Ron Paul, the Doctor is In

I came across an article I thought was well written, and touched on a subject I think is very important, media bias.  For the record, Ron Paul is not my first or second choice for president.  There are many things I agree with him on, but also some where I have a different viewpoint.  But it has really gotten my attention how the media is universally dismissive of him, including FOX.  Maybe that alone is reason enough to switch my support to Dr. Paul, if no one in the media thinks it’s a good ideal, it must be a great idea.  And they are all playing their standard tricks, they decide what is “newsworthy”, so most don’t hear anything of substance about Paul because he is ignored.

First, fair and balanced opinion from FOX.

Krauthammer: ‘Ron Paul is not going to be president of the United States’

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s victory in Saturday’s Ames Straw Poll has earned her a lot of media attention for her 2012 presidential bid. But nipping at her heels only 152 votes behind was Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who has earned little to no attention from the media.

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer says Paul is being ignored for one reason: He doesn’t stand a chance. Krauthammer explained this on Monday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel.

“Ron Paul is not going to be president of the United States,” Krauthammer said. “We’re not a libertarian country. It’s a very important strain of conservative thought but it’s not the dominant one.”

Read more:

And here is the main article from the Telegraph, less bias from a foreign perspective?

Dr Tim Stanley is a research fellow in American History at Royal Holloway College. He is working on a biography of Pat Buchanan. His personal website is and you can follow him on Twitter @timothy_stanley

Why the American media hate and fear Ron Paul

By Tim Stanley August 17th, 2011

Ron Paul is a principled candidate, but his brand of libertarianism confuses and frightens the mediaRon Paul is a principled and serious candidate, but his brand of libertarianism confuses and frightens the media

Ron Paul seems to be media poison. He came within nine tenths of a percentage of winning Saturday’s Iowa straw poll, yet featured in hardly any of the political coverage. The result was strong enough to elevate the lady who placed first (Michele Bachmann) and eliminate the gentleman who came third (Tim Pawlenty). Yet, as comedian Jon Stewart has lamented, the media has actively ignored the poor fellow who ran second. In a particularly shoddy bit of reporting, CNN refused to cover Ron Paul’s speech in preference for footage of Sarah Palin. The show’s host told his roving reporter, “If you get video of Sarah Palin or a sound-bite from her, bring that back to us. You can hold the Ron Paul stuff.”

Ron Paul is a serious candidate with a real constituency, a twelve-term congressman who ran for the Presidency twice (as a Libertarian and a Republican). He is a doctor, a veteran and a fine public speaker. I saw him orate at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference and was bowled over. For ten minutes I was spellbound by his rapid-fire straight-talking, which detoured into scholarly pot-shots at the American-Philippine War of 1899 and John Maynard Keynes. He polled first in the Conference straw poll, a feat he repeated in 2011. Yet even when he romps home, the media pretends he doesn’t exist. If Ron Paul were to win every single primary on next year’s Super Tuesday, the New York Times would run with the headline “Mitt Romney Comfortable Second – Nomination Assured”.

Ron Paul confuses the American media because his ideology is an awkward fit for the two-party system. As a libertarian, he is anti-war: a position better represented among the Democrats. But he is also against welfare, which makes him more attractive to Republicans. From this anti-government philosophy he could construct a “leave me alone” majority that appeals to independents. That’s the big plan.

But Ron Paul complicates things by being a conservative libertarian, or paleo-libertarian. Usually libertarians don’t care how other people live. But paleo-libertarians believe that leaving people alone is actively good for them. Given a spell of hardy self-reliance, they’ll all revert to being law-abiding Christian Capitalists. According to the Ron Paul history of the United States, the innate goodness of the American people was corrupted by war with foreign powers. War excused the growth of the state: taxes were created to pay for arms, welfare to buy the consent of the public, prison for the dissenters. What began as a temporary measure to expand the American empire evolved into a monolithic central state. Patterns of traditional living – small, simple, charitable – were absorbed or destroyed by the new “progressive” bureaucracy. Ergo the state, fuelled by war, became the motor of social decay.

As this mythos suggests, Ron Paul is fundamentally a cultural conservative. That is how he can simultaneously be libertarian and prolife. To Paul, the two are not just reconcilable but mutually affirming. He believes that rights come from God, not the man-made warfare-welfare state. Liberty is rooted in the right to life, and that right is divinely inspired. Ergo, in order to protect an individual’s liberty we must first safeguard his right to life and outlaw abortion. By such contortions of logic is a paleo-libertarian born.

All of this makes sense to Ron Paul, but not to millions of people who presume that libertarianism is socially liberal. Democrats can’t understand his loyalty to the Republican label and, when they know about it, loathe his views on sex and sexuality. Republicans either hate his position on war or find his association with Democratic libertarians off-putting. His constituency of support is split across the political spectrum and brimming with internal contradictions.

Paulites are aware of that and insist that it’s no problem. In a crowded field, all they need to do is mobilise a regular, committed vote of about 25 percent and they can win a couple of primaries and launch themselves into contention. Yet they refuse to acknowledge that what gets Ron Paul that 25 percent is precisely what turns the other 75 percent off from voting for him. Twenty-five percent isn’t a winning strategy, it’s a ceiling.

And there’s another, unspoken reason why the media like to keep their distance from the Paulites: some of them are mad. If I ever write about the Republican primaries and fail to call Ron Paul the New Messiah, my inbox fills with unpleasant emails. Some of them are of the “I have a gun and I know how to use it” variety. I wouldn’t care, but I find it odd given that a) I always cautiously praise him and b) I have said far, far worse things about Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin and no one seems to care. Are Evangelicals just nicer people than libertarians? God only knows, but anchormen and journalists have had many similar bruising encounters with Ron Paul’s people. Of course, the vast majority of his supporters are brilliant patriots. But radicalism attracts crazy, too.

Sometimes the media ignores Ron Paul out of ignorance or spite. Sometimes it’s because they’ve done the math and convinced themselves that he can’t win. Other times, I suspect that they take a look at the people chanting his name in the bleachers and they don’t like what they see. The Paulites are good folk worried about the direction of their country, but their exclusion from the mainstream makes them come off like the vanguard of a Hicksville revolution. Television is a cool medium. Ron Paul and his angry army are too hot for it.

And here’s a chart showing media coverage from


  1. Unfortunately I think that Ron Paul will continue to get very little play from the main stream media. The reality is that he represents a strain of thought that both Democrats and Republicans find extremely dangerous to their monopoly on power in the federal government. Many here at SUFA have often recognized that someone with Paul’s ideas and stances is a nightmare for the other candidates on the debate stage. During the Republican debate, he was largely ignored and when he was addressed he was ridiculed (I am talking to you Rick Santorum).

    Paul will not win the Presidency. In that, Charles Krauthammer is correct. But he is not irrelevant. He will be remembered as the one guy who stood his ground and put forth a different ideal, one that more Americans are beginning to accept. Other candidates will come along who will be more engaging, better looking, and younger. And perhaps they will come at a time when American voters are ready to bring his platform to the forefront. But we just are not there yet. Instead Paul will be remembered as one of the pioneers who began the process of exposing the two main parties and offering a different path from the destructive ones that we have taken thus far.

    For that we should all be grateful.

    • Ditto for Ralph Nader.

      • Nader, however, has never pulled the widespread support that Paul has. And having listened to his philisophies they have never made rational sense, at least not some of the main ones.

    • Agree USW. I personally have moved a great deal toward the Libertarian side of things – but not totally there yet. I hope Ron Paul keeps talking as Americans need to hear his important message.

  2. I give Ron Paul alot of credit for trying to explain a philosophy in the short little segments TV allows candidates. He does a pretty good job of doing so under the circumstances-but he comes off as someone who would pull all the knives out at once-even to someone like me-who would vote for him based on wanting to take the steps towards shrinking the federal government.

    Libertarians are gonna have to come up with a better way-to get the message across-that they aren’t gonna just stop everything tomorrow.

    I read an article about him the other day-the main point made-“WE need to be on the gold standard” Is that even possible right now-is there enough Gold in the world. Last night-“Everybody pay a ten percent tax and opt out of all government programs.” Made the statement “the post office is actually Constitutional, which is a shame, they are so expensive-but we could probably keep THAT”

    Not exact quotes-but is this really gonna get him votes.

    • What gets me is Paul came in 2nd in Iowa, but the media gave more coverage to Mitt. And they seem to avoid discussing any of his proposals that he has advocated for years. His fiscal policy makes the TeaParty look like liberals. I would love to hear him grilled for an hour on what he would do to address our economic woes.

      • Well, lets face it-even the right leaning media doesn’t want to hurt the republican party’s chances-and they believe Ron Paul is too extreme for the American public and has no chance of winning-winning the straw poll is the republican base not the independents-right ?-and the left leaning will just ridicule him along with all the other republicans..

      • @LOI

        But realistically, is the media out of bounds in giving Romney more coverage despite the straw poll results? We have to look at things from the realistic point of view. Bachman WON the straw poll and I think that she is largely going to be irrelevant in the general election. The real battle in the GOP race is Romney vs. Perry, with a little Bachman on the side. I don’t like it, but that is the reality. The Iowa straw poll is kind of like saying you won Franklin County Pie eating contest. It proves you can eat Franklin County Pie, but it doesn’t mean you are a real threat to Kobyashi or that other Hot Dog eating freak.

        That being said, I agree, I would love for there to be a situation where he had an hour to really explain his views and how he would get to where we want to go. THAT opportunity might actually turn the tide if it got coverage.

        • USW,

          “is the media out of bounds?”
          I think so. Their main story and all the hype was on the Iowa straw poll. They should fully report it since they made it such a big event with all the build-up and coverage. I think Ron Paul shocked and surprised them. Consider we never got to hear what he said to the crowd that won so much support. How many speeches did he make? What statement got the most applause? Reporters are supposed to ask:
          Who, What, Where, Why & How

          The how is very important to this story, HOW did Paul do so well in this public event. Ignoring this is the key to diminishing his national success. The media, including FOX, try to choose the winners for us. Right now we have nine or ten to pick from, but they only report on two to four of them. Ron Paul gave Iowa a message and they responded. The media will not share that message with the country at large.

