The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Quotable quote of the day

The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service." - Albert Einstein

It's time to say, "enough!" <-- click to watch the video

[rickoff]

Senator Rand Paul detained at Airport by TSA

Rand Paul was detained by TSA agents at the Nashville airport today. According to news reports, the incident occurred after the TSA body scanner "detected" some kind of anomaly in Rand's knee. Rand lifted his trouser above the knee to show TSA agents there was nothing strange, and even offered to go through the scanner again, but TSA agents refused the offer and told Rand he would be required to submit to a "pat-down." Rand refused the pat-down, and the TSA agents then detained him in a small cubicle. As a result of being detained, Rand missed his flight to Washington, and also missed participating in a Senate vote later in the day.

This is nothing less than an act of total disregard for the Constitution, which states in Article1, Section 6:

(Congress) shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same

I would suspect that at least one of the TSA agents recognized Rand and thought it would be fun to give him a hard time for being an outspoken critic of the TSA. I hope Rand takes the TSA to task over this.

I think it is worth mentioning too that Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate who will publicly call for an end to the TSA, and this is something that Ron has included in his Restore America Now plan (look under the Spending heading). It is also quite interesting to note that a decade after the TSA was created following the September 11 attacks, the author of the legislation that established the massive agency grades its performance at “D minus.” “The whole program has been hijacked by bureaucrats,” said Rep. John Mica (R. -Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

[HairBear]

Hi Rick, could you help us out a little and fill us in on the NBC debate from last night(1.23.12)? I'm trying to find a video, but, they have all been removed. NBC's facebook page is filled with all negative comments which has piqued my interest. I don't watch mass media but i would like to see why everyone is so pissed about the debate. Thank you! Keep up the good fight!

update: found some video, although, I would still like to read your opinions.

[rickoff]

Hi Rick, could you help us out a little and fill us in on the NBC debate from last night(1.23.12)? I'm trying to find a video, but, they have all been removed. NBC's facebook page is filled with all negative comments which has piqued my interest. I don't watch mass media but i would like to see why everyone is so pissed about the debate. Thank you! Keep up the good fight!

Hi HairBear,

Here's a link to the full video for the January 23 Tampa debate.

In this debate, Romney went into attack mode right at the start, which is something he has refrained from doing at other debates thus far. He wanted to preserve his image as Mr nice guy, of course, but could see that public opinion regarded him as being too nice, and thus not generating much enthusiasm. In the SC debate, Gingrich went ballistic over a question regarding a statement one of his former wives had made, and his response became an attack against the mainstream media. Seeing that the audience responded quite well to Newt's media thrashing, Romney seemed to have sensed that he needed to step up to the plate and take a few swings himself. To his credit, Romney kept a calm manner while attacking Newt, and everything negative which he said about the Newt was quite valid. For that matter, Romney probably found this negative information after watching this Ron Paul campaign ad demonstrating Newt's "Serial Hypocrisy."

Newt's responses to Romney's attacks were weak, and for the most part non-effective, while Santorum seemed better prepared to take Romney on. Ron Paul, of course, was able to let Romney and Gingrich go at it with each other with no need to attack them himself, and this should prove to be in Ron's favor. I don't expect Ron to win the Florida primary, and whoever does win will win either by rigged vote counting or by media influence over the public, or both those factors.

As in previous debates, Ron Paul was not afforded anywhere near the time to speak that was given to Romney or Gingrich. It is quite clear that the media wants to drive home to the American public an understanding that there are only two major contenders in the race, and that Ron Paul is not one of them. How strange, then, that outside the debate hall, throngs of Ron Paul supporters could be heard chanting, "Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!", even inside the hall. The moderator, Brian Williams, even made mention of that. To me, it is quite clear that Ron Paul supporters are the most ardent and passionate supporters, and the least likely to accept the idea of voting for another candidate. For that reason alone, no other candidate would have a ghost of a chance at defeating Barry without the votes of Ron Paul supporters coming over to them, and I cannot see that happening unless Ron backs down, endorses one of the other candidates, and encourages his supporters to vote for that candidate. That scenario isn't likely to happen, as it simply would not be acceptable to Ron's supporters, who would likely vote for him anyways as a write-in candidate on the ballot, which is exactly what I would do. Acceptance of any other candidate would admit defeat, and would be tantamount to a statement saying that we are resigned to acceptance of a policy which continues the status quo of big and oppressive government, out of control and reckless spending and borrowing, an ever expanding police state, and continual contraction of rights, freedoms, and liberties.

