Democratic political operatives and a public watchdog group said Thursday his association with Merck is likely to be emerge as a prime example of Perry’s “crony capitalism,” should he win the GOP nomination.
“When he signed that executive order, it turned a lot of heads because it seemed so out of character and didn’t sit well with his base,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a group that tracks campaign contributions and lobbying in Austin. “Then people went looking.”
Once the Toomey connection was discovered, “it was so obvious … This is a prime example of how he [Perry] does something for a crony.”
Asked for comment, Mark Miner, a spokesman for the Perry campaign, emailed: “It’s a ‘prime example’ of the Governor standing on the side of life.”
On the campaign trail, Perry had recently apologized for the executive order-which would have made Texas the first state in the country to mandate that all teenage girls, starting with 12-year-old sixth graders, be vaccinated with Gardasil.
“I readily stand up and say I made a mistake on that,” Perry said during an Iowa radio call-in show last month.
But he appeared to mostly defend the executive order during the debate, saying his goal was to “save lives.”
“We wanted to bring that to the attention of these thousands of-tens of thousands of young people in our state,” he said. “We allowed for an opt-out … Now did we handle it right? Should we have talked to the Legislature first before we did it? Probably so. But at the end of the day, I will always err on the side of saving lives.”
But that didn’t stop Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum from bashing Perry over the issue.
“I want to get back to this Gardasil issue,” Santorum said at one point. “You know, we have — Gov. Perry’s out there and claiming about states’ rights and states’ rights. How about parental rights being more important than states’ rights? … I am offended that the government would tell me, and by an executive order, without even going through the process of letting the people have any kind of input. I would expect this from President Obama. I would not expect this form someone who’s calling himself a conservative governor.”
In a debate hosted on MSNBC last night, Ron Paul was singled out repeatedly for criticism by NBC anchor Brian Williams for a number of libertarian views of the proper role of government in society. At times, Williams’ objections just seemed petulant – as if TSA agents were the first line of defense against terror, or as if FEMA, which notoriously dropped the ball just a few years ago in response to Hurricane Katrina, could do no wrong. This was not an exception but the rule for Williams’ questioning throughout the evening, so it’s not as if Paul had it any better than the others.
But there’s one area in particular where his line of questioning of Paul, the only physician on the stage, struck me as ignorant and wrongheaded: Williams’ argument on the loving, protecting arms of government around your medicine. Here’s the transcript of the exchange (emphasis mine), and note that Williams asks for 30 more seconds for a “devil’s advocate” response – as if he is one of the candidates debating instead of a neutral moderator:
WILLIAMS: Over to Congressman Paul, you’re known as the absolutist in the bunch, someone who has consistently opposed federal government from having any role — and I think by your definition — that isn’t explicitly laid out in the Constitution. So this makes people curious: Is there a line with you? Where do you draw it? Does this include things like making cars safe, making medicine safe, air traffic control controlling the jets above our heads?
PAUL: I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don’t need government to do that. We live in a society where we have been adapted to this, and you can’t just drop it all at once, but you can transition away from it. On regulations, no, I don’t believe in any of these federal regulations, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in regulations. The regulation of the marketplace takes care of it. Just think if we had the regulations on the market that dealt with the bankruptcies? They’d have had to go bankrupt. We wouldn’t have been able to bail out the big banks and the big corporations and dump onto poor people. So the market would dictate it. You can’t commit fraud. If you need detailed regulations, you can do it at the state level. But the federal government is not authorized to nitpick every little transaction. The way they use the interstate commerce clause is outrageous, as far as I’m concerned.
WILLIAMS: Well, 30 seconds more for devil’s advocate here, because would you then put it on the drug companies to say, “No, we’re bringing this to market, trust us, it’s a fantastic drug”? All the pilots in the sky, to add to their responsibilities, their own air traffic control, in an organic way?
PAUL: What I said is, theoretically, you could — it could be privatized. But who ends up doing the regulations on the drugs? They do as much harm as good. They don’t take good care of us. Who gets — who gets to write the regulations? The bureaucrats write the regulations, but who writes the laws? The lobbyists have control, so lobbyists from the drug industry has control of writing the regulations, so you turn it over to the bureaucracy. But you would have private institutions that could become credible. And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it’s safe or not, and they don’t need the federal government hounding them and putting so much regulations on that our car industry has gone overseas.