        • I agree with LOI, they are out of bounds. They are trying to create what is or is not realistic. In fact, were Ron Paul covered reasonably I think his message would appeal to a LOT more people. It is ignorance, not stupidity, that plagues most voters. And the media is doing their best to keep it that way.

  3. In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace, the 2012 Republican presidential contender alluded to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s failures after Hurricane Katrina. (RELATED: Ron Paul on Libya: ‘Victory for Empire, but loss for American Republic’)

    “You read the reports that came out of New Orleans and all of the wonderful things they did — giving checks to people who didn’t live there, sending in hundreds of millions of trailers they had to junk because they didn’t meet FEMA standards,” Paul said. “No, it is a system of bureaucratic central economic planning which is a policy that is deeply flawed. So no, you don’t get rid of something like that in one day. As a matter of fact, I have had the position for a long time and the people keep re-electing me and I have a coastal district. But I also suggested that there is different way to finance this too because FEMA is in big trouble financially. Their flood program is about $20 billion in debt.”

    Paul told Wallace he would be against voting for any sort of bailout for the financially beleaguered entity unless Obama would consider cutting $2 billion from the military actions in Libya.

    “Well, where does the money come from?” Paul said. “Go hat in hand to China and borrow the money? But, I would consider what I just said because I have precise beliefs in what we should do and transition out of the dependency on the federal government. But I would say, ‘Yes, Obama you want a billion dollars? Cut $2 billion and quit the war in Libya that is undeclared and unconstitutional – bring the troops home, save a billion dollars and put that billion against the deficit and tide our people over.”

    Paul added that FEMA is one example of how government has created a culture of dependency. It is also, he says, an example of how the government encourages ill-advised behavior in the private sector.

    “We conditioned people that FEMA will take care of us and everything will be okay. But you try to make the programs work the best you can, but you can’t just keep saying, ‘Oh, they need money,’” he said. “Well, we are out of money. This country is bankrupt. This idea that the bleeding hearts say we have to take care of them — the whole idea of FEMA is a gross distortion of insurance.

    “FEMA creates many of the problems because they sell insurance because you can’t buy it from a private company which means there is a lot of danger. And we pay people to build on beaches and then you have to go rescue them. So it is so far removed in the market and understanding of what insurance should be about. Insurance should cover major risk and not [be] a bailout program.”

    Read more:

  4. Ron Paul will not pull the Texas Vote….probably not even 20%.

    • And that is a summary of why we are so screwed.

      He should be polling in the 40% range through out the country.

      • JAC…..he would pull a whole lot of votes if he turned down his religious rhetoric.

        • What religious rhetoric-what have I missed :)-all I ever hear him say is I think it’s wrong-but we shouldn’t have a law to stop it?

          • Agreed, I don’t think religious rhetoric is Paul’s weakness. It is the fact that he wont play ball with the media, he is not entertaining, and he scares the poo out both major parties. Lack of drama combined with a clear and present threat will make the media run and hide every time. Its like the reason the media is not covering the drought in the middle of the country. It poses a huge threat to food prices for the whole country, and could have more financial impact than Hurricane Irene on the east coast alone, not to mention an equal impact ont eh rest of the country, but there is no drama, and the danger is one no one wants to talk about. So reporters stand on relatively quiet beaches and talk about hurricanes because there is no drama in drought, and the threat level is too scary to talk about.

            • I have been doing some additional reading and it seems he does speak on the issue quite alot. He is definitely against it-and thinks there should be no Federal law on the issue at all-that it should be a state issue. From what I have been reading -the left finds it a pretty big problem.

  5. Seems a member on the left-is also angry with how Paul is being treated-Anyway a different perspective on Paul from a member of the left.

    Sticking It to Ron Paul
    By Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall

    It’s open season on Ron Paul in the so-called “alternative” media, thanks to the Congressman’s strong showing in the Iowa straw polls. The venomous tone and absence of policy analysis is remarkably similar to the hatchet job the “alternative” media performed on Ralph Nader in 2004 and 2008. Could this because Paul, like Nader, is taking a strong, explicit stance against the corporate takeover of government?

    One particularly malicious rant making the rounds of progressive blogs is by Adele Stan, Washington Bureau Chief for the Alternet. According to Stan, because I’m a progressive seriously considering a vote for Ron Paul, I am part of the “emotionally immature segment of the progressive movement, a wing populated by people with privilege enough to insulate them from the nasty bits of the Paul agenda. (Tough on you blacks! And
    you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)”

    Name Calling and Identity Politics

    There’s a lot of name calling elsewhere in the article. According to Stan, Paul is anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, and pro-communist witch-hunt. She claims the only two reasons some progressives are (“immaturely”) supporting Paul are because he wants to end US military intervention in the Middle East, North Africa, and everywhere else and as payback for a “president” who has let them down.

    I’m not sure how other potential Paul supporters reacted to the article, but I really don’t like it when people call me names. I’m also sick to death when progressive pundits employ divisive identity politics (i.e. appealing to liberal guilt over disenfranchised minorities) to cloud serious policy issues.

    As with alternative media coverage of Nader’s campaigns, Stan offers no serious analysis of Paul’s platform or his position on key issues (other than stuff culled from old newsletters written by over zealous supporters). Or to compare and contrast his views with those of Obama and other 2012 candidates. We’ve come to expect this boycott on policy and substance from corporate media. Sure we have a right to expect some serious analysis from the alternative media.

    Progressives Expect More from Alternative Media

    If Stan is serious Paul’s run in the Republican primarily, she needs to pull back from argumentum ad hominem name calling and divisive identity politics rhetoric and make a serious attempt to understand Paul’s platform and why some progressives might find it appealing:

    1. Like many grassroots progressives who supported Ralph Nader, Paul believes the biggest problem the US faces is the corporate takeover of government.
    2. Like many progressives (including Dennis Kucinich and Ellen Brown), Paul has grave concerns about the way the federal government is financed (by borrowing funding from private banks) and the fractional reserve banking system (see * below). He, like many progressives, blames these economic structural factors for America’s serious economic difficulties. Abolishing the Federal Reserve (and preventing trillions of dollars in secret bailouts to foreign banks, car companies, off shore hedge funds, and billionaires) would be the first step in the comprehensive economic overhaul that is required.
    3. As part of this major economic reform, Paul would also reclaim the trillions of dollars the US spends on foreign wars and military bases for the domestic economy. He would also recoup the billions of dollars spent on the disastrous war on drugs.
    4. Paul would repeal the Patriot Act and other laws enacted by the Bush and Obama that violate Americans right to habeas corpus and other civil liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

    Do I agree with Ron Paul’s anti-abortion stand? Hell no. I also disagree with his stand on gay and minority rights, even though I agree with his position on affirmative action. Martin Luther King opposed affirmative action and quotas, by the way, which were introduced by Richard Nixon and George Schultz to drive a wedge between blacks and blue collar whites. I will reserve judgment on Paul’s proposal to gradually phase out Social Security and Medicare until I see what it looks like. Likewise I am waiting to see whether he will endorse the (Libertarian) Cato Institute’s proposal to legalize 8.3 million illegal immigrants. I also have a lot of concerns that he may end up beholden to the Koch brothers if they end up funding his campaign.

    Identity Politics and Political Correctness

    At the same time, I think it’s a terrible mistake to vote for a candidate based solely on a promise (which they may not keep) to defend abortion, gay rights, Medicare, Social Security. Obama has been only too happy to trade away the right of poor women to access abortion — as well as agreeing to major Medicare and Social Security cuts.

    The whole problem with voting for someone based on their endorsement of the “politically correct” position on a range of “identity” political issues is that it accepts the Wall Street and corporate media view that Americans should only participate passively in government by electing the right candidate every four years. If Ron Paul were elected and, by some miracle, managed to extract our federal government from Wall Street domination, surely we could count on our elected representatives to reflect their constituents’ wishes on these issues.

    Who knows, we might even succeed in calling a constitutional convention and re-writing the Constitution. It’s long past time to eliminate the bits that favor business and corporate rights over people.

    *Fractional reserve banking is a system which allows banks to make loans which, in essence, create money (debt) because the bank only possesses a fraction of the loan (usually 10%) in actual deposits. Paul and others believe this system led to the creation of a massive debt bubble, which burst in 2008, resulting in the global economic collapse.

    • Charlie-you really need to read this-I would really like to hear your opinion of this man’s views.

      • V.H. My only problem with Ron Paul is his stance on capitalism. I don’t agree with it, but I applaud his assault on the Republican and Democratic parties. I think even Ralph Nader agrees with much of Paul’s platform, especially taking on both parties over the corporate welfare state we are. What bothers me more about SUFA and supporters of “small government” is their claims seem contradictory when it comes to corporate welfare. I haven’t seen anywhere near the angst over corporate welfare here (stated, but not like villification of union workers and unions) … public workers are ruining the American economy but not corporate welfare? I mean, come on, get a grip already. Corporations run this country, end of story. It wasn’t “welfare” that demanded and received a $700 billion bailout, no strings attached.

        I’d accept Ron Paul’s misguided capitalist allegiance to either of the major parties any day of the week, mostly because I came very close to being a Libertarian on their website test. National health insurance pushed me away. I love their social agenda, but do not in any way shape or form believe capitalism can lead to anything but where we are now–state supported. Workers need to own the means of production (in my opinion). The propagands served out there ad naseum against it works as well (for me) as the television presidential debates (where anything considered extreme, right or left) is either ignored or not allowed to participate. At least Paul gets on the stage … Ralph Nader, because of his refusal to digest capitalism as is (corporate welfare) isn’t even permitted to debate. Why do you think that is? Because like Paul, what Nader has to say will scare the living shit out of the status quo power elite. Enough people hear Nader’s take on corporate welfare, they just might flock to support him and capitalism as is (similar to what Paul states) would be in grave danger.

