mystrangemind.com

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Benito Giuliani Openly Lied About Ron Paul's Position

Labels: U.S. Presidential Election 0 comments

Andrew Sullivan | LewRockwell.com

"The debate took a while to gain any traction, but there were some clarifying moments for me. The questions were often excellent - especially the tough ones at the beginning about the war. The Republicans, we learned, have absolutely no idea what to do about Iraq. The only two people with coherent positions were McCain and Paul. McCain supports a war without end, a permanent occupation of Iraq, regardless of whether a national government there can exist in the foreseeable future. He's for empire, as are Cheney and Bush. I can see no reason for him to withdraw any troops in the next five years. The notion that a national Iraqi government, composed of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, will be able to defend itself and take the side of the West in the war in Jihadist terror is simply ludicrous in the imaginable future. That much we surely know by now. So empire is the new Republican consensus: an empire built entirely for security reasons, and an empire which somehow manages to make us less secure. Paul, in contrast, had the balls to state the classic Republican position, and to defend it in the wake of 9/11. Man, that guy has some brass cojones. He even invoked Ronald Reagan in urging withdrawal from the irrationality of Arab politics. Other than McCain and Paul, the others were risible in their soundbites and faux toughness.

"It's also clear that compassionate conservatism is dead. Every single candidate favors reduced taxes and big spending cuts. None, however, is prepared to say that Medicare and Social Security must be on the chopping block. The grand experiment in big-government Republicanism is therefore rhetorically over. Sorry, Mr Gerson - but only one Republican is dumb enough to embrace the bromides of government spending as the cure for all our woes. And he's got a limit of two terms. That's a victory of sorts for those of us urging conservatives to abandon their big spending ways. I say "of sorts" because in practice, there's no sign that any of them, except Paul and possibly McCain, mean a scintilla of what they are saying.

"The final clarifier for me was, yes, torture...

"Some issues really are paramount moral ones. Two candidates opposed it clearly and honorably: McCain and Paul. All the others gleefully supported it - including Brownback. He's a born-again Christian for torture. Giuliani revealed himself as someone we already know. He would have no qualms in exercising executive power brutally, no scruples or restraints. Romney would double the size and scope of Gitmo, to ensure that none of the detainees have lawyers, regardless of their innocence or guilt. That is in itself a disqualification for the presidency of the United States. A man who has open contempt for the most basic rules of Western justice has no business being president.

"Huckabee did well, with several great applause lines. Giuliani, interestingly, openly lied about Ron Paul's position on 9/11. Paul specifically did not make a statement, as Giuliani immediately claimed, that the U.S. invited 9/11. I rewound to double-check. It was the Fox questioner who ratcheted up the stakes on that question, not Paul. Paul demurred on a specific answer and switched the question to the general issue of blowback. As to who's right, the answer is both. Bin Laden - still at large and operating within the territory of Pakistan, an alleged ally which Cheney recently visited - both justified the 9/11 attack on those grounds but has a theology that doesn't require such a casus belli. But now he doesn't even need the theology. We have, alas, made more terrorists by our bungling in Iraq than Bin Laden could have dreamed of just six years ago.

"For me, the moral question of torture in many ways settles this race. Just hearing Brit Hume curl his lips around the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" was a brief moment of insight. I was glad that McCain called these hideous methods by their proper name, and that Paul described Hume's weasel words as "newspeak." I was surprised to see Romney so aggressively embrace torture and Gitmo. On reflection, however, I was being naive again. Romney aims to please. He knew where he was - South Carolina. You can largely determine his beliefs in advance by judging the audience he is attempting to win over. For me, then, the debate winnowed the field of candidates down to two: McCain and Paul. That was quick." (Thanks to John Michael Hall for the URL.)

Ron Paul Violated the Rules

Labels: U.S. Presidential Election 1 comments

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | LewRockwell.com

Ron Paul violated one of the most consistently observed rules of American political life in the GOP debate in South Carolina the other night: government officials are never, ever to level with the American population. The people are to be endlessly flattered, spoken to in bumper-sticker slogans, and in general treated like seven-year-olds.

Congressman Paul crossed another, more specific forbidden line when he contradicted one of the major working assumptions of nearly all mainstream American pundits: foreigners never, ever get angry at the U.S. government’s foreign policy, and would never for any reason want to avenge themselves against it. You can go out of your way to prevent water treatment facilities from being repaired, you can starve and bomb without compunction, and you can bring about half a million deaths, and the people will quietly take it. In fact, they probably spend their time reproaching themselves for having so displeased the U.S. government.

A man of principle and in possession of an IQ above 80, Paul naturally refused to play along. He explained that foreign policy has consequences, and that political and military interference around the world has a tendency to stir up whole peoples against us. If we ignore this simple and obvious fact, we do so at our peril. His implicit conclusion was that the shenanigans of our government have made our people more hated and more vulnerable than ever. In sum, if you want to play empire, you cannot pretend that doing so will be costless.

To the propagandized automatons of 2007 America, this is called "blaming America" for 9/11. I guess detectives should bear that in mind the next time they seek the motive behind a murder. "You’re looking for motive? Are you saying the dead man had it coming?" (Will moral relativism never cease?)

Reports from all over the intelligence community have repeatedly confirmed Paul’s point, as if we needed express confirmation of what in normal times would be a matter of simple common sense. The CIA’s Michael Scheuer, who is by no means antiwar, told CNN: "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

Now I can already hear the other objection: Islamic history and theology provide ample pretext for jihad violence for anyone who wants to find it. Supposing the truth of that claim for the sake of argument, what exactly is it that makes them seem to want to find it? Are we to ignore the countless reports showing how the dumb belligerence of the current administration has increased the ranks of the radicals? And why does Osama bin Laden bother producing recruitment tapes detailing atrocities against Muslims if all he really has to do is point to the Koran and send the suicide bombers on their way to America?

The rest of the world, hearing Paul’s remarks, will doubtless be relieved to know that there are still at least a few Americans in public life who are able to process information at higher than a sixth-grade level, and whose understanding of international affairs isn’t cartoonish and delusional. But being a conservative today, of course, means that on principle you don’t care what the rest of the world thinks – what are you, some kind of commie? God bless America!

It’s a good thing for him that Russell Kirk didn’t have to live to see the deranged caricature of itself that American conservatism has now become. Kirk, one of the key architects of that movement, spent the last years of his life opposing every military adventure of the U.S. government. The average conservative today, on the other hand, who knows only what the government and its neocon shills tell him, would be at an utter loss to account for that.

