Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

I am a Republican, but I am not your typical Republican. I grew up in the blue state of New Jersey. I am 27 years old, and I have been a Republican for as long as I can remember. I am not your typical Republican, I am what I would like to call a “Progressive Republican” or “Classic Republican”. I believe in defending civil liberties, I believe in The Constitution, I believe in due process. I believe in Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press. These are basic rights, but many in my party have thrown them out the window. I believe in the 4th Amendment and that no President is above the Constitution. I believe the Government shouldn’t tell you who you can marry, or what you can put into your body or what you can take out. It is not up the Government to decide and run our lives. I oppose nation building, and invading foreign countries, if it be with troops or unmanned drones.

I have always been let down by my party when it comes to these basic rights and freedoms, but I have always had my allies to the left. The Democrats, Liberals, Progressive; whatever you would like to call them. When we didn’t agree on other issues, I knew I could always count on them for having my back on these issues. When George W. Bush was President we stood up in a bipartisan voice and spoke out against the policies, and destruction of our rights and freedoms. We were not Republicans or Democrats, we were Americans. My Republican friends defended Bush, and I did not understand why, or how they could. We would argue, and they would just say the same old talking points. “He is protecting us for terrorist” “Do you want the terrorist to win” blah blah blah

Flash forward to 2013, Drones killing innocent civilians (4 Americans), torture still being practiced by the United States, Those who speak out against the Government being labeled “traitors”, Illegal wars being waged, The NSA illegally spying on every American, The President with a Kill List. Me a Republican who spoke out against my Republican President now speaking out against a Democratic President who has taken Bush’s policies and shot them up with steroids. The difference now is, I look around and all my former Democratic allies have fell in line with this President. They are delivering the same talking points that my Republican friends dished out when defending President Bush.

George W. Bush killed the Republican Party, and Barack Obama has killed the Democratic party. Together since 9/11 these two men have disregarded The Constitution. The have made it legal to detain and/or kill US Citizens without Due Process, They have made it legal to spy on every US Citizen without a warrant, They have made it legal to torture, They have made lying under oath acceptable, They have made OK to be the Policemen of the World and to wage wars as the see fit. When you don’t stand up to elected officials just because they have a certain letter next to their name, prepare to lose everything those before us fought for.

I was recently going through some old articles from the 2008 campaign of Senator Barack Obama. I stumbled on this Q & A from December 2007, involving Candidate Barack Obama and Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe, now of New York Times. It was pretty remarkable the answers Senator Obama  gave to the questions presented to him, and the reality of today. Here is a list of some of the questions asked to him, and the answers he provided. I have also included some headlines, and articles about what is taking place in the world today under President Obama.

Charlie Savage: “Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?”

Barack Obama: “The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.”

Back in 2007 Senator Obama said the right thing, but now in 2013 he is now singing a different tune when it comes to spying on U.S. citizens and residents:

  • “The Obama administration‘s decision to seize phone records from the Associated Press was “unconstitutional” and sends a message that “if you talk to the press, we are going to go after you”, the news agency’s boss Gary Pruitt said Sunday.”5/19/2013 Rawstory.com
  • “On Friday, Justice Department officials revealed that they had been going through The A.P.’s records for months. The dragnet covered work, home and cellphone records used by almost 100 people at one of the oldest and most reputable news organizations. James Cole, a deputy attorney general, offered no further explanation on Tuesday, saying only that it was part of a “criminal investigation involving highly classified material” from early 2012.”–  5/14/2013 New York Times
  • “The Justice Department secretly collected two months of telephone records for reporters and editors at The Associated Press, the news service disclosed Monday in an outraged letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. The records included calls from several AP bureaus and the personal phone lines of several staffers, AP President Gary Pruitt wrote. Pruitt called the subpoenas a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into its reporting.” – 5/14/2013 CNN

 


Charlie Savage: “In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)”

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

I would have to agree 100% with Senator Obama, military action should not be unilateral action, and it should not be ordered solely by the Executive branch. What does President Obama think about this: 

  • “Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Walter Jones continued their bipartisan quest to end the U.S. military’s participation in the conflict in Libya, filing a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court against President Obama to “challenge the commitment of the United States to war in Libya absent the required constitutional legal authority.””6/15/2011 ABC News
  • “It has now been over three months since the first NATO bombs fell on Libya, yet President Obama has failed to request Congressional approval for military action, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973. The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances.”6/20/2011 New York Times

 


Charlie Savage: “Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops — either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?”