        I’m more against our current political organization (two party system) than anything else. It is an absolute corruption against the people. A pawn of big business. I don’t hate big business, I hate it’s net affect on the working class. I don’t see 80% employment or the theory that those with jobs should be gratefful as a good thing. I don’t compare our poor to 14th century Kings of England (that is just friggin’ dumb as well as absurd). I see a very small percentage of our people running the rest of our lives and they aren’t the friggin’ government; the friggin’ government works for them.

        • A man who lives his life without commitment to rational principles will simply become a victim to the contradictions created by his emotional whim.

          • JAC, do you ever get tired of that bullshit? Just curious.

            • And what bullshit might that be? I never tire of truth Charlie. NEVER.

              You are the one claiming to test as a Libertarian while espousing communism as your savior. Yet you see no conflict.

              Yet you accuse me of spouting bullshit!!

              • Thank you for making a fool of yourself once again.

                Feel free to look up the true meaning of libertarian when you get the chance; where it originated and so on. Chomsky is a libertarian-socialist, just so you get a clue up front.

                It’s coming out of your ears, my friend. And it’s funny to boot.

        • Charlie-

          I don’t see where anyone on SUFA from the right has supported the bail outs-Now the republican and democrat politicians and many of the people do. I see some from both parties claiming they were necessary and some from both parties angry about it-the left seems to be mad mainly because the government didn’t demand more control in exchange for the money and the right just saying either it shouldn’t of happened at all-or it was necessary so the whole system wouldn’t fail but we shouldn’t use it as a reason to enforce massive regulations -that in the end doing so-just protects Big Business more and hurts business overall, which hurts the worker. The politicians(except for people like Paul and some of the Tea Party people)-both sides support-big business-to the detriment of the people and all the NOT-to- big to fail business’s. As far as the complaints about the unions-it was the issue of the day-you look at unions as “for the worker” . I look at Public unions and some private, which have grown so big-they have become the mafia, as another arm of government power-they might as well be considered corporations, as far as I’m concerned. Once they stopped being separate from the government-they became a part of the problem-a detriment to the rest of us and in a whole lot of situations-out for themselves- not the worker.. I have no love for either the to-big -to-fail government supported business or the government supported public unions. But you can’t claim “welfare” people haven’t asked for a bail out-they get alot of government money. One can’t just ignore that point-believe me I get the argument that Big business and government have caused these problems-so they should help us too-not just business. But the people have also caused the problem by demanding more and more help-you can’t separate all this stuff-it is all part of the problem. It all leads to more government control-and a vicious circle of debt, higher taxes, higher prices, and false claims of helping us, while what they are doing hurts us. They may do a little here and their to help but it is-small potatoes when you look at the fact that they are causing most of the problems that they are so graciously trying to fix-while we all have to pay for it.

          As far as capitalism-to me capitalism simply means freedom-yes it can be abused with or with out government. But your argument against it-that the worker should own the means of production-I see no other system where that is even a possibility except the free market. You want the workers to own the company-open one-have them invest with money or labor-do it how ever you want. You can choose-you just have to convince the effected people to join you. But set up a government to regulate this idea- what you have is government owned business’s -not worker owned companies. You can’t take away a persons right to own property individually and at the same time allow workers to own property. At least I can’t see anyway that is possible. In the end the government owns the business and the worker is working for them. Hell that’s the problem now-governments are trying to act like we are a free market-when they write so many regulations-trying to control what business’s do without taking away all their freedoms. How’s that working for us-with over 9% unemployment. Bottom line is you can’t force people to comply-they will find away around government control unless you take away all their rights. And if you take away all their rights-the workers don’t have any either.

          So bottom line-you hate the power that big business and government have. So lets give more power back to the people-with less government

          • I look at Public unions and some private, which have grown so big-they have become the mafia,

            And I agree, but is it nearly as powerful as the corporate mafia? My point being, union and the working class are often villified here, but when it comes to corporate welfare and the power they yield (outsourcing), saying to preclude them from outsourcing is a restricting their freedom while they simultaneously get welfare is a bit absurd. And a massive contradiction on the while free market loyalty.

            Workers, do, in fact own the means of production here in America. It is a slowly developing trend but I’m sure as soon as it gets big enough, corporate America will find a way to advance legislation precluding it from expanding. The only people worried about workers rights in this country and those who advocate a tiny percentage of the population running things (the way it is now). thus the “liberty” contradiction I find on the right.

            • “Workers, do, in fact own the means of production here in America.” Would you like to explain what You mean by this 🙂 I see where the government is laying down the foundation through regulations to completely control the means of production and trying to instill the mindset into the people that it is necessary to protect them from the evil capitalist- but the people owning it-not so much.

              My question to you-is how are you gonna protect yourself from the evil government-when you have defeated evil business by giving away all your freedoms.

              • There are several small to medium sized companies owned completely by their workforce. 60 minutes once did a show on one such bread company in the midwest. Everybody in the company has an equal share and vote. The guy voted to run it gets not a dime more than the guy who sweeps the floors. And they’re profitable.

                They don’t see themselves as giving away a single freedom operating that way. The only person(s) who might, are those who want the bulk of the profits for sitting in an office (or playing golf).

              • I don’t understand your point-they are doing this under the capitalist system-they are doing what they want because they are free to do so-they aren’t giving away any freedom, why should they feel they are.. You are the one who wants to take away freedom. Tell me how your plan will work, where they are still free to do what they want without giving away their freedom. Or taking someone else’s.

              • I really don’t understand your plan Charlie-you keep putting up an example of how you think business should be-but how do we get their. Are you suggesting instating communism -or do you have a different plan. Is the government just going to pass a law that anyone who opens a business must pay themselves and anyone who works there the same amount of money. Do the employees have to invest anything or take equal responsibility for the liability. How does it work? Because communism doesn’t work-it has been proven not to work-so unless you have some new idea-I just don’t understand your reasoning.

              • Oh yea, you feeling better Charlie? I hope so! And how is the new job going?

              • Charlie, a worker owned business model works very well, generally better than the typical type. Where things get tricky is during growth phases or retirement. Someone who owned a part of a business for 40 years and retires wants to retain ownership, they have earned it. However, the person who replaces them, what do they get? Does everyone’s piece of the pie get smaller? What about in cases of growth, do you hire the new guy and immediately he gets an equal share? You have 10 people who are owners, and have been from the start. They are the whole company. They took the risk and survived the periods where the profit might not have been good. Now, 5 years later, you hire a couple more people to handle the load. Do they get ownership? What share? They did not put in as much as the original owners, so how is that determined?

                Also, even if you have a plan for that, the whole thing was part of a voluntary organization process, and everyone knows the deal. You cannot just apply that to another business overnight. I am not even sure the whole concept is equitable in every business model. And what about the cases where someone puts in all of the startup costs? Do they not deserve a bigger share of profit since they put in so much more?

        • Charlie, the reason you dont see the same villification of corporations as unions is that not all corpprations are accepting corporate welfare. I HATE corporate welfare, and have repeatedly said that it would be the FIRST thing I would cut in government. The FIRST. It should never exist. However, not all corporations or businesses are on the dole. Not all unions are political organizations that care nothing about the workers and act like the mafia, but a far higher percentage of them are, than the percentage of corporations on the take.

          Now, that said, as I have mentioned, I would like to abolish the corporation itself, businesses should be tied to the people running them and owning them, not be seperate entities that cannot be really punished for things they do wrong. It is a false wall that should never have been built, and it is the core of the unholy alliance between business and government.

  6. This is the kind of coverage he needs-even with the mention of the gold standard.

    Paul: Bernanke Is Out of Options to Save Economy

    Published August 28, 2011


    Chairman Ben Bernanke is not calling for another fix to the economy by the Federal Reserve because he’s already used up all the quivers in the Fed’s bow, Rep. Ron Paul said Sunday.

    Paul is a 2012 Republican presidential candidate and supports the U.S. returning to the gold standard to protect its currency and force a balanced budget. He has been highly critical of the Federal Reserve and its chairman over plans for “quantitative easing,” a two-part program which flooded the market with dollars in an attempt to make money more available for borrowing and lending.

    Paul argued that Bernanke’s plan to buy bank assets and drop more than $2 trillion into the economy did not yield the results the chairman hoped, a conclusion that Paul says Bernanke implicitly acknowledged during a speech last week in which he offered no new bailout programs from the Fed.

    “He really hasn’t pulled back. Symbolically, he has and he is not having another QE3,” Paul said. “But he has maintained a (view) to keep interest rates low until 2013. You can’t keep interest rates low without monetizing debt because if somebody else doesn’t buy it, he has to buy it. So he’s continuously quantitatively easing.”

    Paul said that artificially holding down interest rates was instrumental in the housing bubble that burst in 2007 and sparked the economic meltdown from which the U.S. economy is still trying to recover.

    He said if government — and its central bank — stopped trying to bail out its friends, then the economy would soon return to normal.

    “Let the people who live beyond their means, let them go bankrupt,” he said. “Hands off, give us a sound currency, free up the markets. Property rights. Enforce contracts. Make sure people go bankrupt when they go bankrupt and don’t bail out their buddies.”

    He added that one good thing out of Bernanke’s speech is that he effectively returned the responsibility for the economy back to Congress and a fiscal approach.

    “He at least sort of said, ‘Oh, it’s up to the Congress. It’s all Congress’ fault. They need to deal with it. So he’s sort of throwing up his hands. But all he needs to do is quit monetizing debt. Interest rates would go up and Congress would be forced to cut debt,” Paul said.

    Paul has been holding steady near the top of the polls for the Republican nomination despite being described as “unconventional” because of his libertarian streak. The 12-term Texas congressman surmised that he’s in vogue now because many Americans realize it’s time to return to the principles on which the nation was founded.

    “I’m fascinated with your word ‘unconventional,'” he told “Fox News Sunday. “Isn’t it strange that we can apply that word to freedom and liberty and the Constitution and limited government and a balanced budget?’

    Paul said that while some question whether he’s just in the race to be the “prophet” who guides the discussion, he’s definitely vying for the actual job of president.