(On the domestic front, one brief observation: only Ron Paul spoke forthrightly of scaling back the scope of the federal government. Poor Tommy Thompson couldn’t think of a single thing he’d want to cut – oh, except paragraph 17b, line 32, from some health program whose purpose would take fifteen minutes to describe. He wasn’t alone: the rest of the candidates droned on about cutting waste and abuse – code for business as usual. As Lew Rockwell put it, "The others couldn't name one federal typewriter they would sell off." No wonder they hate having Ron Paul there.)

There are still some Americans who don’t enjoy being propagandized, talked down to, or treated like imbeciles, and it is they in particular who appreciate Ron Paul. Long after the self-promoting phonies on that stage are gone and forgotten, Paul will still be admired. I know I can’t wait to read the biography of his political life.

Dan McAdams, who works in Ron Paul’s office, posted these remarks immediately following the debate:

I have worked for and with Dr. Paul more closely than perhaps anyone in this country (along with my colleagues) for the past six years and the fact of the matter is, as Lew can attest, that Dr. Paul is the most even-tempered, best-humored, easy-going, and intellectually engaging individual anyone would ever want to know. I still look at the little notes he sends me – even from years ago – and laugh my head off.

No one would saddle themselves with the kind of inhuman schedule that he does unless he genuinely enjoyed and felt passion for what he was doing. The joy is there every time I see him each week. And I have never met anyone who is so intellectually nimble and interested in new ideas.

Ron Paul has put himself up for personal ridicule at the hands of his inferiors just to show all of us that there is an alternative to the direction we are headed. Which of us would have the courage to do the same? He won? Irrelevant. His every word to the national audience is worth a million blows of the hammer on the stone of authoritarianism. God bless him. I have never felt more proud of him than tonight, enduring the slings and arrows of fascists like Giuliani.

No further comment is necessary.

Post GOP Debate coverage "Fox News Style" - Ron Paul

This is a video which satirizes the pathetically BIASED and silly Fox News post GOP debate coverage on May 15th 2007.

The video is accurate to what was occurring during the "Text Message Poll" that night as the night went along. Ron Paul was leading in the Poll throughout the night.

It also shows the silly way the other candidates, Fox News pundits and Hannity try to explain away Ron Paul's surprising popularity.

Ron Paul 2008 - The Voice Of The People On CSPAN

Labels: U.S. Presidential Election 0 comments

Calls For Support Of Congressman Ron Paul On CSPAN The Day After The May 15th GOP Debate.

The Next President Of The United States Of America: Congressman Ron Paul.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Will media report how Giuliani is milking 9-11, "America's Mayor" image they helped create for massive PR, financial gain?

Labels: U.S. Presidential Election 0 comments

mediamatters.org

Since 2002, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) has traveled nationwide and around the world to deliver countless speeches on the topics of "leadership" and "crisis management" at business conferences, motivational seminars, fundraisers, and universities. In these addresses -- for which he charges a reported $100,000 apiece -- Giuliani regularly speaks at length about his first-hand experiences during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As Media Matters for America has noted, significant questions surround Giuliani's record on homeland security and public safety, including his performance during, before, and after the 9-11 attacks. Nonetheless, the media have routinely advanced the depiction of Giuliani as a "hero of 9/11" and "America's Mayor," bolstering his image and enhancing his credibility. Now, as he explores a run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, will the media properly scrutinize how Giuliani has capitalized on this image -- legitimate or not -- for substantial personal profit?

According to the Associated Press, in 2002, Giuliani's estimated income from the lecture circuit exceeded $8 million. This would indicate that he gave more than 80 speeches that year, assuming he consistently collected his reported $100,000 speaking fee. Various reports have indicated that Giuliani has maintained a similarly brisk schedule of speaking engagements in the years since, including an estimated 20 paid speeches since he announced his presidential exploratory committee on November 15, 2006. In a February 7 article, the Chicago Tribune detailed the luxurious treatment Giuliani requested from one of his hosts, a state university:

Since he left office, Giuliani has leveraged his image as "America's mayor" to his decided financial advantage and in ways that belie his man-of-the-people persona.

He commands $100,000 for a speech, not including expenses, which his star-struck clients are happily willing to pay. In one speech last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani requested and received travel on a private Gulfstream jet that cost the school $47,000 to operate. His visit essentially wiped out the student speakers annual fund.

Like other high-priced speakers in the private sector, Giuliani routinely travels in style. Besides the Gulfstream, which is a standard perk on the big-time speakers circuit, his contract calls for up to five hotel rooms for his entourage, including his own two-bedroom suite with a preferred balcony view and king-size bed, in the event of an overnight stay.

The Tribune further reported that Giuliani's contract for this address restricted "what questions he might be asked":

The Oklahoma contract also required a sedan and an SUV, restrictions on news coverage and control over whom Giuliani would meet, how he would be photographed and what questions he might be asked.

In 2006, Giuliani's speaking schedule showed no sign of slowing, including at least these speeches:

Giuliani's current schedule indicates that he will continue to appear at such events in the future. Indeed, on January 31, he addressed the AFCEA/U.S. Naval Institute Warfare and Technologies Conference in San Diego, and on February 13, he gave the keynote address at the 40th World Ag Expo in Tulare, California. Further, he is scheduled to speak at the National Truck Equipment Association Annual Convention in Indianapolis in early March, as well as at the 19th Annual Buyouts Symposium East in New York City in April.

In advertising himself as a paid speaker, Giuliani emphasizes his first-hand experiences on September 11, 2001. Until recently, the Washington Speakers Bureau managed his speaking engagements. Its online description (via Google cache) of Giuliani depicted him as "someone who found himself on the frontlines of the War on Terror" and "helped lead New York -- and the U.S. -- out of the devastation that followed the attacks on 9-11." From the Washington Speakers Bureau biography of Giuliani:

Sharing with audiences the principles of leadership which he detailed in his book, Rudy Giuliani looks back at the important lessons he learned in a lifetime of public service and how he drew on those lessons to provide strength at a defining moment in America's history.

[...]

Perhaps there's no greater test of a leader or leadership skills than to lead during difficult times. It's during trying or complicated circumstances that people turn to leaders for direction, motivation and understanding - and studying their actions for guidance. Perhaps no one understands that better than Rudy Giuliani, who helped lead New York -- and the U.S. -- out of the devastation that followed the attacks on 9-11. Giuliani shares his strategies about leading during trying circumstances, providing audiences with unparalleled insights and compelling anecdotes to help them overcome unforeseen or unprecedented challenges -- and put them back on the path towards success.

[...]

As someone who found himself on the frontlines of the War on Terror, Giuliani understands the grave personal price already paid to maintain freedom.