Barack Obama: “No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”

Once again, Senator Obama and President Obama would disagree on this question, and once it is Rep. Dennis Kucinich who has the guts to call the President out on this flip-flop:

  • “The Ohio congressman complained that the commander-in-chief sent the troops to Jordan “without notifying Congress.” Ironically, Kucinich noted, the Obama administration announced the deployment exactly ten years after the House of Representatives authorized President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.” –  10/10/2012 USNEWS.com

 

Charlie Savage: “Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?”

Barack Obama: “Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.”

“I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.”

Signing statements haven’t been President Obama’s biggest broken promise, but the way he has used them to attack whistle blowers is a huge broken promise.  Obama promise

d to protect whistleblowers , saying their “acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.” 

  • “Obama issued a signing statement circumventing the NDAA’s whistleblower protections, saying he would interpret the law in a way that still allowed the heads of federal agencies to “supervise, control, and correct employees’ communications with the Congress” if those communications “reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential….he four members of Congress said they were concerned Obama’s statement “may be perceived as undermining Congressional intent and discouraging individuals from helping to protect taxpayer dollars.” It could also be perceived as “eroding” protections for federal workers and discouraging them from exposing improper behavior, they said.”1/17/2013 Huffington Post

On a side note Barack Obama and his Justice Department have used the Espionage Act of 1917 six times to bring cases against government officials for leaks to the media — twice as many as all their predecessors combined.

 

Charlie Savage: “Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?”

Barack Obama: “No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”

This in my opinion is the biggest slap in the face by President Obama. Not only has President Obama and lawyers fought to keep provisions in the NDAA to allow them to arrests and indefinitely detain anyone the deem as a “threat” they have also made sure to include U.S. Citizens. President Obama even beefed up President Bush’s AUMF signed after 9/11.

  • “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.  The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”ACLU 12/31/2011
  • “the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.”Forbes 1/02/12
  • “The reality is that the NDAA did indeed wildly expand the president’s detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF provided. In contrast to the 2001 AUMF – which empowered the president to act against a relatively narrow category: those “he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 11 September 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons” – the NDAA empowers him to act against a much broader range of people: not only those who perpetrated 9/11, but also “associated forces”, and not only those who are members of such groups, but those who “substantially support” them”–  The Guardian 9/18/2012

 

Charlie Savage: “If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president’s authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?”

Barack Obama: “No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.”

Back 2011 President Obama declared a man guilty before his trial had even begun. This man was Bradley Manning who allegedly leaked War Crimes by the US to the news outlet Wikileaks. His reward was indefinite detention and torture at the hands of the Obama Administration. When asked directly about the treatment of Bradley Manning by his administration President Obama responded by saying “We are a nation of laws.  We don’t let individuals make decisions about how the law operates.  He [Bradley Manning] broke the law!”

  • “More than 250 of America’s most eminent legal scholars have signed a letter protesting against the treatment in military prison of the alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, contesting that his “degrading and inhumane conditions” are illegal, unconstitutional and could even amount to torture….The list of signatories includes Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be America’s foremost liberal authority on constitutional law. He taught constitutional law to Barack Obama and was a key backer of his 2008 presidential campaign….Tribe said the treatment was objectionable “in the way it violates his person and his liberty without due process of law and in the way it administers cruel and unusual punishment of a sort that cannot be constitutionally inflicted even upon someone convicted of terrible offences, not to mention someone merely accused of such offences”. – 4/10/11 The Guardian

 

Charlie Savage: “Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?”

Barack Obama: “It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties”.

It is amazing reading these answers almost 6 years later. I can go on and on about how this answer by Senator Obama is the complete opposite on how President Obama leads the country, but I will spare my fingers the pain of typing and just show some examples.