[Core]

Hi HairBear,

Here's a link to the full video for the January 23 Tampa debate.


As in previous debates, Ron Paul was not afforded anywhere near the time to speak that was given to Romney or Gingrich. It is quite clear that the media wants to drive home to the American public an understanding that there are only two major contenders in the race, and that Ron Paul is not one of them. How strange, then, that outside the debate hall, throngs of Ron Paul supporters could be heard chanting, "Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!", even inside the hall. The moderator, Brian Williams, even made mention of that. To me, it is quite clear that Ron Paul supporters are the most ardent and passionate supporters, and the least likely to accept the idea of voting for another candidate. For that reason alone, no other candidate would have a ghost of a chance at defeating Barry without the votes of Ron Paul supporters coming over to them, and I cannot see that happening unless Ron backs down, endorses one of the other candidates, and encourages his supporters to vote for that candidate.

Thats a good link I also missed the debate and was able to watch it there. I will say this. The crowd was warned about clapping and cheering after a response. On numerous occasions they showed disregard for that warning and clapped. in approval. for Ron Raul

On the contrary nobody clapped for Newt, but Newt believes they where suppressed


-Core

[Core]

This morning, actually late morning, they where running yet another 'non-scientific' Poll on Drudge Report on who should be the Repulican Presidential contender. And yet again Ron Paul was showing a huge lead among Drudge readers. Needless to say the poll has been removed.


-Core

[HairBear]

Thank you Rick. I'm anxious to see how this all plays out.

[rogerd]

thanks for links guys, I was finally able to get to up to date on Republican's debate some of which I missed out being out of the country.

[dutchdivco]

So

Rick, if your brief synopsis of SOPA and PIPA is accurate, (NOT questioning your synopsis, just haven't READ it, myself) this forum would be shut down, and a bunch of us would go to jail for 5 years!!??? Cause I'm pretty sure there are numerous posts, containing cartoons or other material which is copywrited.
This is NOT the first time D.C. *******s have tried to step too far, got a major backlash, and had to step back. And yeah, keep watching, they will TRY to sneak it through, again.SOB's!

On the whole 'Newt' thing; I think every time a talking head says how much the Repub. Party establishment DOESN'T want Newt, they get him a couple of thousand votes. I think most who vote repub, are very unhappy with the 'Party Establishment'; thats one of the reasons they've rejected Mitt so soundly; because they KNOW he represents the candidate the party 'establishment' wants.

And of coarse, (so you don't say it) I know Newt is just another Washington insider, and the REAL anti party establishment candidate is R.P., I'm talking more about my perception of the attitude of the 'average' republican voter.

Party 'establishment' brought on that whole 'K' street swilling at the pork barrel buffet that occurred during Bush 2 admin.Voters KNOW that, and STILL aren't happy about it. Just wish they would open their eyes, and see Newt for what he really is, and RP for what HE really is!Jim

[Moe R]

Don't shoot the messanger

Just passing this along. I actually found this site here. This guy got tossed off youtube. His site WellAware1.com - The Power of 1 is still up. You can also find him on facebook. We're all adults here so no need to flame me Freeky Stuff Indeed.

http://wellaware1.com/truthexposed/f...t/paul_all.jpg

[dutchdivco]

Ron Pauls Candidacy; Historical Perspective

Pardon me, (in advance) if I am repeating something I have posted previously. I think, in part, this is in responce to the 'talking heads' who keep dismissing R.P, saying things like 'although his supporters are by far the most enthusiastic, they can't possibly represent more than 20% of the republican electorate!"
What we are seeing, in BOTH parties, is a cycle which repeats every 20-30 years. First, the 'Repubs';In 1964, Rockefeller was the candidate the party 'elites' had annoited. At the convention, Goldwater supporters staged a 'peaceful revolt', rejecting Rockefeller, and nominating Goldwater. And, it was said at the time that Goldwater "scared the Hell out of the 'mainstream Party leaders'. If you read Reagans 'keynote' speech, nominating Goldwater, (a Time For Choosing), and Goldwaters acceptance speech ( with its oft quoted "Extremism in the defence of Liberty is NO vice") you will see strong libertarian themes thruout both. And, any reputable review of Goldwater will agknowledge early on, he was primarily LIBERTARIAN in phylosophy.Of coarse, he lost the election to LBJ, after Kennedys assasination.
Fast forward to 1980; Reagan was NOT the candidate of the 'party elite', despite how they all pay lip service to him, now. In fact, he 'scared the HELL out of them'.Read ANY of his campaign speeches, and you can't help but see strong Libertarian themes; limited government, limited taxes, restrict the size and scope of Government, and increase personal liberty and responsibility.Needless to say, Reagan not only won the nomination, (against the wishes of the 'party elite'), but won the election, and left office at the end of his second term with a higher popularity than any President who hadn't died in office.

So, This revolt of the party 'regular members', AGAINST the 'chosen candidate of the party elite' (Romney), and the strong showings of R.P., despite the biased news coverage, is simply history repeating itself, and, if anything, 'over due'.
The Democrats have a similar history; for them, the revolt occured in 1968, when the 'exteme' faction of the party, realising they COULDN'T overcome the party elites, and nominate their candidate, (McGovern or McCarthy) pulled the house down at the Chicago convention.
And again, when Carter won the nomination, and 'they' actually got 'their' candidate nominated.He served 1 term, and left office very UNpopular.

One of the unique things about the upcoming election this time, is it looks like BOTH parties MAY be experiencing a 'revolt' at the same time; The "Occupiers" aren't going to be satisfied with another Obama term, and have already shown a propensity to break the law, to make their point, and thereby 'bring the house down', if they don't get their way.
And, the Repub voters nearly wholesale rejection of Romney, and R.P.'s continueing strong showing and support MAY actually lead to a 'brokered convention' where there is no concensus candidate going into the Convention.

The one apparent 'drawback' to RP's candidacy SEEMS to be his statements on foriegn policy, which have been portrayed as 'dovish', and therfore a 'turn-off' to repub voters.

Again, the 'historical perspective'.Goldwater said, in his acceptance speech (not a direct quote, but close) "My opponent (Johnson) will tell you if elected he won't get us involved in a war in SE asia; I'm telling you we ALREADY ARE involved in a war in SE Asia." He went on to say that while we were in a war in SE Asia, we weren't fighting it to win, we were in fact fighting it to lose. And, that if he were elected, since our men/women were 'in harms way', that he would fight it to win, with 'whatever means necessary'. Later, when asked if that included the 'nuclear option', he said 'of coarse', and was promptly portrayed as a dangerous nut.

Reagan was similarly portrayed as a 'warmonger' for his "Peace thru strength" policies.On the one hand, these seem like perfectly logical concepts; if you ARE involved in a war, you commit ALL your resources, and use ALL appropriate options, in order to insure you win it, and win it as quickly as possible.And, you make yourself strong enough, that no one wants to go to war with you, in the first place. Who, you might ask, could argue with that?

There IS another view, however; a view that insists on policies which guarantee NOT 'winning', such as telegraphing to everyone, 'allies' and foes alike, your withdrawal date. To vote to authorise going to war, (as the vast majority of Democrats did), and then, once troops are commited, to openly question said commitment, thereby clearly conveying to the enemy a lack of resolve, giving them confidence that (as in Vietnam) they can prevail simply by waiting for US public opinion to tire of the comitment.That seems detirmined, with Men and women in harms way, to insure a 'stalemate', or even a loss.

This second view is the one most repub voters instictively reject, and which, unfortunatly, R.P.'s been (I believe FALSELY) associated with. Unfortuantely, its his propensity to attempt to truly answer the question, and to try to honestly discuss the nuances, in a debate structured to avoid such answers and discussions. I believe he's clearly stated, IF the US's 'vital interests' are DIRECTLY threatened, than of coarse, you resort to military force, in order to defend ourselves. And, once you make such a commitment, OF COARSE you give our troops everything they need to prevail, as quickly as possible. And, yes, you maintain a strong enough defensive force to deter anyone from attacking us in the first place. And if asked, I suspect he would say "No, you don't telegraph your intention to withdraw, to your enemy!"

What he's tried to say, I believe, is that you First of all, go back to the Constitution; You have Congress go on record, voting to go to war, BEFORE you commit troops. You do any debating about whether or not the US has really been attacked, and whether our 'vital interests' are truly threatened, FIRST.That way, you A) avoid these 'foreign entanglements' where our 'vital interests' aren't truly threatened, and where we are trying to re-shape the world the way we think we would like it to be.B) Once you DO go to war, everyone is 'on board', and you fight to win.

And the second point, I think he's tried to make, and that has so far 'fallen on deaf ears' is a point made by the current (Democrat) Sec' of Defence, as well as the previous Repub. one; The biggest threat to our 'National Security' right now is FINANCIAL; we won't be able to defend ourselves if we are bankrupt.As Rick and others have pointed out, even the so-called 'massive cuts' to defence spending which have been proposed, only slow the growth.Eliminating the FED, re-establishing some type of 'Gold Standard', and other measures to put our country on a strong financial footing is VITAL to our National security. And, as a part of that, bringing the troops we have stationed around the world home, downsizing our military to a level appropriate for defending our nation, revamping the procurement process, restoring the Constitutional process for 'going to war', all are things which would strengthen our country, in terms of 'National Defence'. Hence, R.P is REALLY the biggest 'hawk' on the stage. Unfortunately, (so far) he isn't SEEN that way. But, its early yet.

Its just possible that Newt will prevent Romney from prevailing, and then flame out.At that point, (I hope) R.P. will be the inevitable candidate, as to me at least, Santorum has "VP" tatooed on his forehead.Just can't see him as anything else.Anyway, hope no one minds my rambling,....Jim

[rickoff]

Barry fails to appear at Georgia eligibility hearing

Rather than to appear at a Georgia administrative court hearing as directed by court order, Barry had his lawyer (Michael Jablonski) write a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, informing Kemp that Barry and Michael would be skipping the court date, and expressing an opinion that Judge Malihi was allowing the plaintiff's attorneys to run amok. Jablonski also demanded that Kemp order the hearing stopped. Kemp wrote back to Jablonski, saying, “Anything you and your client [Barry] place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.” (my bolding for emphasis - Rick)

I like that! It's nice to finally see a judge and a State's Secretary of State having enough backbone to actually abide by, and enforce, the law as it is written.

The plaintiff's attorneys began submitting evidence to Judge Malihi today detailing how Barry is ineligible for inclusion on the Georgia ballot. After hearing all evidence in the case, judge Malihi will make a preliminary decision and forward his recommendation to Secretary of State Kemp. If Malihi decides that Barry is ineligible, and if Kemp agrees with Malihi's recommendation, then Barry will be excluded from the Georgia ballot. Such a decision would have far reaching precedent setting consequences in several other states where challenges have been brought against Barry's inclusion on voting ballots.

[dutchdivco]

I Like it, too!

Of coarse, in anything thats NOT a criminal proceeding, either party has the option of not appearing, I believe. But, as the judge pointed out, its USUALLY not to your benefit, to fail to show up. Many judges consider it a concession, that the other party is 'right', and in most Civil court proceedings, it results in a 'summary judgement'; that is, the Judge decides in favor of the party that DID show up, without even requiring them to present their case.

Not sure how it works in an administrative hearing, as the rules for them are different, but GENERALLY, in administrative hearings the judge has MORE latitude, than in a civil court case.

Yeah, sounds like Barry and council got the wrong judge, and the wrong jurisdiction. Hard to see how political string pulling or pressure is going to enable him to worm his way out of this one!

As there is no precedent for this, wonder what will happen if Barry IS excuded from the ballot in one of a # of states? If voters write his name in, won't those votse simply be 'wasted' votes, and not counted? And what does this do to the electoral college count?

My understanding is that 'electors' to the electoral college are NOT legally bound, and 'could' vote for whoever they want.

No way to accurately predict WHATS going to happen, in this election, but its a safe bet; its going to be INTERESTING!

I also suspect there is going to be more tampering, and more challenges of votes, than there has ever been before! Remember the 'hanging chads'? Well, imagine that on steroids, with major vote count disputes (like there was in Florida) in at least 1/2 dozen states!

Wouldn't surprise me if the issue of who won is still in doubt, come Jan. of 2013!Hot Damn, but this is going to be INTERESTING! Jim

[sleigher]

Not sure if you guys have found this yet but here it is.

I think it's a great idea and should be supported.

Support Popular Vote

Basically the person with the most votes should win.

[dutchdivco]

Didn't click on the Popular vote link, but

I believe the Electoral College is 'set up/mandated in the Constitution, so any attempt to 'change' to a popular vote would require a Constitutional amenedment, and that issue has been discussed previously in this forum. Personally, I think we should have a Constitutional Convention, and address a # of issues. I think its long overdue. Unfortunately, the chances of that happening are nil. Even an amendment is probably 'impossible'. Jim