In his speeches, Giuliani regularly describes his experiences on the day of the attacks. For instance, in his May 21, 2002, commencement address at Syracuse University, Giuliani depicted the scene near the World Trade Center on 9-11 as akin to "a nuclear holocaust" and referred to those who perished in the attacks, including "people that I love and care about and people I had seen 25 minutes before they died."

From the address:

GIULIANI: When I got out on the street, it was like being in a nuclear holocaust. It was cloudy, almost impossible to see and debris falling through the street. I was trying to communicate with people in New York City, to try to tell them to remain calm, that everything was being done that could be done and to evacuate to the north, because that's what the head of the fire department, who died about 20 minutes after I talked to him, told me to do, Chief Gansey.

[...]

GIULIANI: And immediately, even within 30 to 35 minutes of the collapse and extricating ourselves from a building, I began to get a sense of strength and optimism, that something was happening here that would overwhelm the ferociousness of this attack. And then later that day, as I thought about the enormity of the numbers of people that we had lost, including close friends of mine, and people that I love and care about and people I had seen 25 minutes before they died, as I was feeling the burden of that, I first saw a copy of a photograph that I know you've seen.

But it was the first time I really felt optimism and strength. And it was the photograph of the three firefighters who placed the American flag on top of six stories of fallen building. I knew what those firefighters were encountering. The flames there were 2,000 to 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. The flames were going on below them, and they were standing six stories above, and they raised the American flag, and it said to me right there emotionally that there's nothing stronger than the spirit of a free people.

Giuliani similarly evoked his personal experiences on 9-11 several years later in a May 22, 2005, commencement address at Middlebury College:

GIULIANI: But when I got to the site of the World Trade Center, and I got below the North Tower at the fire department command post, and the police were telling me to look up because debris was falling down, I realized in one particular moment that what I was watching was not debris falling down, but a man who was throwing himself out of the 101st, 102nd floor because he wanted to escape the awful flames.

And I stopped and froze and watched it, and my emotions and my intellect just changed. I said to myself, this is way beyond anything that we've ever faced before. It is much worse, and we're not prepared for this, and we don't have a plan for it. And I said that to my police commissioner and the other people that were there with me.

And then we just had to respond. We couldn't think that very long, so we had to ask for air support, ask for fighter jets to protect the city because we thought we'd be attacked again by air. We had to deploy the police to different parts of the city that we thought would be the next ones to be attacked by suicide bombers. We had to close down the bridges and the tunnels. We had to set up evacuation routes. We had to triage the hospitals. We had to bring in generators to light up Ground Zero.

While transcripts of the numerous addresses Giuliani has given to private conferences and institutions are generally not available, reports of these speeches suggest that his September 11, 2001, anecdotes are a consistent feature.

From a July 16, 2005, Palm Beach Post article on Giuliani's keynote address a day earlier at the Southeast Building Conference:

Speaking without notes for 45 minutes and forgoing the speaker's podium, Giuliani admitted he was afraid when he arrived at the World Trade Center the day of the terrorist attacks. His city had at least 25 different plans to deal with fires, bombs and power outages, but none to handle a catastrophe of such unthinkable horror.

"We didn't have a plan for airplanes being used as missiles attacking our buildings," he said.

He didn't even realize the scope of the human tragedy that had befallen his city.

"I didn't know how bad the damage really was until I arrived at the base of the north tower and saw a man throw himself out of the 102nd floor," Giuliani said.

"I turned to the police commissioner and said 'This is off the charts. We have to come up with a plan quickly.' "

He and his team did just that, and so can you, Giuliani said, outlining principles of leadership.

"The most important is to have strong beliefs," he said. "You have to know what you believe if you're going to lead other people. You can't make decisions based on public opinion."

From an October 6, 2005, Washington Times article on a keynote address Giuliani delivered at a conference on identity theft in Washington, D.C.:

He said when he arrived at ground zero on September 11, 2001, after terrorists rammed hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center, he told a police officer who accompanied him, "We have no plans for this."

Instead, New York City officials improvised with parts of other disaster plans for fires, subway derailments and chemical attacks to figure out a response, he said.

The lesson for the financial security industry is that, "Success comes about because of relentless preparation," said Mr. Giuliani, now the chief executive of Giuliani & Partners, a consulting firm that has a security division.

About 10 percent of U.S. consumers believe they have been victims of identity theft, according to a report from McLean-based credit-card issuer CapitalOne.

Debit and ATM card theft alone cost U.S. consumers $2.75 billion in the year prior to May 2005, with an average loss of $900, according to a study released in August by information technology firm Gartner Inc.

Drama Queen Giuliani and MSM Distort Ron Paul's Words During GOP Debate

Labels: Conspiracy: Corporate, U.S. Presidential Election 2 comments

The yellow journalists are doing a fine job of exposing their true intent, which is to bungle any chance that America has to return to a constitutional republic, yes it is the MAINSTREAM MEDIA which hates America, not Ron Paul.

It is chilling to watch the reporters say that "Ron Paul Blames America" and other such nonsense, when he was merely making the same point that the CIA made in its reports regarding America's foreign policy's effect on world opinion.

The media is still acting smug and secure, as if they have the upper hand, but I think the media has tipped their hand and anyone who has any critical thinking skills should now realize that the mainstream media is collectively committing a form of treason by trying to manhandle the election process and force any REAL conservatives out of the "Republican" party.

Media echoed, applauded Giuliani's distortion of Paul's comments about 9-11 attacks

MediaMatters.org

Summary: Several media figures mischaracterized a response that Rep. Ron Paul gave at the Republican debate, with some asserting that Paul had "blamed" the United States for the 9-11 terrorist attacks and others simply accepting Rudy Giuliani's misrepresentation of Paul's statement -- that the United States had "invited the attack." In fact, Paul did not blame the United States for the 9-11 attacks or say that the United States had "invited" them.

Covering the May 15 Republican presidential debate at the University of South Carolina, some media figures mischaracterized a response by Rep. Ron Paul (TX), asserting that Paul had "blamed" the United States for the 9-11 terrorist attacks. In other cases, they simply accepted former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's misrepresentation of Paul's statement -- that the United States had "invited the attack." Paul did not blame the United States or say that the United States "invited the attack." He said the attacks were a response to U.S. actions in the Middle East and stressed the importance of understanding the motivations of those who want to attack the United States. Moreover, the media largely ignored Paul's further comments on those remarks after the debate, including his assertion that "Americans didn't do anything to cause" the attacks.

During the debate, Paul asserted that terrorists attacked the United States on September 11 "because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East." When asked by co-moderator and Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler if he was suggesting that "we invited the 9-11 attack," Paul replied: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it." Giuliani immediately responded to Paul claiming that what he had said was "an extraordinary statement ... that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq." Giuliani added: "I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." From the debate:

PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9-11 attack, sir?

PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

During a postdebate interview, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Paul: "Are you suggesting the United States of America caused the attack on 9-11?" Paul replied: "No, I think that's a cop-out." Hannity then asked: "Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?" Paul responded: "I think it contributes significantly to it, and this is exactly what our CIA tells us. Paul later stated explicitly: "[T]he Americans didn't do anything to cause [9-11]."

Yet when describing the confrontation between Paul and Giuliani during the debate, numerous media figures claimed that Paul "blamed" the United States for 9-11 or said that the United States was "responsible" for the attacks, and they made no mention of his subsequent clarification. In addition, some not only accepted Giuliani's interpretation of what Paul said but praised Giuliani's response.

For example, on the May 16 edition of CNN's American Morning, Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei said that "Rudy Giuliani came off terrific" during the debate, "mostly because he got that softball, where Ron Paul lobs it to him and basically blames the U.S. for the 9-11 attacks." In response to VandeHei, co-host John Roberts mimicked a baseball swing with his arms and said, "Ron Paul -- lob ball, and boom." VandeHei then concluded: "You dream of those moments when you're a candidate, that's for sure." Later in the program, Roberts said that Paul "did kind of stick his foot in it, though, when he suggested last night that it was U.S. intervention overseas that was responsible for the 9-11 attacks."

A May 16 Politico.com report on the debate by Jonathan Martin mentioned the dispute between Paul and Giuliani and uncritically quoted Giuliani campaign manager Mike DuHaime's claim that Giuliani "is not going to sit there and let somebody say that [9-11] was our fault."

From Fox News' postdebate coverage:

HANNITY: I want to go back to this exchange you had with Mayor Giuliani here for just a second. Are you suggesting the United States of America caused the attack on 9-11?

PAUL: No, I think that's a cop-out.

HANNITY: Our policies?

PAUL: When people imply that what you're saying is that, "If you don't endorse my foreign policy, you're un-American, you're unpatriotic."

HANNITY: I never said anything like that. I'm not saying ---

PAUL: No, I don't say you --

HANNITY: You're suggesting --

PAUL: No, but I think that was the point in the debate that if I didn't endorse this foreign policy, you turn it around or they -- he turned it around.

HANNITY: I'm not saying that, but what specifically then are you saying? Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?

PAUL: I think it contributes significantly to it, and this is exactly what our CIA tells us. And anybody who's done any research on this has found out -- [inaudible]

HANNITY: What have we done to cause the attack --

PAUL: Wait, wait, let me answer.

HANNITY: What did America do to cause the attack on 9-11?

PAUL: OK, the Americans didn't do anything to cause it, but policies over many years caused an elicited hatred toward us, so somebody was willing to commit suicide. For instance, the occupation with our military troops on their holy land in Saudi Arabia, bombing a Muslim country for 10 years, putting on sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of people. So that caused that anger.

From the May 16 edition of CNN's American Morning:

VANDEHEI: I thought Rudy Giuliani came off terrific, mostly because he got that softball, where Ron Paul lobs it to him and basically blames the U.S. for the 9-11 attacks.

ROBERTS: Let's take a quick look at that and then you can keep going on that. Take a look.

[begin video clip]

PAUL: They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

GIULIANI: That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.

[end video clip]

ROBERTS: So, Giuliani, in the California debate that you were at, was criticized for kind of not showing the type of, you know, heavily, sharply focused leadership that he is well known for, obviously taking that opportunity there.

VANDEHEI: You can't buy opportunities like that in politics. I mean, this is a guy whose entire campaign is based on, "I can keep you safe, I'm the 9-11 warrior." And here he's able to, you know, stand up in front of this Republican audience and say, "That's absurd. Withdraw your remark." It was great TV.

ROBERTS: Ron Paul -- lob ball, and boom.

VANDEHEI: You dream of those moments when you're a candidate, that's for sure.

ROBERTS: Yeah, absolutely.

[...]

KIRAN CHETRY (co-host): So, who is Ron Paul? Well, he's the man described by some of the political analysts as, quote, "the longest of long shots in the GOP field." He's a nine-term congressman from Texas, an OB/GYN from the Houston area, actually. And he is barely registering in the polling. In fact, in our CNN polls, I think he's under 1 percent.

He's also the libertarian candidate -- he was -- for president back in 1988. Didn't do so well, drawing just about 400,000 votes nationwide. He also voted against the defense spending bill and against the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq. He believes, as he said, in limited government. He's actually calling for, John, the abolishing of the Homeland Security Department, and he wants to take away a lot of the power of the Federal Reserve.

ROBERTS: Yeah, I saw that. That's how he would cut the federal budget, by abolishing the Department of Homeland Security. He did kind of stick his foot in it, though, when he suggested last night that it was U.S. intervention overseas that was responsible for the 9-11 attacks, which drew that sharp response from Rudy Giuliani, which drew applause from the audience. So it looks like --

CHETRY: That's right, and he didn't back down from it either, so he --

ROBERTS: He didn't, yeah, you're right.

—B.A.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Video to Tool's Vicarious

Labels: Music, Videos 0 comments

Here is an interesting video to one of Tool's latest releases, Vicarious.

I own the TV
Cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor
It happens to be

Like:
"Killed by the husband"
"Drowned by the ocean"
"Shot by his own son"
"She used a poison in his tea
and kissed him goodbye"
That's my kind of story.
It's no fun 'til someone dies

Don't look at me like
I am a monster
Frown out your one face
But with the other
Stare like a junkie
Into the TV
Stare like a zombie
While the mother holds up her child,
Watches him die

Hands to the sky crying,
"Why, oh why?!"

Cause I need to watch things die
From a distance
Vicariously, I
Live while the whole world dies
You all need it too - don't lie.

Why can't we just admit it?
Why can't we just admit,
We won't give pause until the blood is flowin'
Neither the brave nor bold
Will write as the stories told
We won't give pause until the blood is flowin'

I need to watch things die
From a good safe distance
Vicariously, I
Live while the whole world dies
You all feel the same so
Why can't we

Just admit it

Blood like rain, come down
Drum on grave and ground

Part vampire
Part warrior
Carnivore and voyeur
Stare at the transmitter
Synched to the death rattle...

La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la-lie (x4)

Credulous at best your desire to believe in
Angels in the hearts of men
Pull your head on out
Your head believes it give a listen
Shouldn't have to say it all again

The universe is hostile
So impersonal
Devour to survive
So it is, so it's always been ...

We all feed on tragedy
It's like blood to a vampire

Vicariously, I
Live while the whole world dies
Much better you than I.

~TOOL

The Power of Shaolin Kung Fu

Labels: Martial Arts, Spirituality, Videos 0 comments

This video is a demonstration of the amazing mental and physical powers possessed by those who are skilled in the art of Shaolin Kung Fu. The Shaolin students train their bodies, using "Iron Bridge" techniques, to withstand great stresses that would badly injure an untrained individual. Their training also teaches them a level of coordination that is exceedingly rare.

George Noory Asks Why Mainstream Media is Ignoring Ron Paul

Labels: U.S. Presidential Election 0 comments

source: votewritein.blogspot.com

Last night on the #1 rated late night radio show Coast to Coast AM, just after the conclusion of the 2nd GOP debate in South Carolina, host George Noory said:

"I don't know if you caught a glimpse of the GOP debate tonight, but I've gotta tell you, this is not an endorsement, I am just amazed at how Ron Paul continues to really, and effectively, out-maneuver the other candidates in these debates and he get's minimal national exposure and publicity. It is incredible. I mean you look at Fox News, Ron Paul on top, you look at MSNBC, Ron Paul on top. This is gonna be a very interesting election where it looks like Americans who are voting on the Republican end are picking Ron Paul, but I'm not so sure he'll get the nomination, unless he starts getting the exposure that he needs. But anyway, we've got the invite into Ron Paul to get him on a future program to talk about the issue of not getting the exposure, when it appears that America likes the guy! I mean, that's the story to me, America likes the guy!"

Ron Paul supporters should be extremely happy George Noory has invited him on the Coast to Coast AM, which boasts millions of nightly listeners.

Ron Paul Upsets Controlled-Media Debate as Clear Winner

Labels: Conspiracy: Corporate, U.S. Presidential Election, Videos 0 comments

Pundits & Candidates Seek to Exile Statesman from Republican Party-- In Spite of Leading Poll Numbers-- Over His Anti-Torture, Anti-War and Anti-Tax Standpoint

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones / Jones Report | May 15, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul shook the establishment in last night's second round of 2008 Republican debates for the Presidency. Not only did his anti-war, anti-torture and pro-liberty platform stand glaring in the face of those political whores dubbed as "top-tier" but he managed to catch the ire of 9/11 criminal Rudy Giuliani for daring to suggest aggressive foreign policy would stir up blowback.

What's worse, Ron Paul interrupted the worship of establishment-selected candidates by winning the debate's own poll and forcing FOX to cover the mere "second-tier" candidate-- a distinction mainstream media have been using to marginalize those outside of direct control.

Ron Paul's performance in his second debate victory-- as moderators repeatedly suggest he doesn't belong in the Republican party

Ron Paul garnered approximately 20 minutes of air-time on Fox alone last night-- including about 10 minutes of debate questions and another 10 minutes composed of attacks and dismissals by pundits, other candidates and an interview with Hannity & Colmes.

Sean Hannity stated his "surprise" that Ron Paul was leading with 30% of the FOX News text-message poll vote, despite that fact that he also won the Republican debates on MSNBC-- a fact which the media under-reported and even censored.

At the time of press, Ron Paul also had a distinct lead-- by a huge margin-- in the MSNBC poll regarding the South Carolina Republican debate.

Alan Colmes probed to understand how Ron Paul could emerge the decisive leader in an otherwise revolting adherence to policies advocating war expansion and unrestrained use of "extreme interrogation tactics" which skirt the damning name of "torture."

Fellow "second-tier" candidate Duncan Hunter attributed Ron Paul's dominance in the FOX text-message poll to his "entertainment value," insinuating that his policies and views (including the controversy generated over 9/11 comments) could not be taken seriously.

GOPAC chairman Michael Steele went so far as to suggest that Ron Paul should not belong to the Republican party, stating that he was "done" with Paul and did not care what the results of the FOX poll were.

Debate moderators pointed out Congressman Paul's distinction as the only Republican candidate who voted against military action in Iraq as they repeatedly demanded that he answer to being in the 'wrong party' or 'not fitting in with the Republican party.' Ron Paul answered smartly-- pointing out that he wanted to lead the country, not the party, and that 65-70% of the country was against the Iraq war and long for an end to the mired conflict.

Regardless, he was attacked for his adherence to non-interventionist philosophy and defamed as some kind of 9/11 heretic-- as various pundits pretended he had faltered in the debates and claimed that anonymous South Carolina Republicans had reached consensus on the idea that Ron Paul "did not acquit himself" and must be discarded.

Ron Paul is defamed by pundits and candidates alike who make excuses for his poll victory.

One pundit even goes so far to suggest that Ron Paul's success in the poll was due primarily to attention won after Giuliani attacked him on 9/11 statements, as well as organizational prowess amongst text-messaging voters.

Sean Hannity refused to believe Ron Paul won the debate, claiming he didn't have the opportunity to text in his vote.

Yet, as Ron Paul continued to win the debate poll, the live-results format pigeonholed FOX News into ongoing coverage of the winner-- as his only competition in poll results came from Mitt Romney, who briefly led the poll with 27% when Ron Paul had only 26%.

It is continually suggested that "second-tier" candidates such drop from the race and make way for the "first-tier" candidates to shine, though the only vote process at this stage-- polls-- all indicate Ron Paul as a likely winner and certainly a top contender.

During a post-debate interview with Hannity & Colmes, Ron Paul discusses his differences in foreign policy and much more. Giuliani elaborates on his reaction to Ron Paul's unsettling statements.

Though they would like to exclude him from future debates, his back-to-back debate victory may force moderators into a position of having to invite Ron Paul-- for the time being.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Ron Paul: Cover His Back

Labels: U.S. Presidential Election 0 comments

Alan Stang | Etherzone
Monday, May 14, 2007

For those of you who never heard of Ron Paul before the debate, I have known him for more than twenty five years. I have been with him many times in many settings. I recall being with him in fellow physician Larry McDonald’s congressional office in Washington, which would have had to be more than twenty four years ago. Remember that my dear friend Larry was probably kidnapped by the Soviets on September first, 1983, when they shot down Koran Air Lines 007. He was an old-school Democrat, of course, and completely shared our beliefs.

I have spent time with Ron between congressional stints in his medical office. After the Patriot Act, he told me ruefully that the congressmen who voted for it had not been allowed to read it and knew only what they had been told. A few months back, we were together in his district office in Lake Jackson and he told me he was breaking in his new knees. That’s right, in addition to all his other qualities, Dr. Ron is now a bionic Member of Congress.

Later, I introduced him at a meeting in Austin and told the audience that since the doctors had replaced his knees, they may as well go all the way and clone him. I still think it was a good idea – I modestly asked for only 534 Dr. Ron clones to replace the other Members of Congress – but he shot me down at once when I surrendered the dais. He said that wife Carol, who was sitting right there, wasn’t as enthusiastic as I was because “one Ron Paul is enough.” It’s the only thing I’ve heard Carol say that I disagree with.

So I think I am qualified to say, for those of you who may not have known much about Ron Paul before the earthquake at the Reagan Library, that he is the real thing. He is exactly what you thought he was when you saw him in the debate, despite what the media scumbags said he said. As President, he would dismantle IRS and the Fed. He would get us out and keep us out of illegal, imperial wars. He would restore genuine Free Enterprise and real money. He would stop the government-inspired deportation of our jobs and standard of living.

But remember that by now the federal government has passed the tipping point. The way back is now uphill. Democracy, which the Founding Fathers feared and hated, has turned government into an immensely lucrative racket. Many people are using it to make humongous fortunes. Senate crook Dianne Feinstein is just one recent example. Hundreds of billions of dollars have vanished in Iraq.

El presidente Jorge W. Boosh is the most prominent of many who have accumulated enormous power, and they want more. The conspiracy for world government is approaching its goal: the destruction of our national independence, so that the country can be submerged in a regional, and then in a world government.

On April 30th, at the White House, Boosh signed a “Transatlantic Economic Integration” agreement between the U.S. and the European Union. Also signing were German Chancellor Angela Merkel – current president of the European Council – and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso. The document says that the U.S. and the European Union “seek to strengthen transatlantic economic integration.”

Dr. Ron would stop all this, so the crooks and conspirators and the media pimps they employ want to stop him. And the record shows that they will do everything, from blackmail to extortion to murder, to get what they want. “Law” for them is whatever they do at the time. We know that people who oppose them have an unfortunate habit of “committing suicide.” One man even shot himself in the back more than once with a shotgun. Another killed himself and then drove to Fort Marcy Park in the District of Criminals, where the cops found his body. Ain’t that right, Vince?

At the Reagan Library, Dr. Ron took them by surprise. He barely was allowed in. They paid him no attention. Why waste time on a yokel from Lake Jackson? Where? (By the way, Ron is not a native Texan. If memory serves, he started out as a Pennsylvania Yankee. We let him live here in the Promised Land because of his ideas.) So, Ron started out with zero support and less than zero media interest in his thinking.

The crucial issues in the debate of course were the fact that “front-runner” Mitt Romney is a staunch homosexualist; he did everything he could to advance the cause of sodomy as governor of Taxachusetts. And of course had I been there as a member of the press, I would have asked the other “front runner,” America’s mayor Rudy, the perennial question that has plagued the country all along:

“Mayor Giuliani, when you are not wearing women’s clothes, are you nevertheless wearing women’s underwear, and, if so, what is your bra size?” Yes, it’s a stupid question. I would argue that it’s a lot less stupid than some of the questions that were asked. Remember that we have had our first “black” President (Clinton) and our first homosexualist President (Bush). With Rudy we face the prospect of our first cross-dressing President. Hey, it’s time, right? (By the way, you do need to know that Dr. Ron is something of a prude. He invariably wears men’s clothes and underwear.)

At last, the camera turned to Dr. Paul. Yes, he is handsome. He even looks like a President. But, after all, he’s a yokel, an innocuous country doctor. They would let him mumble for the allotted few minutes and move on. Everybody knows this thing is between Rudy and Mitt. Everything else is window dressing.

Then, suddenly, without warning, there was an Incredible Hulk transformation. Godzilla was onstage, biting off heads, tearing off limbs and chewing on the bones. Who was he? Where had he come from? Who let him in? The reptilian media scumbags couldn’t very well drag him off the dais. The cameras were live. They had to sit there and listen while Dr. Ron assured them that his first official act as President would be to dismantle IRS.

And across the country, from the west bank of the Hudson to the California line, a roar erupted, as millions of astounded Americans who pay the taxes, fight the wars and go to work (unless their jobs have been deported), realized that Dr. Ron was saying in plain English what they believe in private. Most of the other candidates spoke boilerplate. They saw they were not alone and not crazy. “Imagine! A candidate for President who thinks like me.”

The internet polls started rolling in. Every one of them showed that Ron had dismembered and buried all the opposition. It wasn’t even close. At first the American Bureau of Communism (ABC) News poll deleted Ron altogether. ABC added him only after a tidal wave of furious telephone calls and emails. Ron had 15,568 of the first 18,000 votes in the ABC News poll. Homosexualist Mitt Romney, who “won,” had 245.

MySpace has been blocking posts related to Dr. Ron. ABC’s message boards have been deleting expressions of outrage about the network’s attempt to squelch him. Media scumbags even lied about what he had said, despite the fact that we heard him say it. Scumbags Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, who hosted the actual debate, claimed that none of the Republican candidates opposed the occupation of Iraq, in the face of what Dr. Paul had said.

Yahoo has been censoring Dr. Paul. They claim he is not an announced candidate. But the Federal Elections Commission says he is; and if he isn’t how did he get into the debate? The most creative argument said that Ron’s supporters are “viral” computer bloggers who voted more than once, except that the polling technology makes it impossible to vote more than once from an I.P. address.

Two things emerge. First, the orchestrated attempt to squelch Dr. Ron should prove to the last doubter that the outcome has already been ordained, that the process is largely a charade. Second, remember that these polls are taken among people who have access to the net, still a minority. Most of the American people by far still get their daily brainwashing from the Communist media left (CBS, CNN, ABC, etc.) and the Communist media right (Limbag, Laura, Hannity, etc.). So, much more must be done.

Which brings me to the reason for this piece. By now the shock has worn off. Tomorrow evening, in South Carolina, our Communist media will not be taken by surprise. They will be expecting Godzilla. Indeed, don’t logic and our experience of these scumbags tell you that they have been figuring out what to do since the disaster at the Reagan Library?

They certainly have no intention of allowing sensible, handsome, avuncular Dr. Ron to keep breaking through to the people. I believe Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who could beat Hillaroid, the nation’s leading cause of lower back pain. Remember, he’s the only Republican who voted against the war. His policy is the only sensible American policy: he would not have put us there, but now that we are there, win it and get out. No politics!

So we must be super vigilant. We know they will do something. We just don’t know what it is. We don’t know when. If you are anywhere near Columbia, South Carolina tomorrow night, go to the Fox debate. Festoon the place with Ron Paul signs. Are you a computer ninja? Standby to work your magic on the net. If Godzilla strikes again, you can be sure that the Communist media will do what it can to mess up the polls and worse.

To put yourself into the right frame of mind for the debate, watch Clint Eastwood in “The Outlaw Josie Wales.” Then, during the debate, watch Ron’s back. By the way, I just checked. Ron Paul has no immediate plans to “commit suicide.” My prayer is that he gets through this thing alive.

Why Do They Love the Fed?

Labels: Conspiracy: Banking, U.S. Presidential Election 0 comments

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | LewRockwell.com
May 9, 2007

Yesterday I lost my patience with political "progressives," whose confidence in the state is no less pronounced than that of the neoconservatives who had all manner of grandiose plans for what our rulers could accomplish in Iraq. I wrote that piece because of something I read over the weekend: a progressive blog posted some nice comments about Congressman Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president. So far, so good, of course. Some progressives noted that Paul had been more antiwar than any Democrat and that his record on civil liberties was second to none.

But naturally some progressives were hostile: so what if he’s better on the crucial issue of our time, they essentially said. He’s anti-government! One even said the neocons were much better than Paul, since at least they wouldn’t try to scale government back. (It was limited government, you know, that caused the Katrina fiasco.) That kind of candor is refreshing: when presented with a small-government, local-control libertarian who will resolutely keep the country out of war, some progressives actually prefer perpetual war. Is there anything more we need to know about them?

One, though, took Paul to task for favoring the gold standard. Now we can’t have that, of course, since it would be unthinkable to call for something that isn’t even on the radar screen of the New York Times, the Washington Post, or Chris Matthews. And in any case, doesn’t Ron Paul know that our betters can do a much better job running our money for us? Doesn’t Paul know the Federal Reserve is a wonderful institution designed by the government to prevent economic downturns?

So there you have it: when push comes to shove, this vaunted progressive, for all his claims to independent thought, merely repeats a stream of platitudes that may as well have come from a Federal Reserve press release.

Now if this alleged progressive could, for seven seconds, turn off the voice in his head that forces him to give all existing government institutions the benefit of the doubt – and yes, an institution created by act of Congress, whose board is appointed by the president, and which does the government’s bidding, is a government institution – he might actually be able to ask some useful questions. What exactly is self-evidently "progressive" about the Federal Reserve? Why is it obviously a step forward when we make it far easier for the federal government to wage war and prey upon the public?

In the progressive la-la land, the Federal Reserve was founded when the American people demanded reform of the banking industry, and their elected representatives, eager to contribute to the public good, complied with their wishes. The resulting Federal Reserve smooths out the business cycle and keeps our economy strong.

Anyone interested in living on this planet, on the other hand, might be interested to know a fact that almost sounds too spooky and conspiratorial to be true: bankers in fact drafted the Federal Reserve Act themselves, in a private meeting in Jekyll Island, Georgia, in 1910. And – can you believe it? – it was not designed to benefit the public at bankers’ expense; oddly enough, bankers drew up legislation that benefited themselves.

Now this is not how bills are drawn up according to your tenth-grade social-studies class, which gives you the government line: bills are drawn up by the people’s public-spirited representatives in order to benefit and protect them. That’s a nice way to think about it if you’re in the business of keeping the racket going, but not especially useful if you actually want to know how the world works.

It’s sadly amusing to observe progressives functioning as shills for well-connected banks and businesses, but that’s precisely what they’re doing by mindlessly supporting the Fed and assuming all its critics to be cranks and fools. The Federal Reserve System makes it possible for the banks to profit from all manner of financial shenanigans that they could never get away with under a gold standard – for more on this, see my reading suggestions below – and it stands ready to serve as a lender of last resort in case the banks’ reckless behavior gets them in trouble. How many other industries benefit from such overt grants of special privilege?

The Fed doesn’t just benefit the well connected; it also harms those who aren’t so well connected. We know inflation hurts people on fixed incomes (since their incomes stay the same while the prices for the goods they buy go up), but what people usually overlook are the distribution effects of inflation. More money in the economy normally means higher prices. But when the government spends billions of dollars created out of thin air (yes, the Fed can do this) on the defense industry, for example, defense firms get the money at the very beginning of this process, before prices have commensurately risen. In effect the economy doesn’t yet know how much the money supply has increased, and prices have not yet adjusted accordingly. By the time the new money makes its way through the whole economy, prices will have risen throughout most if not all sectors. But while this process is taking place, the privileged firms that are lucky enough to get the new money early benefit from being able to make their purchases at the previously existing price level – thereby silently looting those from whom they buy. By the time the new money finally makes its way to the average Joe, prices have already been rising for quite a while, and he’s been paying those prices all this time on his existing income.

What exactly is so "progressive" about that? Why do progressives not condemn this expropriation of the poorest that goes on day after day? Surely their commitment to government management of all sectors of society, money included, cannot be so strong that they have lost the ability to ask fundamental questions.

Here is another way to think about it. Money in your possession amounts to compensation for some good or service you have provided in the past. When you buy a dozen apples, you do so with the proceeds from a good or service that you yourself provided in the past. So you are able to buy the apples because in the past you gave someone else something he needed.

Now imagine a situation in which business firms or banks connected to the government receive a new round of paper money courtesy of Fed credit expansion. That money comes out of thin air, not from the sale of some previous good or service. Thus when these favored firms spend this money, they are in effect taking goods out of the economy without providing anything themselves. Here we see very clearly how they benefit at the expense of the rest of society: they take from the stock of goods without giving anything in return. The money they pay for their goods didn’t originate in a good or service that they themselves had previously provided; it came from nowhere. The analogous case under a system of barter would be one in which I come and take your apples, period.

This is "progressive" why, exactly?

The Federal Reserve can prevent massive contractions of the money supply, our critic tells us, and that’s how it can avoid things like the Great Depression (an event it mysteriously failed to prevent, I might add). Whether the Fed should have engaged in expansions of the money supply in the first place, whether these expansions themselves might not deform the economy, or whether we’re really expected to believe that the power to print up green paper tickets out of thin air can make society wealthier and the economy more stable – well, none of these questions are asked. They’re not listed on that Federal Reserve press release, after all.

The dollar has lost over 95 percent of its value since the Fed was created. Now had the value of our money declined by 95 percent under the gold standard, the progressive would cite that as evidence against gold. When the government is responsible for debasing the currency to that extent, on the other hand, the matter is passed over in silence. This is example number 5,271 of Westley’s Law, which I’ve sometimes rendered this way: the public sector is always held to lower standards than the private sector.