  • “The study by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low — about 2%……It also casts doubts on Washington’s claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes “efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability.”…..”TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 – 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 – 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 – 1,362 individuals,” according to the Stanford/NYU study.” CNN.Com 9/25/2012
  • “There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one “suspected terrorist”). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a “double-tap” strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.”Policymic.com 10/2012

Also don’t forget about the assassination of four U.S. citizens by President Obama (One being a 16 year-old boy), President Obama’s “Kill List” of “suspected” terrorist, and the fact that the Obama Administration and President Obama claim to have legal authority to kill, detain, and interrogate anyone they consider a “threat” or associated with anyone they consider a “threat”

I conclude in saying that this was just a few questions asked by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe on foreign policy, and every single question Senator Obama answered, President Obama has done the complete opposite. This shows rhetoric and charisma can go a long way, all the way to the Oval Office. My plea to the American people is buyer beware, do your research before you just vote for someone because they say everything you you want to hear.

 

 

Sources: http://www.CNN.com, http://www.Boston.Com, http://www.RawStory.com, http://www.NewYorkTimes.com, www.guardian.co.uk, http://www.policymic.com, http://www.Forbes.com, http://www.ACLU.org, http://www.HuffingtonPost.com, http://www.USNEWS.com, http://www.ABCNews.com

 

 

 

Dear journalists, reporters and media outlets,

I am writing you this letter as concerned American citizen. The election is less than 40 days away, and once again Americans are going to “choose” who will be the President. I have been watching all the coverage of this election on CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, MSNBC etc. I have been deeply concerned about many thing that are being ignored by a majority of our news outlets. The economy is in the dumps and everyone knows it; there is no way of hiding it. This seems to be the main issue in the election, and for good reason. We are $16 trillion in debt and counting, unemployment has been at 8% plus for months, and the cost of living continues to rise. Yet the one thing everyone keeps ignoring is that under the cover of the horrible economy, Americans have been losing freedoms. When George W. Bush was President it was on the news every day and night: The Patriot Act, the wars in the Middle East, and the fact that the US openly used torture against its detainees. Ever since Barack Obama has become President, however, it seems that everyone has just ignored the fact that our civil liberties are being attacked daily. It seems just because we have a Democratic President, the media chooses to ignore these issues.

On December 31, 2011, under the fanfare of the New Year, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. It is basically a bill that funds our military and all of our overseas adventures. There is a new NDAA each year, but this most recent one contains some sketchy provisions, hidden in sections 1021 and 1022 of the document. These two sections give the president the right to detain anyone he feels is a terrorist, or is associated with terrorist. It also state that he can detain them indefinitely without trial. Originally President Obama said he would veto it, but that never happened. He also “promised” he would never use it to detain American citizens, How is that Guantanamo Bay promise going? When it was first signed it got some media attention for about a week, and then you all got bored with it. US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made a permanent injunction that bans indefinite military detention of Americans without charge. Well, less than 24 hours later the Obama administration issued an appeal to fight to keep that power. This fight is going on right now in the courts, while you, the media, focus on fluff issues to fill up your time slots.

So our Democratic, Nobel Peace Prize-winning President now has the power to (1) spy on US citizens without warrants (Patriot Act), (2) kill American citizens without due process (Anwar al-Aulaqi & “Kill List”), and (3) detain anyone suspected of being a terrorist or supporting terrorist indefinitely and without due process (NDAA). Yet you, the media, have dropped the ball on this, or just have chosen to ignore it. You have FOX News focusing on Obama being a raging liberal; you have MSNBC focusing on Romney being Thurston Howell, III; you have ABC and CBS just ignoring these abuses of power. The American people rely on the mainsteam media to make informed decision when it comes to electing Presidents. But now we are forced to rely on Twitter, YouTube, WikiLeaks, and bloggers to find out the truth. You prop Barack Obama up as some kind of uniter of the people. Tell that to the people of Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan, who are bombed by predator drones. Their families torn apart by bombs being dropped on their villages by our President. Barack Obama launches a campaign that states “If You See Something, Say Something , yet he has held Bradley Manning, and American soldier, for over 800 days without trial, in harsh conditions, because he said something when he saw our military killing innocent civilians, and journalist. I guess the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign doesn’t pertain to our government. Our government has deemed the founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange and WikiLeaks an “Enemy of the State”. These are people who are doing the job you be doing, and now they are considered similar threats to Al-Qaeda. Julian Assange has been seeking refuge in an Ecuadorian Embassy in fear of what the US government will do to him for informing the American people about the truth.