    “I’m in it to win it. And you’re absolutely right, I do say that I am more interested in influence and power. As a matter of fact, as president I would reduce the power of government. I wouldn’t seek it. I would never take the power from the Congress. I would not go to war without
    congressional approval,” he said.

    “I resent the power that has galvanized in the executive branch and in the judicial system and I would want to shrink the size of government,” he added. “That doesn’t mean I don’t want to win. That means I want a new approach at least from current standards for the presidency.”

    Paul’s approach to foreign policy has also been called unconventional, or in some circles, isolationist. He has opposed most wars launched by the U.S., saying that it leads to too many unintended consequences, and has harshly criticized U.S. participation in NATO military action against Libya.

    Paul said that his approach to international relations rests on national security, not “pretending that we can pick the dictators around the world.”

    He added that the U.S. government should take cues from its military.

    “The one telltale sign of the support I’m getting is because of my foreign policy. I get more donations from active military duty people than all the other candidates put together, which tells me a lot and tells the American people a lot,” Paul said.

    “Military people wanted to defend this country but they don’t want perpetual war when they are
    undeclared and you don’t see the end and you don’t know who the enemy is and it’s too many
    restrictions on how they retaliate against the enemies … Our (National) Guard units should be here taking care of us when we have floods, but no, they’re overseas and the military is worn out, it’s time for a change if for no reason than we’re flat out broke,” he said.

    Read more:

    • Just wait until you see Wednesday’s guest commentary!

      • Hmmm-you’ve really got my curiosity up-dang, I’m not the best at waiting. But I will not ask questions-I really want to-but I won’t. 😀

  7. Could anyone explain this-they lost me 😦

    Ron Paul’s Surprisingly Lucid Solution to the Debt Ceiling Impass

    Dean Baker

    * July 2, 2011 | 12:00 am

    Representative Ron Paul has hit upon a remarkably creative way to deal with the impasse over the debt ceiling: have the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds. While at first blush this idea may seem crazy, on more careful thought it is actually a very reasonable way to deal with the crisis. Furthermore, it provides a way to have lasting savings to the budget.

    The basic story is that the Fed has bought roughly $1.6 trillion in government bonds through its various quantitative easing programs over the last two and a half years. This money is part of the $14.3 trillion debt that is subject to the debt ceiling. However, the Fed is an agency of the government. Its assets are in fact assets of the government. Each year, the Fed refunds the interest earned on its assets in excess of the money needed to cover its operating expenses. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. In this sense, the bonds held by the Fed are literally money that the government owes to itself.

    Unlike the debt held by Social Security, the debt held by the Fed is not tied to any specific obligations. The bonds held by the Fed are assets of the Fed. It has no obligations that it must use these assets to meet. There is no one who loses their retirement income if the Fed doesn’t have its bonds. In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed’s destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself, but it would still reduce the debt subject to the debt ceiling by $1.6 trillion. This would buy the country considerable breathing room before the debt ceiling had to be raised again. President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership could have close to two years to talk about potential spending cuts or tax increases. Maybe they could even talk a little about jobs.

    In addition, there’s a second reason why Representative Paul’s plan is such a good idea. As it stands now, the Fed plans to sell off its bond holdings over the next few years. This means that the interest paid on these bonds would go to banks, corporations, pension funds, and individual investors who purchase them from the Fed. In this case, the interest payments would be a burden to the Treasury since the Fed would no longer be collecting (and refunding) the interest.

    To be sure, there would be consequences to the Fed destroying these bonds. The Fed had planned to sell off the bonds to absorb reserves that it had pumped into the banking system when it originally purchased the bonds. These reserves can be created by the Fed when it has need to do so, as was the case with the quantitative easing policy. Creating reserves is in effect a way of “printing money.” During a period of high unemployment, this can boost the economy with little fear of inflation, since there are many unemployed workers and excess capacity to keep downward pressure on wages and prices. However, at some point the economy will presumably recover and inflation will be a risk. This is why the Fed intends to sell off its bonds in future years. Doing so would reduce the reserves of the banking system, thereby limiting lending and preventing inflation. If the Fed doesn’t have the bonds, however, then it can’t sell them off to soak up reserves.

    But as it turns out, there are other mechanisms for restricting lending, most obviously raising the reserve requirements for banks. If banks are forced to keep a larger share of their deposits on reserve (rather than lend them out), it has the same effect as reducing the amount of reserves. To take a simple arithmetic example, if the reserve requirement is 10 percent and banks have $1 trillion in reserves, the system will support the same amount of lending as when the reserve requirement is 20 percent and the banks have $2 trillion in reserves. In principle, the Fed can reach any target for lending limits by raising reserve requirements rather than reducing reserves.

    As a practical matter, the Fed has rarely used changes in the reserve requirement as an instrument for adjusting the amount of lending in the system. Its main tool has been changing the amount of reserves in the system. However, these are not ordinary times. The Fed does not typically buy mortgage backed securities or long-term government bonds either. It has been doing both over the last two years precisely because this downturn is so extraordinary. And in extraordinary times, it is appropriate to take extraordinary measures—like the Fed destroying its $1.6 trillion in government bonds and using increases in reserve requirements to limit lending and prevent inflation.

    In short, Representative Paul has produced a very creative plan that has two enormously helpful outcomes. The first one is that the destruction of the Fed’s $1.6 trillion in bond holdings immediately gives us plenty of borrowing capacity under the current debt ceiling. The second benefit is that it will substantially reduce the government’s interest burden over the coming decades. This is a proposal that deserves serious consideration, even from people who may not like its source.

    • V.H.

      This idea was floated by Ron Paul during the debate over the debt ceiling increase.

      The Treasury borrows money by selling bonds. But they don’t do the sales anymore. The FED conducts the sale, and when nobody buys enough bonds to fund the deficit, then the FED buys the bonds itself.

      But where oh where does the money come from to buy these bonds? The FED PRINTS THE MONEY, or takes it from their hidden stash of cash. So this is what is called “monetizing the debt” because the Govt is effectively printing money to replace debt. But that is not what is really happening. They are printing money AND incurring more debt at the same time.

      So Paul’s idea was for the Fed to simply destroy the bonds it has purchased. This would eliminate debt on the books. Whether it would have prevented the need for the debt ceiling increase is not an absolute certainty to me. The bonds destroyed would have to have had interest, or principle and interest, due in August or the coming year for this to have the effect claimed in the article.

      The reason the Treasury and Fed do this little dance of mirrors is because selling and buying Treasury bonds is the Fed’s primary means of controlling the money supply and thus inflation. Sell bonds to borrow and then give to the Govt to spend, or to reduce the money supply if the sale proceeds are held in the vault. Buy bonds from other Govts or the private sector to put money into circulation.

      The reserve requirement is the amount the FED requires banks to hold in cash to cover loans issued. If you remember I have kicked this idea around at SUFA with BF before. One possible way for the FED to hold off inflation, money supply increasing, is to force the banks to hold more in the vault. This would actually be a good thing in my opinion if it were left alone. That is a higher reserve rate over the long term.

      I disagree with the authors view that destroying the FED’s 1.6 trillion in bonds would “increase our borrowing capacity”. This may be true in the world of the modern financial wizards who got us in this mess, but it would be a dreadful mistake to use this power to simply borrow more money.

      I hope this helps. If not just ask another question and I will try again.

    • And why not write off the $2.6T SS trust fund bonds as well? This also is money we owe ourselves. I know it is committed to future payments but the money does not exist hence must be raised again by borrowing or taxes. Also by writing it off we get around the bogus arguement of the “lock box” and can then start to talk about the real problems with SS.

  8. Ron Paul will get my vote. I will not vote for a candidate just because he is likely to win in the general election.

    • Mathius™ says:

      The problem there is that while, yes, it does take a stance, it may cost you the general just to make a point. Instead getting, let’s pretend, 100% of what you want, you’d get 0% whereas voting for a republican who can win would get you, say, 50% of what you want. 50% > 0%.

      Why that argument, why not vote for yourself, since you match your own views more perfectly than anyone else? You’re already compromising (to some extent) in voting for Paul – surely you don’t agree with him 100%. So why do you draw the line here and not there? Get a little closer to the middle and you can get some, if not all, of what you want. Stay where you are, you get nothing.

      Just my 2 cents..

      • Terry Evans says:

        An extremely valid 2 cents…

        • Which will keep the country exactly where it is, going nowhere but down fast. I argue with liberal democrats all the time about this. The politics of inertia. It’s a great way to idle the rest of your life. Getting 10% (if that much) of what you want from the left (or right) major party will only be blown back by the next swing in the pendulum. That’s a wonderful way to take one step forward, then another back. Doesn’t get you very far, but it’ll take a long time and a lot of blogging (and thus venting) … you might as well watch grass grow (spring and summer), only to die (Fall and winter) … then start over again.

          Conservative who “BELIEVE” in their cause should vote for what the BELIEVE in (yourself is better than voting for the lesser of two evils). Same for liberals. Or you can opt out and go the anarchist root (from the left or the right, even though JAC can’t fathom there’s a left libertarian cause) … but to vote for either of the major parties is pulling your pud (so to speak). Nothing but a waste of time.

          • Charlie, you really must stop this………………..

            I agree with Charlie, voting for either party is voting for the continued stagnation and disintegration of the country.

            • Plainly, we’re secretly two of a kind … and the rest are all jealous 🙂

              I’m so against the political system as is right now, I’d welcome Ron Paul (and I do not believe in capitalism at all). It would just be nice to see the two major parties scramble … but alas, the revolution will have to come from the left for the simple matter of match; there will be more downtrodden fed up with capitalism long before corporate america permits the corporate nanny state to die.

          • Wow, this is the first time I’ve ever agreed with Charlie!

          • Well said Charlie! 🙂

      • Mathius

        Good to see you hear young apprentice. Hope your home and family are dry and safe.

        P.S. I write my own name in for Senator or Congressman each time the general election comes along for one or both of those seats.

        • Mathius™ says:

          If no one else votes (always a distinct possibility), are you going to take the seat?

          Everyone’s safe, just some downed trees and power lines. Florida is probably laughing it’s a** off at how pathetic we are in dealing with a measly tropical storm / category 1. I bet they don’t cancel their beach BBQ’s for anything less than a Cat 3.

          Power will probably be back in the next few days – in the meantime, I’m learning what it’s like to be Amish (and am not enjoying it).

          The good news is that, even though my power is out (so no sump pump), my basement is bone dry. I painted it with something called Drylok – it used to flood every time there was in inch of rain – and now it can stand up to a hurricane without even needing the pump. I was pretty worried about this. Plus I recently cleared out all the trees which I felt were threatening my house, so when the storm knocked down trees all over the place, nothing happened to the Mathius household. Phew.

          • Mathius


            See, preparing DOES work. Glad to hear your OK. Now how about Buck?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Buck did fine, thanks for asking!

              Some very minor water came into the crawl space and seeped under a small portion of the flooring in the adjacent room. That being said, nothing ruined and all my neighbors had several inches in their homes. Plus, that’s what insurance is for. PS – first hurt being the higher home on the block!!

              • Buck

                Good to hear.

                Now that leaves G-Man hanging out in the woods of PA.

                What about G…… OK?

              • Glad you guys are okay too 🙂 -hope everyone in the path of this storm are okay-would list names but I just don’t remember where everyone lives. Been wondering about G for awhile-he needs to check in-a smiley face occasionally will do 🙂 Plainly-you know anything about our G-man.

              • I spoke with Gman not more than a week ago and all was well with him. He said he has been busier than a one-armed paper hanger getting everything ready for the coming winter. Between garden work (he said his garden is doing great) and building a new blind, etc he’s been quite busy working outdoors.

                I’m betting canning will keep him busy too. I know I spent 6 hours canning salsa and ketchup just yesterday. 🙂

        • Do you write Just A Citizen on the line? 🙂

          • Anita

            How are you my dear? Hope summer at the lake was good to you and yours.

            No, I write my real name.

            But you have given me a good idea for next time.

      • I don’t vote for myself because I don’t want the job. I also like Paul because he doesn’t just say all the right things and then do something different when elected.

        • I think you nailed it there. Shared values. Everyone knew Obama would say anything to get elected, then do what he wanted. There are some Repugs that strike me that way also. And there are some that will say what is unpopular and mean it like Perry on SS being a ponzi scheme. A lot of people have said it before but the liberal media is looking to roast him for it.

      • Problem is, Matt, the R’s won’t give anyone 50% of what they want. They will say 50% of the stuff that people want to hear, but the washington level guys, at least all the ones but the rookies, jury is still out on them, will give more like 10% that is wanted and 50% that is not wanted and 40% irrelevant crap. That equals a net negative of 40% bad and 40% waste. An honest look at the D’s by supporters such as yourself will probably not yield percentages that bad, but it still wont be positive.

        Besides there are a lot of advantes to sending a strong message. Even if it means a loss, it will shake things up. And honestly, the way the R’s are handling things, a loss really isnt that much worse, in fact it might lead to the demise faster so we can reboot already.

        Any vote for the status quo on either side is a truly wasted vote.

  9. 😐

  10. Charlie Stella

    Charlie, Libertarian Socialism is a Contradiction in terms. I am not surprised you would accept this as a philosophical standard.

    Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.
    Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor.[1] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[2][3][4] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and co-operative ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system.

    Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either “total or merely substantial”] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[5] David Boaz, libertarian writer and vice president of the Cato Institute, writes that, “Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others” and that, “Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property—rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.”[6]

    Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes what it sees as the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor[5]. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[6][7] or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[1][2][8]

    So here is the test Charlie.

    First part. Please explain how the left libertarian maintains “free associations” when it will NOT allow those associations THEY view as “the coercive social relations of capitalism”. Capitalism by definition means that the means of production are privately owned. But the “left libertarian” will not allow such an association to exist. At the same time claiming to support individual freedom.

    Second part of the test Charlie. How does the “left libertarian” intend to ENFORCE his/her prohibition of free associations that appear to be Capitalist in nature?

    Third part of the test. How is this view consistent with the core “Libertarian” principles of “Individual Freedom” and “Liberty”?

    Just because a bunch of socialists decide to start calling themselves some new name just to make themselves appear more benign does not change the reality of what their philosophy is and how it is antithetical to freedom and liberty.

    In a free society, associations consisting of shared ownership of the means of production may occur if those in that association do so of their own free will. But, others are free to not participate in such “joint ownership” ventures. They are both free to participate and trade within the general society, without coercive control by government.

    If man is not free to own the fruits of his labor or the means of his own productive efforts, then he is not free at all.

    • First off, without having to read your diatribe, Libertarian (the original definition) has nothing to do with your nonsense, fact.

      You’re not surprised because you’re an ideological loyalist (nothing quite like blind faith). You’ve got it wrong, as usual.

  11. Here you go, JAC.

    • Charlie

      There is nothing in Chomsky’s presentation that changes the reality nor my statements to you. Apparently you are incapable of seeing the obfuscation and outright distortions in his presentation that are required to accept his conclusion. For example, to suggest that Adam Smith and Jefferson were “opposed to Capitalism” is pure fiction.

      Seems a bit ironic that after chastising and rejecting the thinkers of the Enlightenment and our Founders for other reasons you are now accepting Chomsky’s interpretation and reliance on those same people to justify your own contradictory philosophy.

      • Let’s see, JAC vs. Chomsky … this should be tough.

        You lose.

        But I accept that you’re a kool-aid swallowing lemming from your positions here in the past. So be it. All one can do is try. chomsky’s worldwide reptuation, 150 books vs. you. And I’m sure BF will join the parade (your side) as well … sorry, fellas, I’m gonna go with the Chominator.

        As for accepting Chomsky’s view … once again, your foot is firmly in your mouth. While I entertain much of what he says and agree in principle on most of it, I am not a libertarian-socialist (his definition or yours). I believe socialism (with all its faults) will have to come before anarchism because of the nature of the beast (man) … more than likely we’ll all blow ourselves up before that happens anyway, but that’s my take on it.

        Where Chomasky and I are in full agreement is regarding capitalism. It doesn’t work. The cup of coffee BF wanted me to purchase as “proof” it does work was a bit shortsighted since he left out the players behind the coffee (how it was grown, by whom, the cost, etc.) … because the facts are always way too inconvenient for capitalist loyalists.

        Anyway, it was fun reading you set aside Noam Chomsky.

    • Charlie

      Word Origin & History

      1789, “one who holds the doctrine of free will” (opposed to necessitarian), from liberty (q.v.) on model of unitarian, etc. Political sense of “person advocating liberty in thought and conduct” is from 1878. U.S. Libertarian Party founded in Colorado, 1971.

  12. WordPress is acting up. I was asked to moderate this post, approved it and it ignored me. Sorry Ron, sometimes they are rude.

    Ron R
    Like you I support Ron Paul on some issues, but on others I’ve directly opposed. I could never support the man unless it was a head-to-head match with Obugger. I have a streak of Libertarianism on domestic matters but when it comes to international isolationism I must draw a clean line between myself and Paul.

  13. @ Mathius/Buck etal….who live on the east coast. Glad to hear that you are doing well after the blow. It sounds as if you prepared yourselves well.

    In the DFW area, we do not have to deal with the hurricanes that hit the gulf coast except for the rain that pushes upward….we wish we had the rain you guys received but do not want it all at once, of course. The last two canes that hit Texas dumped about 8 inches of rain up here but we handled it pretty well because we are always prepared for the spring down here. We are pretty used to thunderstorms and the tornado that wanders through. We have the flash floods and have built well for them for the most part. I noticed the flash flooding on the news in New Jersey and Connecticut and surrounding areas. They can be nasty and wash out a lot of bridges and roads. Our thunder bumpers have routine 3 to 6 inch downpours and straight line winds from 60-100 mph but the winds hit and blow through quickly…say about 10 minutes. Keep your generators handy and your powder dry. Power outages usually occur even though we are prepared for them….last storm knocked out power to about 150,000 in just Fort Worth….but we are used to it….keep candles, freeze dried foods, propane camping stoves, fill bathtubs, trash cans with fresh water, keep bottled water.

    As to the Floridians…..I have a really great friend that lives in Tampa and they chase hurricanes… know….sit on the beach and watch the waves roll…wind sail… Mathius stated…probably do not get excited until they reach cat 4 or 5. But I can see where NY, NJ, Conn….etc would not be overly prepared for a storm of this magnitude…

    Question for you North Easterners…….what is a nor’easter as compared to a hurricane? Is not a nor’easter pretty damaging?

    • Mobile life (living in an RV) found my girl and I prepared by default. The only thing we did to prepare was park in the middle of an open parking lot so that we were out of range of any potential tree damage. Already had a full tank of water on board and, of course, a generator. In fact, after it was all over we went to a friends house and shared generator power with them. 🙂

  14. If you’re going to give Obama credit for killing bin Laden, you got to give Rick Perry credit for doing pretty well with the Texas economy. And Obama has done for the economy what pantyhose did for foreplay.”

    O’Reilly pointed out that Texas under Perry’s leadership has had a budget gap of between $15 and $27 billion. That’s still better than Obama’s record, Friedman said.

    “Well, you know, part of it is that I would support Charlie Sheen over Obama,” he said. “But I think there’s a dignity in Rick Perry and there’s a — I really think that his best days are ahead of him and, you know, it’s hard to distinguish himself as a governor.”

    Friedman also suggested that Perry is that rarest of breeds: an honest politician: “Oh yeah, if he follows the cowboy way, which he does: ride, shoot straight and tell the truth.”

    Read more:

    • What If Obama Were Governor of the State of Texas?

      By Jon Kraushar

      Published August 29, 2011

      For anyone having trouble imagining Rick Perry replacing Barack Obama as America’s president, imagine if Barack Obama had replaced Rick Perry as governor of Texas.