In this line of argument, it’s stunning how ignorant Williams is of the bureaucratic reality we face with drug policy decisions within the Food and Drug Administration. The exorbitant cost of research and development for new drugs is driven largely by the demands of the FDA, which requires rafts of testing and retesting. These policies delay lifesaving treatments for Americans who desperately want them, often for reasons and side effects which threaten only a miniscule portion of the population. As Robert Goldberg pointed out in a recent piece:
Though new and faster methods to determine a technology’s safety and effectiveness exist, Obama’s FDA still demands evidence collected with science and statistical methods developed in the 19th century. To be sure, in the last two years new medicines for AIDS, cancer, lupus and hepatitis have been developed.
Yet, these products should have been available sooner if not for FDA nitpicking. And now that they are finally approved, patients are finding it next to impossible to access several new drugs and genetic tests that would transform the quality of life and extend survival for such illnesses as lupus, prostate cancer, and organ transplantation.
Provenge, the first cancer vaccine, stalled at the FDA for years. Once approved, it faced 18 months of additional delay while the Obama administration figured out whether to pay for it. The gauntlet cancer patients face with Provenge is being extended to everyone waiting for a medical breakthrough under Obamacare. Before a medical innovation can be used or paid for, the government will now demand additional research demonstrating that a new product will be more effective and cheaper than existing technologies. Since most new products come from small start-ups with limited cash, such a requirement means life-saving innovations will not be available at all.
This is why Heartland supports the Free to Choose Medicine project, which will allow for more drugs to be available, faster, and at lower cost. This model would deploy consumer choice and empower those who in consultation with their doctor decide to bypass the old FDA model.
Free to Choose Medicine would employ a dual track: on one track, a newly introduced drug goes through the lengthy clinical trials and testing necessary to achieve the FDA’s endorsement. But instead of that being the only option, an alternative would be created: on this track, patients could with their doctor’s counsel choose to contract with drug developers for access to the drug prior to approval.
The drug will need to have passed the midpoint of Phase II testing, so we’d already have knowledge to make an informed decision on the risk and effectiveness of it. The upshot: patients, many of whom are in desperate need of new treatments, could gain quicker access to new drugs by a pace measured in years, not months. For those facing life threatening illnesses and pain, this would eliminate the bureaucratic barriers to them receiving the treatment they want and need. No one should face death because bureaucracy moves too slowly. And in advancing the argument that government is a problem, not a solution, for medicine, Paul is entirely right.
The terrorist threat continues to be exaggerated to spawn a massive and costly Security State
By Glenn Greenwald
“The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It’s basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year,” said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.
Last year, McClatchy characterized this threat in similar terms: ”undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism.” The March, 2011, Harper‘s Index expressed the point this way: ”Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 — Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29.” That’s the threat in the name of which a vast domestic Security State is constructed, wars and other attacks are and continue to be launched, and trillions of dollars are transferred to the private security and defense contracting industry at exactly the time that Americans — even as they face massive wealth inequality — are told that they must sacrifice basic economic security because of budgetary constraints.
Despite these increasing economic insecurities — actually, precisely because of them — the sprawling domestic Security State continues unabated. The industry journal National Defense Magazine today trumpets: ”Homeland Security Market ‘Vibrant’ Despite Budget Concerns.” It details how budget cuts mean “homeland security” growth may not be as robust as once predicted, but “Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop Grumman . . . have been winning more contracts from DHS”; as a Boeing spokesman put it: ”You’ll still continue to see domestically significant investment on the part of the government and leveraging advances in technology to stand up and meet those emerging threats and needs.”
Of course, the key to sustaining this Security State bonanza — profit for private industry and power for Security State officials – is keeping fear levels among the citizenry as high as possible, as National Defense expressly notes, and that is accomplished by fixating even on minor and failed attacks, each one of which is immediately seized upon to justify greater expenditures, expansion of security measures, and a further erosion of rights:
Polls still show that there is increasing public concern about another terrorist attack. It is this fear and an unrealistic American perception of risk that will continue to propel some aspects of the market, analysts say. . . .