You, the media-from ABC News all the way down to my local newspaper-have let us down. You stay on the script that is given to you, and you fear asking the real questions. There are a few true journalist still out there: Ben Swann, Amber Lyon, Glenn Greenwald, David Seaman, and several U-Steam and YouTube reporters. These men and women are doing your job, for little to no money, with little exposure, and lot of pressure on them from our government. Yet, you sit in your comfy chair, with you nice wardrobe and ramble on bullshit about what is going on in the world. Why is the truth so scary for you to report? Do you think you know what’s best for the American people? Do we not deserve to hear about the war crimes of our President, and the innocent civilians being killed in the Middle East, about how we are constantly under surveillance? What about the human rights crimes being committed in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc? These governments were propped up by US foreign aid and weapons sales, and now people are being slaughtered in the streets. It is a disgrace that you have given this President a free pass, and it is unfair to the American people and to the world. Every single Senator, Representative, and President (and candidate) should be grilled on why they think the President should have the power to detain US citizens without due process. Why is it OK for the President to have a secret “Kill List” that has Americans on it? Why is it OK to keep the American public under constant surveillance, and forced to go through TSA check points? Why are these questions and more not being asked to those in power?

So my simple request for you journalist, reporters, and media outlets: Start doing you job!

Sincerely,

Troy Frederick Jurimas

Written by Troy Frederick Jurimas & Edited by Michael Roy Fisher

They are at it again, well mainly Kurt Schlichter. Bashing Free Thinkers, Independents, Moderates, Libertarians and basically anyone who is not a wing nut. Last week I wrote about how I got into an argument with Kurt Schlichter about voting 3rd party. He has a new article up (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/23/Why-Libertarians-Need-To-Vote-Romney-Part-II) today still arguing his baseless point. He also tweeted today “Hey #RonPaul fans — Time to get serious. Support Romney, or you support Obama and destroy your credibility”. This has to be one of the biggest contradictions I have heard in a while. Ron Paul fans support Ron Paul because of his credibility. When Ron Paul speaks you know what he stands for. You might not like it, or agree with it. But, you know what he is saying he believes, and he will say what he does. I would like to think Ron Paul supporters are the same way. We support a man who stands on his beliefs and can’t be bought. So this hack Kurt Schlichter is basically saying “Hey Ron Paul fans, put everything you believe in and throw it away, and vote for someone you disagree with or else you will lose your credibility”. Imagine if Ron Paul caved in and supported Romney just because he was the GOP candidate? Ron Paul fans would be outraged and Ron Paul would lose all the credibility that he worked 30 years to get.

The whole party first mentality has been taking over the political world for the past few years. Washington has become deadlocked in partisanship and nothing has been getting done. Republicans and Democrats alike are trying to rally their party, and pump up their nominee. This is a difficult task for both parties because you are trying to excite people with “status quo” nominees. Romney and Obama aren’t going to change anything for the better. One will raise taxes a little, and one will cut taxes a little. They will both continue to follow the Bush style foreign policy of raiding the Middle East, bombing countries with Drones, and infringing on our civil liberties. At the same time they will print and spend money, while saying that they are making “cuts” and fixing the budget. These are all talking points with no substance or real vision.

According to Mr. Schlichter people who are opposed to Romney and don’t agree with him are ” pouters, the angry and the attention seeking” What Mr. Schlichter doesn’t see is that, he is actually the pouter, and attention seeker. Saying the Libertarians and Independents will disappear off the political stage unless they buck up and vote Romney. It is mind boggling that this guy gets paid to write this stuff. People who stand for what they believe in, who stand for a belief, and not a party are some how pouters? Yeah we are pissed that Ron Paul was ignored at the RNC, we are angry that Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 47 states and he is not aloud in the debates. But we are not pouting, we are not giving up and voting for the party, we are continuing to fight on. Fighting for what we believe in, against a Government that has become drunk with power, and two candidates who have no shame in using that power.

So this is a message to all you wing nuts, who think we are the irrational ones. There are 314 Million people in the United States and every 4 years we are forced to pick between 2 people for the most important job in the world. Yet we are extreme when we ask for more options, when we ask to hear what kind of plans the other side might have. The Republicans and Democrats have monopolized the political world and have worked together to shut out the rest. It’s a right or left world, and if you don’t agree with either side you don’t matter. You know there is something wrong in D.C., when they only time the two parties come together is for War, excessive government power, and shutting up an independent voice. So remember for this election and future ones, you don’t have to vote party, vote for what you believe in.

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.- John  Adams

Yesterday while I was on Twitter I came across two different articles that had the same exact theme. One article was written by Timothy Patrick McCarthy who is a professor of history, literature, and public policy at Harvard University. His article was titled  “Why Progressives Should Vote for Obama“. In his writings he attempts to rally progressive against the notion that this is election is a choice between, “the lesser of two evils” He goes on to list accomplishments of the Obama administration and says if you vote for O again there is more to come, and even bigger and better than before.

Mr. McCarthy being a historian himself goes on to list the four main criteria to judge the “success” of presidents. 

(1) whether they lead effectively in times of national crisis; (2) whether they win and/or end a war; (3) whether they pass significant pieces of domestic legislation; and (4) whether they work to extend the civil rights of previously disempowered groups

Well according to this criteria, I would have to say President Obama has been a failure. (1) Since the day President Obama took office the country has been a mess. His fault or not he wanted the job, and the challenge. Unemployment has been at 8% or higher the majority of his Presidency, the nation debt is at $16 trillion and rising, gas prices are sky high, the Federal Reserve is printing money out of thin air, and our civil liberties are disappearing at a rapid rate. (2) Under Obama’s reign, the Afghanistan War has been escalated, careless drone attacks have been increased, Obama wanted to extend the Iraq War, but due to leaks by Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks the Iraqi Government refused to let Americans stay. (3) Obamacare has been his prized piece of legislation, which the majority of Americans are opposed too (4) Yes Obama has come out in support of gay marriage after being opposed to it his whole life, but look at what he has done for the Civil Rights of all Americans. Signed NDAA (The right to detain American citizens without a trial) into law and fought for it TWICE in the courts, kept Gitmo open, extended the Patriot Act, waged a war on Whislteblowers  and has lead a non transparent administration.

Now if I was a progressive, why in the world would I vote for Obama? Especially under the criteria that Mr. McCarthy tries to put out there for us. Obama has done some good while in office; Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. But at what cost do those successes come at? Signing of NDAA, massive Drone Wars in the Middle East, spying on American Citizens, the torture of Bradley Manning, letting the banks get away with financial murder? What makes you think he will protect civil liberties, end wars, and hold banks responsible in his second term if he has shown no signs of doing it in his first?

Now this brings me to the other side of the spectrum. Another article I read yesterday was written by Kurt Schlichter titled “Time for Ron Paul fans to support the Constitution”  (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/18/Time-for-Ron-Paul-Fans-to-Support-the-Constitution) Now this guy is a trip, He goes on to make the same “Lesser of two evils” argument. He lays it on thick, saying 

Even if that’s true, the key is “lesser.” If you have to choose between encountering a hubcap thief and an axe murderer, you’d be a fool to shrug your shoulders and risk some face time with the dude with the hatchet.

He goes on not making a case of why you SHOULD vote for Mitt Romney, but why you SHOULD NOT vote 3rd party. He says time and time again, if you vote 3rd party you are voting for Obama. Yet, he doesn’t give good enough reasons to vote for Mitt Romney, just that in his opinion Romney is the “lesser” of two evils. I tried to talk to him on Twitter about this, and how important it is to vote for what you believe in and not party. These are a few of his responses.

Image

Image

After Mr. Schlichter was done with his immature banter he followed it up by saying this and blocking me:

Image 

Now correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like this is the guy doing the pouting and not the Ron Paul, Gary Johnson supporters.

The point of me writing this about these 2 articles, which coincidentally came out on the same day. Is that they are both saying vote the “lesser of two evils” because our guy is the lesser and the other guy is the greater. Don’t vote third party, because if you do, you are supporting the other guy and trying to make a statement. But, why would I vote either if I only support half of each candidates platform? Why wouldn’t I vote for someone that I support 90% of their platform? In this election there are 3 men on the ballot in 47 states (Fighting for 50) Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Gary Johnson. What these two men don’t understand is that you DON’T have to vote “the lesser of two evils” you can actually vote for someone you support. 