      Both Obama and Perry inherited an economy from George W. Bush, but here’s what happened in each case:

      According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), under Obama, 2.4-million jobs have been lost in America.

      In the first decade of Perry’s tenure, from June 2000 to June 2010, the BLS says that Texas had a net gain of 907,000 jobs—the best record in the country. Perry refers to research from the Federal Reserve’s Dallas branch that since the recession technically ended in June of 2009, Texas has created about 48 percent of the new jobs in America.

      Since Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, unemployment nationwide has gone from 7.6 percent to 9.1 percent. The current unemployment rate in Texas with Perry as governor is 8.2 percent.

      During the past seven years, CEOs polled by Chief Executive magazine have rated Texas first in the nation in business development and job growth. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that in 2010, Texas’ economy grew 5.3 percent versus 3.8 percent for the overall U.S. economy.

      Perry’s critics (especially those in the Obama White House) say that Texas’ job growth is attributable to its booming energy sector. However, USA Today reports that Texas has had “broad based” job increases in several sectors, including health care, education, professional and business services and leisure.

      But even if you accept the White House’s premise, imagine how Texas energy development would have fared with Obama as its governor. As Washington State Congressman Doc Hastings wrote in a Roll Call op-ed: “When President Obama was elected, nearly all of our offshore areas were open to offshore drilling. Since then, President Obama has systematically locked-up the entire Atlantic Coast, the Pacific Coast and much of Alaska — preventing the creation of over 1.2 million jobs.”

      The Obama administration—particularly its Environmental Protection Agency—has withdrawn permits and severely restricted development of shale oil, oil and natural gas leasing, coal mining, nuclear power plants, and even renewable energy projects on public lands, including wind and solar. This has caused the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and deepened the country’s dependence on foreign energy. President Obama has pushed hard for what Hastings describes as “a job-destroying cap-and-trade national energy tax, which even [the president] said would make prices ‘necessarily skyrocket.’”

      While Obama has procrastinated as Democrats blocked free trade agreements (to cater to labor union protectionism), Texas reigns as America’s number one exporting state.

      And while Obama pushed to raise the country’s debt ceiling and to increase taxes, Texas has a balanced budget (with $6-billion in a “rainy day fund”) and has the second-lowest tax rates in the country—taxing neither personal incomes nor capital gains.

      Perry’s critics say that Texas leads the nation in minimum wage jobs. But Obama’s misguided championing of a higher minimum wage during a recession—when employers can least afford it—has contributed to the unemployment of 24 percent of teenagers who rely on low-paying, low-skill, entry-level work. For black teens, the unemployment rate is much worse—41.6 percent. Furthermore, the BLS reports that the average wage for all employees in Texas is climbing 48 percent higher than the nation as a whole—a testimony to many quality jobs in the Lone Star State.

      Perry’s 4-point economic agenda is the total opposite of Obama’s. Perry recently described it to the Republican Leadership Conference as, “Don’t spend all the money; keep the taxes low and under control; have regulations that are fair and predictable so that business owners know what to expect from one quarter to the next; and reform the legal system so that frivolous lawsuits don’t paralyze employers that are trying to create real wealth.”

      Perry told The Wall Street Journal that if he were elected president and if Republicans regained a Senate majority, President Perry’s priorities for his first 100 days in office would include repealing ObamaCare, cutting spending, and reforming corporate income taxes to give U.S. firms an incentive to repatriate more than $1 trillion held in offshore subsidiaries. Perry said this would,”give people an incentive to start investing in America again.”

      So, there’s Obama and Perry, side-by-side: Obamanomics versus Perrynomics. Imagine if the two men switched jobs. Would that put Texas in better shape—or America?

      Read more:

      • Buck the Wala says:


        No offense but that’s the silliest so-called comparison I’ve ever read.

        Two glaring issues:

        1) Yes, Bush preceded both Obama and Perry but (at least on a national level, I don’t know specifics about Texas), Obama took the helm after the national economy was tanked; Perry followed Bush after a period of economic growth.

        2) You can’t compare a single state to the entire nation and pretend you are looking at a side-by-side comparison. Too many variables at work. It is comparing apples and oranges.

        • Yes, I realize that it isn’t a perfect comparison-but it takes a humorous idea and makes some relevant points based on the differences in their economic ideas. It is a think piece-What IF Perry had taken the same view as Obama on energy development as just one example?

        • There is also the whole issue of how much effect the executive branch really has on the economy. Did Bush lower interest rates and create a housing bubble (the bursting of which caused the downturn)? Pretty sure that was the FED.

  15. Mr. Obama is leaking trial balloons again in preparing for his earth moving jobs bill announcement.

    One of the ideas floated over the weekend was to boost funding for retrofitting schools for “green energy” and other “green technologies”.

    The criteria to be used is that this money is to hit the ground quickly, thus creating an immediate demand for jobs, thus reducing unemployment.

    Earth to Mr. President, earth to Mr. President……………….You don’t start reconstructing schools while the kids are in the building.

    What is your next idea??????????

  16. Thoughts on Ron Paul.

    The reason Mr. Paul does not poll well in my view is primarily because he always falls back into the role of “lecturing professor”.

    His son had some of the same problems in his Senate race.

    This tendency is perfect for spreading the word and “awakening” people to new ideas, or possibilities. But it is NOT any way to win an election.

    Campaigning requires focus on the here and now, with a small dose of what it might look like in 5 years. The public can’t handle long term complex philosophical concepts as campaign rhetoric.

    Now of course, the media plays to this by using Mr. Paul as their foil to attack “Libertarian Party” views. They initiate the questions about prostitution, drugs, etc. Mr. Paul then falls for the trap and starts explaining.

    As a Candidate he should simply state that moving to a complete Libertarian agenda is simply not possible at this time so it is not relevant. What is relevant is that we begin moving BACK towards greater freedom and liberty.

    • It is the media, not the public, that cannot handle explainations. People are not that stupid (some are, but not the ones that need to be reached). The targetted questions on drugs, prostitution, etc. are, however, the ones that have held back libertarians from the start. A candidate needs to start firing at the questions and their motives, rather than trying to answer the traps. And there needs to be a more comical, and concise, manner of relating the ideas to people. When talking about stuff 5 years from now, relate it to personal finance, and make it clear that money is money, and an economy works the same way in all scales. Right now the problem is that people believe the lie that economics work differently in large scales.

      • Jon

        I do not think the public rejects the discussion because of ignorance. It is our propensity to be focused on “short time frames”.

        Elections are generally about what will you do for me now. Broad concepts and ideas work but in the here and now context. This was Reagan’s great skill. He could use the broad ideas to relate to current situations.

        You are correct that our modern “news media” has degenerated into 30 second sound bites, and thus it can not handle complex ideas. And, it loves to play “I gottcha” so anything that seems radical is exploded out of proportion. Like Rand Paul’s comments about private property rights and the right to deny service to anyone.

    • I think one of the big reasons that Paul is seen as unelectable is that he is not afraid to name specific government programs that he thinks should be ended. Other candidates will talk about smaller government, but they really start to squirm if you ask them what they want to get rid of. They know it is political suicide to talk about killing anyone’s golden goose. Paul is not afraid to put any of it on the chopping block.

  17. Ron R:

    Your comment: Ron R Comment:
    Like you I support Ron Paul on some issues, but on others I’ve directly opposed. I could never support the man unless it was a head-to-head match with Obugger. I have a streak of Libertarianism on domestic matters but when it comes to international isolationism I must draw a clean line between myself and Paul.

    I think you are falling for the standard “neo-con” and “media” response to Paul’s position. Pulling our military home is NOT isolationism. There are many ways to engage the world without posting our military in everybody’s back yard, trade for example. It is not isolationist to stop trying to dictate our will upon other nations, or to stop using our Govt force to provide protection to American Companies and the detriment to local businesses in other nations.

    If you believe that the USA must continue to “police the world” then you are correct. The Libertarian view, and Paul’s, is not for you. But then note that you live with the outcome of your contradictions. You subscribe to the concepts of freedom and liberty for the USA, but not for others.

  18. @LOI…..sorry for the hijack here. I am pissed and need to vent. If Ron Paul were to ever get the nomination he gets my vote now.

    I just saw Barack Obama giving a speech to the American Legion where he just finished high praise for President Bush and his achievement in Iraq and the contribution made by the military to justify his position in escalation of the Afghan war and the Libyan War.

    What a hypocritical bastard that just lost whatever ounce of credence I was willing to give.

    Sorry, sir….I return you to your regularly scheduled Ron Paul expose.

    • Good afternoon Colonel.

      Certainly you are not surprised by anything this fella says or does, are you.

      Remember the creed of the left. The ends justifies any means necessary. So presenting yourself as something you are not is completely within their ethical standards. As long as it helps them maintain the power needed to move their agenda later.

      Saw weatherman on Fox last night claiming that Texas will see rain soon as the pattern in the Gulf is breaking down due to eastern hurricane activity.

      Certainly hope for the sake of my Texican friends that this comes to pass.

      • PUUUUUULLLLEEESSSEEEE….we need rain and while we did not want to wreak havoc on the east coast, we wanted a big enough storm to break the pressure ridge here….maybe.

    • No prob D, day two usually moves to other topics. Keep waiting for Charlie to present what Nader would do on issues like the economy,
      On Afghan war, still don’t understand how Obama following the Bush plan gets a pass in the media that championed him for saying he’ed end these wars.

      • Sorry LOI, didn’t see this until now. Nader would pull out of both wars (all three actually) pronto. As to economy, he’d never have bailed out Wall Street for one thing … then probably taxed the living crap out of corporations until they either fled (good riddance) or paid their fair share (the 35% figure is so loaded with loopholes, it’s actually closer to 15%). He’d certainly cut their ability to outsource so freely; make it costly for them to do so. They like INdia so much, let them go there. We’ll see how well they do then. We’re figure it out here.

        Listen and learn, LOI … the right and left are not so far apart when it comes to the nanny state for corporations …

    • Here’s the speech-if anyone wants to read it or listen to it.

      Full text of Obama’s speech to the American Legion in Minneapolis
      August 30, 2011


      Below is the full text of President Barack Obama’s speech to the American Legion conference in Minneapolis, as provided by the White House.

      Hello Legionnaires! Thank you, Commander Foster, for your introduction and for your lifetime of service-to your fellow Marines, soldiers and veterans. On behalf of us all, thank you Jimmie. And thank you to your entire leadership team for welcoming me today. Your National Adjutant, Dan Wheeler. Your Executive Director, your voice in Washington, Peter Gaytan. And the President of the American Legion Auxiliary, Carlene Ashworth.

      To Rehta Foster and all the spouses, daughters and sisters of the Auxiliary…and the Sons of the American Legion … as military families, you also served, and we salute you as well.

      It is wonderful to be back with the American Legion. Back in Illinois, we worked together to make sure veterans across the state were getting the benefits they had earned. When I was in the Senate, we worked together to shine a spotlight on the tragedy of homelessness among our veterans-and the need to end it.

      As President, I’ve welcomed Jimmie and your leadership to the Oval Office-to hear directly from you. And I’ve been honored to have you by my side when I signed advance appropriations to protect veterans health care from the budget battles in Washington. When I signed legislation to give new support to veterans and their caregivers. And most recently, when I proposed new initiatives to make sure the private sector is hiring our talented veterans.

      So, American Legion, I thank you for your partnership. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today about what we need to do to make sure America is taking care of our veterans as well as you’ve taken care of us.

      I’m grateful to be with you for another reason. A lot of our fellow citizens are still reeling from Hurricane Irene and its aftermath. Folks are surveying the damage and some are dealing with tremendous flooding. As a government, we’re going to make sure that states and communities have the support they need as people recover.

      And across the nation, we’re still digging out from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It’s taking longer and been more difficult than any of us had imagined. And even though we’ve taken some steps in the right direction, we have to do more. Our economy has to grow faster. We have to create more jobs, and do it faster. Most of all, we have to break the gridlock in Washington that’s been preventing us from taking the action we need to get this economy moving. That’s why, next week, I’ll be speaking to the nation about a plan to create jobs and reduce our deficit — a plan I want to see passed in Congress. We need to get this done.

      Here’s what else I know. We Americans have been through tough times before, much tougher than these. And we didn’t just get through them, we emerged stronger than before. Not by luck. Not by chance. But because in hard times, Americans don’t quit. We don’t give up. We summon that spirit that says, when we come together, when we choose to move forward together, as one people, there’s absolutely nothing we can’t achieve.

      Legionnaires, you know this. It’s the story of your lives. And in times like these, all Americans can draw strength from your example. When Hitler controlled a continent and fascism seemed unstoppable, when our harbor was bombed and our Pacific fleet crippled, some declared that the United States had been reduced to a third-class power. But you, our veterans of World War II, crossed the oceans, stormed the beaches, freed the millions, liberated the camps and showed that the United States of America is the greatest force for freedom the world has ever known.

      When North Korea invaded the South, pushing the allied forces into a tiny sliver of territory-the Pusan Perimeter-it seemed like that war could be lost. But you, our Korean War veterans, pushed back, fought on, year after bloody year. And this past Veterans Day, I went to Seoul and joined our Korean War veterans for the 60th anniversary of that war, and we marked that milestone in a free and prosperous Republic of Korea.

      When Communist forces in Vietnam unleashed the Tet Offensive, it fueled the debate here at home that raged over that war. You, our Vietnam veterans, didn’t always receive the respect you deserved-which was a national shame. But let it be remembered that you won every major battle of that war. Every one. And as President, I’ve been honored to welcome our Vietnam veterans to the White House to finally present them with the medals and recognition they had earned. It’s been a chance to convey, on behalf of the American people, those simple words with which our Vietnam veterans greet each other-“welcome home.”

      Legionnaires, in the decades that followed, the spirit of your service was carried forth by our troops in the sands of Desert Storm and the rugged hills of the Balkans. Now, it is carried on by a new generation. Next weekend, we will mark the 10th anniversary of those awful attacks on our nation. In the days ahead, we’ll honor the lives we lost and the families who loved them, the first responders who rushed to save others, and all those who have served to keep us safe these ten difficult years, especially the men and women of our armed forces.

      Today, as we near this solemn anniversary, it’s fitting that we salute the extraordinary decade of service rendered by the 9/11 Generation-the more than five million Americans who have worn the uniform over the past ten years. They were there, on duty, that September morning, having enlisted in a time of peace, but they instantly transitioned to a war-footing. They’re the millions of recruits who have stepped forward since, seeing their nation at war and saying “send me.” They’re every single Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman serving today, who has volunteered to serve in a time of war, knowing they could be sent into harm’s way.

      They come from every corner of our country, big cities and small towns, from every background and creed. They’re sons and daughters who carry on their family’s tradition of service, and new immigrants who’ve become our newest citizens. They’re our National Guardsmen and Reservists who have served in unprecedented deployments. They’re the record number of women in our military, proving themselves in combat like never before. And every day for the past ten years, these men and women have succeeded together-as one American team.

      A generation of innovators, they’ve changed the way America fights and wins its wars. Raised in the age of the Internet, they’ve harnessed new technologies on the battlefield. They’ve learned the cultures, traditions and languages of the places they’ve served. Trained to fight, they’ve taken on the role of diplomats, mayors and development experts, negotiating with tribal sheikhs, working with village shuras, and partnering with communities. Young captains, sergeants and lieutenants have assumed responsibilities once reserved for more senior commanders, reminding us that in an era when so many other institutions have shirked their obligations, the men and women of the United States military welcome responsibility.

      In a decade of war, they have borne an extraordinary burden, with more than two million of our service members deploying to the warzones. Hundreds of thousands have deployed again and again, year after year. Never before has our nation asked so much of our all-volunteer force-that one percent of Americans who wears the uniform.

      We see the scope of their sacrifice in the tens of thousands who now carry the scars of war, seen and unseen-our remarkable wounded warriors. We see it in our extraordinary military families who serve here at home-the military spouses who hold their families together; the millions of military children, many of whom have lived most of their young lives with our nation at war and mom or dad deployed.

      Most profoundly, we see the wages of war in those patriots who never came home. They gave their all, their last full measure of devotion, in Kandahar and the Korengal and Helmand, in the battles for Baghdad and Fallujah and Ramadi. Now they lay at rest in quiet corners of America, but they live on in the families who loved them and in a nation that is safer because of their service. And today we pay humble tribute to the more than 6,200 Americans in uniform who have given their lives in this hard decade of war. We honor them all.

      Through their service, their sacrifice, their astonishing record of achievement, our forces have earned their place among the greatest of generations. Toppling the Taliban in just weeks. Driving al Qaeda from the training camps where they plotted 9/11. Giving the Afghan people the opportunity to live free from terror. When the decision was made to go into Iraq, our troops raced across deserts and removed a dictator in less than a month. When insurgents, militias and terrorists plunged Iraq into chaos, our troops adapted, endured ferocious urban combat, reduced the violence and gave Iraqis a chance to forge their own future.

      When a resurgent Taliban threatened to give al Qaeda more space to plot against us, the additional forces I ordered to Afghanistan went on the offensive-taking the fight to the Taliban, pushing them out of their safe havens, allowing Afghans to reclaim their communities and training Afghan forces. And a few months ago, our troops achieved our greatest victory yet in the fight against those who attacked us on 9/11-delivering justice to Osama bin Laden in one of the greatest intelligence and military operations in American history.

      Credit for these successes, this progress, belongs to all who have worn the uniform in these wars. Today, we are honored to be joined by some of them. I would ask all those who served this past decade-members of the 9/11 Generation-to stand and accept the thanks of a grateful nation.

      Thanks to these Americans, we’re moving forward from a position of strength. Having ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops so far, we’ll remove the rest of our troops by the end of this year and end that war. Having put al Qaeda on the path to defeat, we won’t relent until the job is done. Having started to drawdown our forces in Afghanistan, we’ll bring home 33,000 troops by next summer and bring home more troops in the coming years. As our mission transitions from combat to support, Afghans will take responsibility for their own security, and the longest war in American history will come to a responsible end.

      For our troops and military families who have sacrificed so much, this means relief from an unrelenting decade of operations. Today, fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm’s way. For so many troops who’ve already done their duty, we’ve put an end to stop loss. And our soldiers can now look forward to shorter deployments. That means more time home between deployments and more time training for the full range of missions they’ll face.

      Indeed, despite ten years of continuous war, it must be said-America’s military is the best it’s ever been. We saw that again, most recently, in the skill and precision of our brave forces who helped the Libyan people finally break free from the grip of Moammar Qadhafi. And as we meet the tests that the future will surely bring, including hard fiscal choices here at home, there should be no doubt. The United States of America will keep our military the best-trained, the best-led, the best-equipped fighting force in history.

      As today’s wars end, as our troops come home, we’re reminded once more of our responsibilities to all who have served. For the bond between our forces and our citizens is a sacred trust. And for me and my administration, upholding that trust isn’t just a matter of policy. It’s not about politics. It’s a moral obligation.

      That’s why my very first budget included the largest percentage increase to the VA budget in the past 30 years. So far, we’re on track to have increased funding for Veterans Affairs by 30 percent. And because we passed advance appropriations, when Washington politics threatened to shut down the government last spring, the veterans medical care that you count on was safe.

      Let me say something else about the VA funding you depend on. As a nation, we’re facing tough choices as we put our fiscal house in order. But I want to be absolutely clear-we cannot, and we must not, balance the budget on the backs of our veterans. And as Commander in Chief, I won’t allow it.

      With these historic investments, we’re making dramatic improvements to veterans health care. We’re improving VA facilities to better serve our women veterans. And we’re expanding outreach and care for our rural veterans, like those I met during my recent visit to Cannon (Can-non) Falls, including two proud Legionnaires-Tom Newman of Legion Post 620 in Hugo and Joseph Kidd, Post 164 in Stewartville.

      For our Vietnam veterans, because we declared that three diseases are now presumed to be related to your exposure to Agent Orange, we’ve begun paying the disability benefits you need. For our veterans of the Gulf War, we’re moving forward to address the nine infectious diseases that we declared are now presumed to be related to your service in Desert Storm.

      At the same time, our outstanding VA Secretary, Ric Shinseki, is working every day to build a 21st century VA. Many of our Vietnam vets are already submitting their Agent Orange claims electronically. Hundreds of thousands of you, from all wars, are requesting your benefits online. Thanks to that new “blue button” on the VA website, you can now share your personal health information with your doctors outside the VA. And we’re making progress in sharing medical records between DOD and VA. We’re not there yet, but we’re going to keep at it until our troops and veterans have a lifetime electronic record that you can keep for life.

      Of course, we also have to do something else-break the backlog of disability claims. Now, I know that over the past year, the backlog has actually grown, due to new claims from Agent Orange. But let me say this, and I know Secretary Shinseki agrees: when our veterans who fought for our country have to fight just to get the benefits you’ve earned-that’s unacceptable.

      So this is going to remain a priority. We’re going to keep hiring new claims processors, keep investing in new paperless systems and keep moving ahead with our innovation competition in which our dedicated VA employees are developing new ways to process your claims faster-not in months, but days. The bottom line is this-your claims need to be processed quickly and accurately, the first time. And we’re not going to rest until we get this done.

      So too with our mission to end homelessness among our veterans. Already, we’ve helped to bring tens of thousands of veterans off the streets. For the first time ever, we’ve made veterans and military families a priority-not just at the VA and DOD, but across the federal government. And that includes making sure that federal agencies are working together so that every veteran who fought for America has a home in America.

      We’re working to fulfill our obligations to our 9/11 Generation veterans, especially our wounded warriors. The constant threat of improvised explosive devices has meant a new generation of service members with multiple traumatic injuries, including Traumatic Brain Injury. And thanks to advanced armor and medical technologies, our troops are surviving injuries that would have been fatal in previous wars. Put simply, we’re saving more lives, but more American veterans will live with severe wounds for a lifetime. So we need to be there for them-for their lifetime.

      We’re giving unprecedented support to our wounded warriors-especially those with TBI. And thanks to the veterans and caregivers legislation I signed into law, we’ve started training caregivers so they can receive the skills and stipends they need to care for their loved ones.

      We’re working aggressively to address another signature wound of this war, which has led too many fine troops and veterans to take their own lives-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We’re continuing to make major investments-improving outreach and suicide prevention, hiring and training more mental health counselors and treating more veterans than ever before.

      The days when depression and PTSD were stigmatized must end. That’s why I made the decision to start sending condolence letters to the families of service members who take their lives while deployed in a combat zone. These American patriots did not die because they were weak. They were warriors. And every man and woman in uniform, and every veteran, needs to know that your nation will be there to help you stay strong.

      In recent months, we’ve heard new reports of some of our veterans not getting the prompt mental health care they desperately need. That, too, is unacceptable. Because if a veteran has the courage to seek help, then we need to be doing everything in our power to deliver the life-saving mental health care they need. So Secretary Shinseki and the VA are going to stay on this. And we’ll continue to make it easier for veterans with post traumatic stress to qualify for VA benefits, regardless of the war you served in. If you served in a combat theater and a VA doctor confirms a diagnosis of PTSD, that’s enough.

      Which brings me to the final area where America must meet its obligations to our veterans, indeed, where we need each other-and that’s the task of renewing our nation’s economic strength. After a decade of war, it’s time to focus on nation building here at home. And our veterans, especially our 9/11 Generation veterans, have the skills and the dedication to help lead the way.

      That’s why we’re funding the post-9/11 GI Bill, which is now helping more than 500,000 veterans and family members go to college, get their degrees and play their part in moving America forward. It’s why, this fall, we’ll start including vocational training and apprenticeships as well, so veterans can develop the skills to succeed in today’s economy. And it’s why I’ve directed the federal government to hire more veterans, including more than 100,000 veterans in the past year and a half alone.

      But in this tough economy, far too many of our veterans are unemployed. That’s why I’ve proposed a comprehensive initiative to make sure we’re tapping the incredible talents of our veterans. And it’s got two main parts.

      First, we’re going to do more to help our newest veterans find and get that private sector job. We’re going to offer more help with career development and job searches. I’ve directed DOD and the VA to create a “reverse boot camp” to help our newest veterans prepare for civilian jobs and translate their exceptional military skills into industry-accepted licenses and credentials. And today I’m calling on every state to pass legislation that makes it easier for our veterans to get the credentials and the jobs for which they are so clearly qualified. This needs to happen.

      Second, we’re encouraging the private sector to do its part. I’ve challenged companies across America to hire or train 100,000 unemployed veterans or their spouses. This builds on the commitments that many companies have already made as part of the Joining Forces campaign championed by my wife Michelle and the Vice President’s wife, Dr. Jill Biden.

      100,000 jobs for veterans and spouses. And to get this done, I’ve proposed a Returning Heroes Tax Credit for companies that hire unemployed veterans, and a Wounded Warrior Tax Credit for companies that hire unemployed veterans with a disability. When Congress returns from recess, this needs to be at the top of the agenda. For the sake of our veterans, for the sake of our economy, we need these veterans working and contributing and creating the new jobs and industries that will keep America competitive in the 21st century.

      These are the obligations we have to each other-our forces, our veterans, our citizens. These are the responsibilities we must fulfill. Not just when it’s easy, or when it’s convenient, but always. That’s a lesson we learned again this year in the life and passing of Frank Buckles, our last veteran from the First World War, at the age of 110.

      Frank lived the American Century. An ambulance driver on the Western front, he bore witness to the carnage of the trenches. During the Second World War, he survived more than three years in Japanese prisoner of war camps. Like so many veterans, he came home, went to school, pursued a career, started a family and lived a good life, on his farm in West Virginia.

      Even in his later years, after turning 100, Frank Buckles still gave back to his country. Speaking to schoolchildren about his extraordinary life. Meeting and inspiring other veterans. And for 80 years, serving as a proud member of the American Legion.

      The day he was laid to rest, I ordered that flags be flown at half-staff-at the White House, at government buildings across the nation and at our embassies around the world. As Frank Buckles lay in honor at Arlington’s memorial chapel, hundreds passed by his flagged-draped casket in quiet procession. Most were strangers who never knew him, but they knew the story of his service and they felt compelled to offer their thanks to this American soldier.

      That afternoon, I went to Arlington to spend a few moments with Frank’s daughter Susannah who cared from her father to the very end. It was a chance for me to convey the gratitude of the entire nation and to pay my respects to an American who reflected the best of who we are as a people.

      And Legionnaires, it was a reminder-not just to the family and friends of Corporal Frank Buckles, but to the veterans and families of all generations: no matter when you served, no matter how many years ago you took off the uniform, no matter how long you live as a proud veteran of this country we love, America will never leave your side.

      God bless you, God bless all our veterans. And God bless the United States of America.

  19. Another hijack here. Just came across this site. Holy crap! Indoctrination teaching tools for the littlest minds.

  20. Coming soon to your local Mexican drug dealer….

  21. Buck the Wala says:

    Hmm…I know I’ve been criticized for posting from DailyKOS before (and probably will be again), but came across this just now. Forget the inherent dailyKOS bias and focus only on the numbers (caveat: haven’t had a chance to verify). Thoughts?

  22. Judge strikes down Texas Sonogram Law claiming it is a violation of “FREE SPEECH”. Really???????????

    AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge on Tuesday struck down key provision of Texas’ new law requiring a doctor to perform a sonogram before an abortion, ruling that the measure violates the free speech rights of both doctors and patients.

    The law – one of dozens of anti-abortion measures that advanced through state capitals across the United States this year – was set to take effect Thursday.

    A New York-based reproductive rights group had sued to block the law.

    U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said in his ruling that requiring a doctor to show women images from the sonogram and the sounds of the fetal heartbeat violates the First Amendment rights of doctors.

    The ruling also struck down a requirement that allows women to avoid seeing the sonogram images only if they sign a statement that they are pregnant because of sexual assault or incest. The state cannot compel a woman to disclose such private information that she may not even wish to tell police, Sparks ruled.

    Sparks ruled such disclosure is an attempt by the state to “permanently brand women who choose to get an abortion.”

    Hey Judge Sparks, since when is it “unconstitutional” for any Govt body to stigmatize a segment of our society? How do you defend the Federal Govt supposed ability to dictate rules of behavior among doctors, regarding patient disclosures, without Constitutional authority, then rule against the State doing the same thing, when it has such authority?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      So, to get this straight, you are ok with the government mandating doctors to perform a procedure and mandating patients to look at the results of that procedure?

      • Buck

        You should know better than to make that accusation of me. Do not confuse my defense of Constitutional authority or lack thereof with my support of the same. But I am not willing to simply ignore the document to achieve what I think to be the “right” thing to do, just because I find it objectionable to my own principles.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Fair enough, and I would agree that the requirement to perform the sonogram as violative of free speech is a bit tenuous. But as applied to requiring women to watch, absent some forced speech? Not to mention privacy issues as well.

        • Buck the Wala says:


          Had some time to look into this a bit this morning, and the holding was not based on requiring the sonogram to be performed, but was based on the requirement to describe those images to the patients, requiring the patients to hear those descriptions, or requiring patients to engage in forced speech to avoid being forced to hear those descriptions.

          “U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks upheld the requirement that sonograms be performed, but struck down the provisions requiring doctors to describe the images to their patients and requiring women to hear the descriptions.”

          • Do you know Buck, whether or not these sonograms can be used to determine legal viability of the fetus?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              From my understanding, completely unnecessary from any medical perspective and only being mandated by the gov’t in a paternalistic attempt to get women who have made such a tough decision to change their minds.

              • I was thinking more on the lines of-could it be used as a legal challenge to stop an abortion-if the sonogram showed that the woman’s pregnancy was further along than the law allowed.

%d bloggers like this: