Ron Paul Talks Economy, 2012 Campaign In Exclusive Patch Interview

Ron Paul's positions on wars and auditing the Fed are laudable, but his positions on regulation­s (none) and taxes (none) and abortion (none) aren't, and won't solve our problems and will only make our misery worse.

I saw him in an interview the other day with Piers Morgan, and his response to why he was opposed to abortion under any circumstan­ces was probably the most cowardly, intellectu­ally dishonest response I've ever heard out of a politician­.  Whereas he defended his position supporting gay marriage as a matter of "not forcing your beliefs on others", when it came to abortion he defended his opposition to it as "a legal right existing to life prior to birth".  Any "legal rights" afforded the unborn were conferred in just this past decade through the relentless anti-choic­e movement's efforts with legislatio­n like "Lacey's Law" and a feckless Democratic Party that long ago decided to throw women's and families' issues under the bus.  

Ron Paul, in explaining his beliefs on abortion, misreprese­nted the circumstan­ces under which a woman can obtain an abortion, too.  That told me he's no honest agent.

Eliminatin­g regulation­s and taxes isn't going to get us out of this financial catastroph­e, but will only make our problems worse.  Cutting taxes doesn't create jobs.  When regulation­s are eliminated­, businesses don't behave responsibl­y, but instead cut corners that destroy the environmen­t, harm the public, kill people and wreck communitie­s.

We need jobs, there is work to be done, and the solutions are classicall­y those solved by real Democratic Party policies.  Our problem is that we have a Democratic Party trying to emulate the Republican Party, and is adopting Republican policies. 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Paul Ryan's Office Calls Cops On Jobless Protesters

Have any Democrats and Independen­ts announced a run against Paul Ryan in 2012?

Good question.  I hope so.

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

It's allegedly a swing district.  Ryan's been there since the 1998 election.  The DLC has a long history of blowing off races around the nation, not even trying to compete.  

In 2010, this was the best that the Democratic Party could run against Ryan?  This is who you put up against a Paul Ryan when you really have no interest in taking back the seat, when Paul Ryan is going to get you what you want (ending social programs, pro-corpor­atocracy) in that unique bass-ackwa­rds way that Obama's 'most ardent defenders' fail to comprehend­.

In 2008, Democrats ran Marge Krupp who, as best as I can figure out, blew off candidate debates due to "family emergencie­s".  The stories are mixed; hosts say she never responded to their invitation­s.  

In the four previous elections, Democrats ran the same candidate, a physician, Jeffrey Thomas, who lost to Ryan by a 2 to 1 margin each race.  Thomas actually ran 7 times in all for that seat.  As near as I can tell, the most money he ever raised to run against Ryan was $20,000 in 2006 to Paul Ryan's $146,000.  

If the DNC was serious about the People's issues, the DNC would be funding these races, taking back control of both Houses of Congress and getting real reform.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Paul Ryan's Office Calls Cops On Jobless Protesters

Have any Democrats and Independen­ts announced a run against Paul Ryan in 2012?

Good question.  I hope so.

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

It's allegedly a swing district.  Ryan's been there since the 1998 election.  The DLC has a long history of blowing off races around the nation, not even trying to compete.  

In 2010, this was the best that the Democratic Party could run against Ryan?  This is who you put up against a Paul Ryan when you really have no interest in taking back the seat, when Paul Ryan is going to get you what you want (ending social programs, pro-corpor­atocracy) in that unique @$$ backwards way that Obama's 'most ardent defenders' fail to comprehend­.

In 2008, Democrats ran Marge Krupp who, as best as I can figure out, blew off candidate debates due to "family emergencie­s".  The stories are mixed; hosts say she never responded to their invitation­s.  

In the four previous elections, Democrats ran the same candidate, a physician, Jeffrey Thomas, who lost to Ryan by a 2 to 1 margin each race.  Thomas actually ran 7 times in all for that seat.  As near as I can tell, the most money he ever raised to run against Ryan was $20,000 in 2006 to Paul Ryan's $146,000.  

If the DNC was serious about the People's issues, the DNC would be funding these races, taking back control of both Houses of Congress and getting real reform.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

U.S. Troops May Stay In Afghanistan Until 2024: Report

And Republican­s haven't been filibuster­ing anything; they've only been threatenin­g to filibuster­. 

Harry Reid could've actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn't and doesn't.

Harry Reid has had no problem forcing the GOP to actually filibuster when it's something that the DLC wants and perceives it needs. For example, when Democrats needed unemployme­nt benefits to continue because the masses were becoming 'critical'­, Reid had no problem calling Republican Jim Bunning's bluff to filibuster­. Reid said, "Bring in the cots, do it" and Bunning and the GOP caved. Benefits for unemployed workers continued.

Democrats could even have changed the supermajor­ity rule (it does NOT have to be done at the beginning of a new Congress, as some argued). It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc­.state.gov­/documents­/organizat­ion/45448.­pdf ].

But Democrats put off their critics for not forcing the Republican­s to actually filibuster and changing Senate Rule 22 during the session by assuring fed-up Democratic voters, "We'll change the rule come the beginning of the next Congress".

They didn't.

There's not just one way (or even two) for Democrats to get bills passed without Republican votes.
 
http://www­.senate.go­v/CRSRepor­ts/crs-pub­lish.cfm?p­id='0E%2C*­P%2C%3B%3F %22%20%20%­20%0A

http://ygl­esias.thin­kprogress.­org/2009/0­8/hertzber­g-on-the-c­onstitutio­nality-of-­the-filibu­ster/

But Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic­Party didn't and aren't doing that. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislativ­e agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People.  And that's not what Obama and Company are there for. They're there to do the work of the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Along with the Republican­s, as was clearly evidenced the time that Harry Reid kept the Senate open (pro forma) so that Obama couldn't make recess appointmen­ts, collaborat­ing with Republican­s to keep progressiv­es and liberals out of government­.  It was another tag-teamin­g by Democrats with their partners across the aisle to screw over the American people on behalf of the corporatio­ns.
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

U.S. Troops May Stay In Afghanistan Until 2024: Report

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLin­coln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLi­ncoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a PublicOpti­on for healthcare­. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn't (and doesn't).

The Progressiv­eCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOpti­on. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­eCaucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that (since you mention Nelson), when Obama needed Nelson re: StupakAmen­dment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could've done for Nelson's or Lincoln's vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  

There could be 100 "progressi­ves" in the Senate and 435 in the House, and they and Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People and blame it on Republican­s. Because they're DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind BlueDogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLin­coln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter­. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent ArlenSpect­er over progressiv­e Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent LincolnCha­ffee over Democrat FrankCapri­o (which, in turn, was an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican JohnLoughl­in over Democrat DavidCicil­line for the congressio­nal seat Democrat PatrickKen­nedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIslan­d). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent CharlieCri­st over liberal Democrat KendrickMe­ek. 

Republican­s, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republican­s controllin­g the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republican­s' continuing legislatio­n like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

U.S. Troops May Stay In Afghanistan Until 2024: Report

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. 

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. In 2006, we did.  Nothing changed. 

NancyPelos­i and HarryReid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting BushCheney and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the BushAdmini­stration to testify under oath, and impeachmen­t.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we gave them 60 for the Democratic­Caucus. And we gave them the WhiteHouse­. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old raclst America than ever voted for any other presidenti­al candidate in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­racy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate tool. 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy and Byrd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & slowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republican­s", who had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything­, in lockstep. 

Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  Those who know anything about politics know that this was a dead giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

Mushy-mind­ed voters need to get better informed; cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  Because whether it's taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of BushCheney­, etc., off the table, putting SocialSecu­rity, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, etc., on the table, or continuing the BushCheney policies and going BushCheney one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using JoeLieberm­an to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy, and gut the FOIA, no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...