Small-scale attacks, whether successful or not, will continue to prompt additional spending, the market analysts at Homeland Security Research Corp. say. They point to the failed 2009 Christmas plot of a man trying to blow up a flight to Detroit with explosives sewn into his underwear and the attempted car-bombing in Times Square early the next year. Though unsuccessful, these events led to immediate White House intervention, congressional hearings and an airport screening upgrade costing more than $1.6 billion.
The LA Times, while skillfully highlighting these wasteful programs, depicts them as some sort of unintended inefficiencies. That is exactly what they are not. None of this is unintended or inefficient but is achieving exactly the purposes for which it is designed. That’s true for two reasons.
First, this wastefulness is seen as inefficient only if one falsely assumes that its real objective is to combat Terrorist threats. That is not the purpose of what the U.S. Government does. As Daniel Weeks explains today, the Congress — contrary to popular opinion — is not “broken”; it is working perfectly for its actual owners. Or, as he puts it, “Washington isn’t broken — it’s fixed”:
Our problem today is not a broken government but a beholden one: government is more beholden to special-interest shareholders who fund campaigns than it is to ordinary voters. Like any sound investor, the funders seek nothing more and nothing less than a handsome return — deficits be darned — in the form of tax breaks, subsidies and government contracts.
The LA Times, and most people who denounce these spending “inefficiencies,” have the causation backwards: fighting Terrorism isn’t the goal that security spending is supposed to fulfill; the security spending (and power vested by surveillance) is the goal itself, and Terrorism is the pretext for it. For that reason, whether the spending efficiently addresses a Terrorism threat is totally irrelevant.
Join YAL at MTSU for a lecture from Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate famous for his teaching on the Constitution!
Badnarik’s presentation, his well-known “Constitution Class,” will run from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with a lunch break at noon. Admission is free. Contact Young Americans for Liberty MTSU at email@example.com for additional information.
When Michele Bachmann told the Wall Street Journal that she lays on the beach and reads Ludwig von Mises some libertarians perked up, but most of us saw it as a shameless appeal to the first wave of the Tea Party that campaigned for Ron Paul in 2008. Then when she promised $2/gallon gasoline we all rolled our eyes and understood she didn’t know the first thing about Austrian economics. But it’s only appropriate that Ron Paul, who probably mumbles more Mises in his sleep than Bachmann has ever read, be the one to school her. At the Reagan Library/MSNBC/Politico debate on Tuesday the good doctor said,
“I want to address the subject of two dollar gasoline because I can do much better than that. I can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime… You can buy a gallon of gasoline today for a silver dime. A silver dime is worth three dollars and fifty cents. It’s all about inflation.”
“No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” (Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1, Clause 5)
This is the thirteenth installment in a series of chapter summaries from G. Edward Griffin’s must-read book The Creature From Jekyll Island. This book may be the most important “red pill” available and we highly recommend that you read the full book. Buy it today at RealityZone.
G. Edward Griffin
Chapter 13 Summary: Masquerade in Moscow
The Bolshevik revolution was not a spontaneous uprising of the masses. It was planned, financed, and orchestrated by outsiders. Some of the financing came from Germany which hoped that internal problems would force Russia out of the war against her. But most of the money and leadership came from financiers in England and the United States. It was the perfect example of the Rothschild formula in action.
This group centered mainly around a secret society created by Cecil Rhodes, one of the world’s wealthiest men at the time. The purpose of that group was nothing less than world dominion and the establishment of a modern feudalist society controlled by the world’s central banks. Headquartered in England, the Rhodes inner-most directorate was called the Round Table. In other countries, there were established subordinate structures called Round-Table Groups. The Round-Table Group in the united States became known as the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR, which was initially dominated by J.P. Morgan and later by the Rockefellers, is the most powerful group in America today. it is even more powerful than the federal government, because almost all of the key positions in government are held by its members. In other words, it is the United States government.
Agents of these two groups cooperated closely in pre-revolution Russia and particularly after the Tsar was overthrown. The American contingent in Russia disguised itself as a Red Cross mission allegedly doing humanitarian work. Cashing in on their close friendship with Trotsky and Lenin, they obtained profitable business concessions from the new government which returned their initial investment many times over.
(Get the book to read full account with evidence and images)
Get the book for yourself or for others you want to wake up. It reads like a mystery novel and is filled with colorful metaphors that make the seemingly complex world of banking very easy to comprehend. Visit RealityZone for your copy today. Summary is re-printed with permission from G. Edward Griffin.
See other parts below:
PART 1: The Journey to Jekyll Island
PART 2: The Name of the Game is Bailout
PART 3: Protectors of the Public
PART 4: Home, Sweet Loan
PART 5: Nearer to the Heart’s Desire
PART 6: Building the New World Order
PART 7: The Barbaric Metal
PART 8: Fool’s Gold
PART 9: The Secret Science
PART 10: The Mandrake Mechanism
PART 11: The Rothschild Formula
PART 12: Sink the Lusitania!
Polls Show that Americans Think We Overreacted, Overspent and Weakened Ourselves Through the War on Terror
As the Brooking Institution reported yesterday, Americans that the government overreacted and overspent in reaction to 9/11:
These are a summary of findings of a new poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland.
Six in ten Americans believe that that the United States weakened its economy by overspending in its responses to the 9/11 attacks. In particular, respondents felt this was especially true of the U.S. mission in Iraq. Two out of three Americans perceive that over the decade since 9/11, U.S. power and influence in the world has declined. This view is highly correlated with the belief that the United States overspent in its post-9/11 response efforts – the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At this point, a large majority (73%) wants the United States to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan, but less than half (44%) want troops withdrawn completely.
Fifty-five percent say that the United States has spent too many resources in the Iraq war, while a plurality of 49% called the Iraq war a mistake (45% right decision). This criticism is a bit lower than other polls that asked similar questions in 2010 and found a majority ranging from 51 to 62% saying that it was not the right decision.
Support for the decision to go to war is highly correlated with beliefs held by substantial and undiminishing minorities that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda (46%) and either had a WMD program or actual WMDs (47%). Among those with such beliefs, large majorities say the war was the right thing while among those without such beliefs large majorities have the opposite views.
A modest majority (53%) believes that the U.S. should withdraw its troops according to schedule even if the Iraqi government asks the US to stay another year.
A clear majority (61%) says that the United States should not take sides in its efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while just 27% want the United States to lean toward Israel (5% toward Palestinians).
(Incidentally, top American military leaders agree, saying that the war on terror has weakened our national security).
Rasmussen has repeatedly noted that Americans are strongly opposed to further military or other types of intervention in Arab countries:
As with the recent turmoil in Egypt, most Americans (67%) say the United States should leave the situation in the Arab countries alone. Just 17% say the United States should get more directly involved in the political situation there, but another 17% are not sure.
This was true for Libya. And it is true elsewhere. For example, the overwhelming majority of Americans are also opposed to intervention in Syria.
Polls Show Widespread Doubt About Official Explanations
The results of polls on peoples’ beliefs about 9/11 around the world might surprise you:
- In its January 2011 issue, the popular German magazine “Welt der Wunder” published the results of a poll conducted by the Emnid institute on 1005 respondents. The poll indicated that nearly 90% percent of Germans are convinced that the government of the United States is not telling the whole truth about the September 11 attacks
- A new poll conducted in England by ICM shows that more UK residents agree than disagree that the official account of what happened on 9/11 might turn out to be wrong in important respects. Only 8% strongly agree that they have been told the full story of the 9/11 attacks
- A new poll conducted in France by HEC Paris shows that 58% of French people doubt the official version of 9/11, and 49% believe the U.S. government might have intentionally allowed the attacks to happen
- A Zogby poll conducted in August 2007 found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks, two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
- A poll conducted by CNN-IBN in August 2007 found that only 2 out of 5 of those polled in India – the world’s second most populous country – believe that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks
- Indeed, a poll taken by World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. The poll showed that in the world’s most populous country – China – only 32% believed that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
[CIM: Beams of Light photo added to original for improved re-posting.]