(Some people think they know all about the American economy under the gold/silver standard, incidentally, but the country’s commodity standard does not deserve the blame for the problems that careless scholars foolishly ascribe to it. If you’d like to know the real history of money in America, there are four books I heartily recommend, the first two being short introductions for laymen and the latter two more detailed and scholarly studies. They are What Has Government Done to Our Money?, The Case Against the Fed, The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies, and A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II, all by Murray N. Rothbard. You can download What Has Government Done to Our Money? for free on mp3 here. You’ll never have to suffer fools in silence again.)

Now it’s bad enough that the federal government loots rich and poor alike. Much worse is when its victims, too bamboozled by state propaganda to know any better, cheer on the looting, and solemnly warn their fellow citizens about how frightening and perilous life would be without it.

These are the same people who wouldn’t dream of taking a Pentagon press release at face value, and who attribute the basest motives to the architects of American foreign policy. But apply the same standard of criticism and skepticism to the motivations behind, say, the Federal Reserve? What are you, some kind of extremist?

Friday, May 11, 2007

The Latest from Ed and Elaine Brown

Labels: U.S. Tax Law 1 comments

from Ed and Elaine's MySpace Blog

We had a call come in this morning. Sorry that I have taken so long to get this to you all...

If you have been reading the blog here then you already know that the judge filed the appeal on Ed and Elaine's behalf.

The sources that came in today tell us that the judge realizes that he misjudged the lawfulness of the IRS and the federal income tax. Which is why he, himself (the judge mind you!), filed the appeal for the Browns' case.

Now I myself have never heard of anything like that done before. Perhaps cheif steve can answer if that is legal or not...

Anyways... the court wants them to pay the bill for that now.

A few of us have talked about this new information and also looked up the news paper that it appear in.

[article is posted here]

you can check it out your self. (YEA!!!! She got my name right this time, Margot Sanger-Katz that is... see journalist are people too; they can learn and they make lots of mistakes... a sure sign of a human. the question i am sure some of you have just thought of is do they have souls? ... I am not sure yet... i am sure some do. they must be the ones you never meet because they do not show up when you tell them to stay away. Or call every time something happens when you tell them they are liars and cheat the peoples trust AFTER you tell them you do not want to hear from them again...)

where was i?

...oh yes...

We were talking about it this morning... we know why the news paper says the judge what he did. But some of us feel that there are other reasons why he did what he did... sort of passing the buck is one. I was not one of the ones that gave the many warning IF... but I am pretty damn sure those that did will not lose focus who did what first.

What to do what to do... there is no fair trail to be had in the US these days, not for the ones that really matter.

This case will never get a fair ruling as long as the Federal Reserve has control over our government. The only reason they have not "done" something yet is because the government thinks they have control over this situation.

I read another news clip, think it was a letter to the editor type of posting... and it spoke of sending in the US Marshals to get Ed and Elaine out with out harm to the officers. those that think like that have no clue what this is really about.

They are still thinking that this is about the "TAX". So damn clueless. When you all talk about this with others do you bring up the far reaching implications that this has?

It was said that the judge realizes that he made a mistake. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place... one side you know where the pressure is coming from. On the other you have no idea where it could come from.

ok, I want to get this out already. Margot if you are reading this, thanks for getting the name right at least in the clipping. If you are the lackey then you suck! hehe...

RENO

Judge files Browns' appeal

Labels: U.S. Tax Law 0 comments

Tax evaders intended challenge in January
By Margot Sanger-Katz | Concord Monitor

Notice of Ed and Elaine Brown's desire to appeal their tax evasion convictions has been sent along to the federal appeals court in Boston, even though the couple have not indicated that they want to appeal.

The Browns, who have been holed up in their fortified Plainfield home for several months, have said on radio broadcasts and internet postings that they are returning any government mail unopened and have described the court as a "fiction" unworthy of their attention. They have not sent any new documents to the court since their sentencing hearing April 24.

Even so, Judge Steven McAuliffe, who oversaw their case, decided to infer from previous filings that the Browns intended to appeal, even if they failed to file the necessary paperwork by the deadline.

A few days after they were found guilty of conspiring to evade taxes on nearly $1.9 million in Elaine Brown's income and of plotting to disguise large financial transactions, the couple filed a document stating their intention to appeal the decision. But because the Browns had not been sentenced yet, the judgment in their case was not yet considered final. McAuliffe returned their filing fee and dismissed their motion, finding it premature.

But recently, he reversed that opinion, saying in a court order that he had decided to treat the January notice of appeal as if it had been filed in April.

"The notices of appeal are deemed timely," he wrote, asking the Browns to repay the filing fee within 30 days.

This week, McAuliffe urged the process along, though the record reflects no filings or payments by the Browns. A new order instructed the clerk to forward the court record to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The court docket also includes a copy of the cover letter the clerk sent to the appeals court.

If they choose to pursue an appeal, the Browns must now file documents with the circuit court explaining what they think went wrong at the trial court.

Ed Brown chose not to answer questions about his plans to appeal yesterday.

"You don't exist," he said. "I don't care."

But Cirino Gonzalez, a former military contractor who is a recent addition to the Brown household, posted on the couple's MySpace page that they had learned about the judge's decision from U.S. marshals who have been calling daily. The marshals are charged with arresting the Browns on bench warrants but have said they will not raid the couple's home.

"The sentencing having been done the judge complains of not getting an appeal now that he is ready," Gonzalez wrote, in a posting that summarized the case's timeline from his perspective. "Time for appeal runs out and U.S. Marshal calls to inform Ed that the judge turned in an appeal on their behalf. HOW SWEET."

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Benito Giuliani Openly Lied About Ron Paul's Position

Ron Paul Violated the Rules

Post GOP Debate coverage "Fox News Style" - Ron Paul

Ron Paul 2008 - The Voice Of The People On CSPAN

Will media report how Giuliani is milking 9-11, "America's Mayor" image they helped create for massive PR, financial gain?

Drama Queen Giuliani and MSM Distort Ron Paul's Words During GOP Debate

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Video to Tool's Vicarious

The Power of Shaolin Kung Fu

George Noory Asks Why Mainstream Media is Ignoring Ron Paul

Ron Paul Upsets Controlled-Media Debate as Clear Winner

Monday, May 14, 2007

Ron Paul: Cover His Back

Why Do They Love the Fed?

Friday, May 11, 2007

The Latest from Ed and Elaine Brown

Judge files Browns' appeal

Blog Archive

Labels

Interesting Books

Noteworthy Articles

Vital Votes

Legal Disclaimer