Gary Johnson appeals to Progressives, and Conservatives. Democrats, and Republicans. Independents, and Moderates. Why are we focused on dividing each other, and saying if you are Progressive or Democrat you have to vote for Obama or you are supporting Mitt Romney, and vice versa. If you are a Progressive, or Liberal who is tired of Obama following George Bush’s foreign policy why wait and chance another 4 years, vote for Gary Johnson who is against the wars. If you are an Independent who is tired of seeing your Civil Liberties being taken away by both Republicans and Democrats, why pick “the lesser of two evils” when you can vote Gary Johnson who is against NDAA, Patriot Act, CISPA, PIPA, ACTA, Drones, and Gitmo. If you are a Conservative who is tired of Washington spending and printing money out of thin air why vote for Obama and Romney when neither have a plan to fix the deficit? Gary Johnson actually balanced a budget in New Mexico and turned a deficit into a surplus.

The two party system is failing America, and is turning into the one party system. Obama and Romney disagree on taxes, a few social issues, and who is rich and who isn’t. But, they agree on the big issues of War; Both have shown by their words or their actions that America is the World’s police. Civil Liberties: Both support NDAA, Patriot Act, Gitmo, Drone strikes, Drone spying, Middle Eastern adventurism,. They are both funded by the same big banks: J.P. Morgan, Citi Group, and Goldman Sachs. They both are for the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air, bailouts and  QE3.  

The right and the left will try to convince you Obama and Romney are polar opposites, but when it comes down to it, there is no “lesser of two evils”. These two different roads go to the same destination; higher debt, more war, less civil liberties, rich getting richer, and the end of the middle class. Republicans and Democrats are all for choice; Pro-Choice, choice of schools, choice of what you eat, choice to own a gun. Yet, when it comes to the most important choice you have, in picking a leader of our nation you only have two options. Well this year you have another and his name is Gary Johnson. The chances of Gary Johnson winning are very slim, but a strong showing for a third party candidate will open doors for more third party candidates, and more choices. We need more conversations going on in this country, and more options to the many problems facing this nation. No more “Lesser of two evils”, time to vote for what you believe in, not party.

When reading the headline of this article I feel that people’s first thought would be that I am crazy. How could Ron Paul win the GOP nomination and if so, how could he beat Obama. Well it is pretty simple in my honest opinion. First, I will tell you how Ron Paul is the only one who can beat Obama and how he his the only person running in both parties who is not corrupt or bought off by banks and big business.

List of top Donors for GOP Presidential candidates:

Mitt Romney

  1. Goldman Sachs- $367,200
  2. Credit Suissie Group- $203,750
  3. Morgan Stanley- $199,800
Super Pac: Restore our Future 
John Paulson donated $1 million to Restore our Future SuperPac which is a pro Romney Super Pac. John Paulson is a hedge fund manager, and became a billionaire by short-selling sub prime mortgages in 2007. His net worth is $15.5 Billion according to Forbes magazine. In 2011 he made bad trades with Bank of America, Citi-Group, and Sino-Forest Corp.
Newt Gingrich
  1. Rock-Tenn Co- $27,500
  2. Poet LLC- $20,000
  3. First Fiscal Fund- $15,000
Super Pac: Winning our Future
Sheldon Adelson has donated $10 million to the pro Gingrich Super Pac so far, and has said he will donate millions more. His net worth is $21.5 billion, according Forbes he is 8th wealthiest man in America and 16th wealthiest man in the world.
Ron Paul
  1. U.S. Army- $24,503
  2. U.S. Air Force- $23,335
  3. U.S. Navy- $17,432
Super Pac: Endorse Liberty
The pro Ron Paul Super Pac is funded by many individual contributions. A majority of the donations are small, but by many individuals.
                       By showing who donates to each candidate says a lot about each candidate. Mitt Romney is obviously backed by banks, Wall St., and the wealthy. These are same people who funded Obama in 08′ and are still funding him again in 2012, but not as much as Mitt Romney. It is very frightening to see someone who could possibly be our next President be bought by the same people who got us into the mess we are in today. You can say the same thing about Newt Gingrich, his top donors are not that shocking, but his Super Pac is frightening as well. Sheldon Adelson is one of the richest men in the world, and he is one of the main reasons Newt won the South Carolina Primary. Being so indebted to one industry or person is very dangerous when you could possibly be the next President. The majority of Ron Paul’s donations come from the military and individual citizens giving small donations. This shows the Ron Paul will not owe anyone anything except the citizens of the United States, and not banks, lawyers, Wall St. or the wealthy.
How Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney are no different.
                      You may think that Romney and Gingrich differ from Obama by all the rhetoric that they spew, but they are really no different. They all agree on The Patriot Act and spying on US Citizens in the name of safety, they all agree on keeping Gitmo Open, they all agree on The NDAA (which gives the President power to imprison US citizens indefinitely without trial), they all oppose gay marriage, they all want to bomb Iran, and they are all bought off by Wall St. and the wealthiest people in the world.
                     They claim to all have different views on foreign policy, yet they are the same. The only thing they disagree on is the way each persons foreign policy is implicated. Obama wants to sanction the economy of Iran and cripple the Iranian people, Newt and Mitt want to bomb Iran and cripple the Iranian people. Obama feels that we should police the world, and nation build in foreign countries, as do Mitt and Newt. They all agree we should have went into Libya, but Mitt and Newt think we should have done it sooner. All three are warmongers and want to profit off our military.
                     They all believe on spending like there is no tomorrow. They all agree on the Bush/Obama bailouts, and do not believe in true capitalism. They believe in the concept of “too big to fail”, while giving the tax payers money to Wall St. and the big businesses that causes the financial crisis.
                      They all believe in torture and that Bradley Manning is a terrorist. Everyone cheers Obama for the end of the Iraq War, yet if it was not for Bradley Manning we would still be in Iraq today. So what does Manning get for calling out the lies of our Government? He gets tortured and held without a trial for months by the Obama Administration. If Newt, Mitt, or Obama win in 2012 whistle blowers and people speaking out against the wrongs of their government will have to live in fear of being arrested.
How Ron Paul can beat Obama?
                       If Ron Paul wins the nomination for President of the United States the citizens of this country will have a real choice for the first time in my lifetime. They will have a choice between two different candidates, with two different views of the direction of this country. If Newt or Mitt win, there is no real option. Ron Paul believes in civil liberties for all citizens, it does not matter if you are black, white, rich, poor, gay or straight.
“You have to remember, rights don’t come in groups we shouldn’t have ‘gay rights’; rights come as individuals, and we wouldn’t have this major debate going on. It would be behavior that would count, not what person belongs to what group.” – Ron Paul
                       Ron Paul believes in the rights of everyone to marry who they want, and that the government should not get involved. As long as others don’t push their views on anyone else.
“If two parties with two sets of bad ideas cooperate, the result is not good policy, but policy that is extremely bad. What we really need are correct economic and politcal ideas, regardless of the party that pushes them.” -Ron Paul
                         Another major reason Obama won in 08 was because he had the youth vote, a vote that now Ron Paul is in control of. Youth support for Ron Paul has been exploding and it shows in the first the contest for the nomination. I Iowa Paul carried the youth vote 48% for Paul next was Rick Santorum with 23%. In New Hampshire Ron Paul had 47% of the youth vote, Mitt Romney had 26%. In South Carolina Ron Paul had 31% of the youth vote, Newt Gingrich had 28%. Besides just having the youth on his side, Ron Paul has independents. In a CBS poll conducted on 1/9/12 if Ron Paul vs Obama happened today 47% of Independents would vote for Paul and only 40% for Obama. Paul is the only candidate who beats Obama when it comes to independents. The youth and independent vote is vital for anyone to win the general election and Ron Paul has both.
                          So, if it does come down to Obama Vs Ron Paul in November the American people will have a real choice between: A man bought by the banks and Wall St. or a man bought by the American people, a man who has destroyed our civil liberties or a man who will protect our civil liberties, a warmonger or a peace keeper, a man who believes in rights for certain groups or a man who believes in rights for all, a man who is pro-torture or a man who is against torturing another human being. If Romney or Newt win the nomination, it will be sad day for this country.
Sources: