Bankruptcy Obama War Romney Liberty Paul

Bankruptcy Obama War Romney Liberty Paul 


July 21, 2012


by Diane V. McLoughlin
main website mcloughlinpost.com


Two candidates remain in competition for leadership of the Republican Party:  former one-term governor Mitt Romney and 12-term Congressman and obstetrician, Dr. Ron Paul.  The Republican National Convention takes place this August, in Tampa, Florida.


Proxies have unleashed a barrage of attack ads in what appears to be an almost frantic attempt to magnify the minor differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The expense of these ad campaigns are expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars - a wasteful sum in these troubled economic times.   


Obama's healthcare insurance mandate forces the taxpayer to purchase private health insurance.  But private industry must seek to maximize profit while minimizing expense.  Government forcing people to purchase a privately produced product risks weakening further a system already accused of stingily doling out healthcare, with little accountability.  To be sure, there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the woeful state of healthcare in the U.S..  Everybody demands a rich cut - insurance companies, healthcare providers and drug companies - while many sick people are neglected or forced to go bankrupt.  The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who do go bankrupt due to exorbitant healthcare costs have insurance.  How the government guaranteeing insurance companies the taxpayers' business is going to help improve healthcare while controlling costs is the billion (or is it trillion?) dollar question.


'Obamacare' was modeled directly from the Massachussett healthcare model, which was rolled out during Mitt Romney's one-term as governor there.  

Both Obama and Romney support the continuance of formless, ill-defined, illegal wars. These regional pots we are stirring may represent - like a gathering storm on the horizon - a poorly organized (wildly unnecessary) yet potentially explosive World War Three. Not knowing when to quit is not new.  The difference is that, be it tribe, country or empire, nobody was armed with nuclear weapons. Nobody held the power, at the push of a button, to launch war with the potential to destroy all life on Earth. (Beware the nihilists itching to deploy nuclear bombs. )  

Both Obama and Romney support the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an odious set of new laws President Obama sanctified by signing during the Christmas holidays just past. (Irony.) The NDAA destroys all natural meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by empowering the government to kidnap and lock up anyone, including American citizens, and detain them indefinitely, in secret,  without charge or trial.

However, given that President Obama claims the executive power to order the assassination of U.S. citizens on his say-so alone, the NDAA is merely a tattered corner of the rule-of-law shredded picture.  Obama is handed the stats on individuals on cards, like baseball, only they're for intel on what suspects have done, are accused of having done, or are accused of thinking of doing.  Then the President gives a Caesar-like thumbs up or thumbs down.  Mistaken identity; falsely fingered by some guy being tortured at one of the country's many secret torture chambers around the world; well, too bad for you. There is no appeal.  You won't even know you're in the cards in the first place, most likely.

It would be wrong to suggest that President Obama is coming up with these ideas entirely on his own. It's the fact that he chooses to cooperate with what has devolved into a rotten political, bureaucratic, military, industrial system.  Barack Obama campaigned on the slogan, 'Change - Yes We Can!'  He could have.  But he hasn't and isn't.  

Mitt Romney surrounds himself with Bush Junior's neocon foreign policy advisers. His foreign policy stump speeches are so belligerent one wonders if  he's got 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' going around in his head like John McCain, before him.  All indications point in that direction.  


Mitt and Obama pass the system's muster because both are pro-war 'team players'.

As it stands, troops are being positioned in the Pacific (American; Canadian; presumably other countries, too.)  Literally hundreds of military bases (and bombs) are set up all over the planet.

The U.S. has its bloodied military fingers in so many overseas pies that it is difficult to keep them all straight, or to trust that it's possible that we can know them all given the machinations of clandestine networks such as the CIA.  The list includes Yemen; Iraq; Afghanistan; Pakistan; Libya; Syria; Palestine; Egypt; Bahrain and Iran (war ships being positioned directly off of Iran's coast now.)

The real 'prize', the goal, appears to be somehow 'controlling' Russia and China.

The closest we have come so far to nuclear war is during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The U.S. had placed nuclear weapons in Russia's backyard.  Russia retaliated by placing nuclear bombs in Cuba.  It became a dangerous nuclear stand-off.  We are again ringing Russia with missiles.  They don't like it.  It is clear that this course could lead to MADness: Mutually Assured Destruction.

Something else raises the risk of nuclear war further.  The longer nuclear weapons exist without large-scale and catastrophic use, the more complacent we become that such an eventuality could ever occur.  There was no complacency or false sense of invincibility in America during the Cuban missile crisis fiasco.  There are older apartment buildings in New York that, to this day, still have the signage posted indicating that the basements are to be used for nuclear fallout shelters. In point of fact, I and my elementary-aged school chums once howled with laughter when our teachers instructed us on how to cower beneath our desks, during a nuclear attack drill.  We could kiss our asses goodbye.

The fusing of private corporations and public governance is dangerous. It's a big part of the reason we are on the road we are on.

Ron Paul:

Ron Paul has fought corruption his entire Congressional career. Corporate lobbyists learned not to bother knocking on his door. His nickname on Capitol Hill: 'Dr. No'.

Above:  Congressman Dr. Ron Paul seated at his desk

In contrast to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul has the backbone to say, Enough!, to the evil twins of endless war and government corruption.

The media is answerable to only a few corporate masters. If you haven't heard of presidential candidate Ron Paul, or if you have and its been to marginalize him as a goof or a bad guy there are reasons for that - none of them, I am sorry to say, are honest.

The Republican leadership contest began with a field of nine contenders.  That field is now down to two.  That is not how it has been played out in the corporate press.  

The fact that Ron Paul has qualified to compete against Mitt Romney for leadership of the Republican Party is testament to his popularity, accomplished in spite of alleged state and national Republican Party leadership cheating, vote fraud, ballot box stuffing, and physical intimidation - broken fingers; a dislocated hip - and other shady works (example, Youtube clip, 'Interview Nevada Delegate Fraud'; at 4:56mins).

Below, award-winning news anchor, Ben Swann, discusses the current situation in Massachusetts. Seventeen elected delegates have been stripped of their appointed duty to vote for the next Republican Party leader, by the Mitt Romney camp within that state's party apparatus. Legal proceedings to reverse this sham are underway:










During the Republican leadership campaign, Ron Paul has garnered far and away more donations from veterans and active-duty military than all other candidates, combined.  The following short Youtube was posted early January, 2012.  To-date, it has garnered two million-plus views.

'Ron vs. Mitt (see why so many people believe in Ron Paul)':








Army veterans are organizing to march on the convention to pay their respects with a salute to Ron Paul  - the only presidential candidate who is, himself, a veteran.  As is so often the case, the one with military experience is the one most mindful of when, and when not, to send troops into harms' way. It is Ron Paul's conviction that it is well past time to bring the troops home.  Defend the country by all means.  But it is unconstitutional, as well as dangerous, to continue to try to be the policemen of the whole world. 


The march in Tampa to salute Ron Paul will not be the first such march. A similar march was held earlier in 2012 on President's Day, to honor Dr. Paul as the choice of the troops. In addition, a dedication was conducted in front of the White House for all soldiers who have fallen in Iraq since Obama pledged to bring the troops home from there. The ceremony was held with backs symbolically turned to President Obama, because he broke his promise, with tragic consequences.

In addition to Ron Paul's support from troops, there are not one but two liberty-celebrating events being held in Tampa the weekend before the convention.  Attendees who support Ron Paul for president will be travelling in from around the country to be there and could well be counted in the tens of thousands.

All eyes are on the GOP. Ron Paul has qualified to be on the ballot in Tampa. Will the Republican Party follow the rules and register Ron Paul?  It is certain that along with the underhanded activities of some, there are Republican Party leaders who have conducted themselves with grace, dignity and honor. Time will tell.  Heads democracy wins regardless of the outcome at the convention.  Tails, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama win the White House. In that case it may well be national bankruptcy and world war.

---------------------


Notes:  In state contests where Ron Paul won the majority of delegates, the national Republican Party has indicated that the papers to register Ron Paul for the Tampa leadership convention need to be filled out and sent in.  


I will hopefully get this posted to my main website in the next day or two.


Ron Paul on the Issues ;

A Ron Paul Youtube playlist

Question on corporate warfare for upcoming Canadian election debate

Diane V. McLoughlin, April 9, 2011

The Ottawa Peace Assembly recently e-mailed their subscribers to let them know that, by way of encouraging greater discussion and debate on Canada's participation in the wars, questions could be submitted to the media consortium hosts at question@electiondebate2011.ca.

Leaders of Canada's federal parties are participating in a televised debate, on April 12th, in English, and on April 14th in French (all the leaders, that is, except for Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, who apparently proved so threatening to the status quo during last elections' debates that she has been shut out.)   

Here is the debate question I submitted to the consortium:

'Will you commit your party to redirecting Canada's massive military spending, higher than at any point
since WWII at 22.3 billion [2010-2011] per year, away from financing military takeover and control of countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya - corporate welfare which sacrifices the lives of brave young men and women who serve in the armed forces who aren't told that the undeclared aim is to
control foreign mineral deposits such as oil; this military spending depletes our nation's financial reserves to enrich the few while making enemies abroad; will you commit to moving Canadian policy toward development of clean energy and greater energy efficiency, which would render our nation stronger, more prosperous and more secure?'

*Should a candidate try to object that we were never in Iraq, this is factually false. We were hip-deep in Iraq right from the beginning:
``````
Notes:

From Wikipedia's 'Canada and the Iraq War':

Though no declaration of war was issued, the Governor General-in-Council did order[ed] the mobilization of... Canadian Forces personnel to serve actively in Iraq.[1] On 31 March 2003, it was reported in Maclean's that in the previous month Canadian officers, aboard three frigates and a destroyer, had been placed in command of the multinational naval group Task Force 151, which patrolled the Persian Gulf region. A further 30 Canadians worked at the US Central Command in Qatar, and 150 troops were on exchange with US and British forces in proximity to combat.[2] North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) stationed Canadian Air Force pilots also flew combat missions with the US Air Force E-3 Sentry, and exchange officers fought with US units. In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict.

From, 'Canada's secret war in Iraq', by Richard Sanders:

On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing.... And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their government refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray:

Escorting the US Navy: Thirteen hundred Canadian troops aboard Canada’s multibillion dollar warships escorted the US fleet through the Persian Gulf, putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq.

Leading the coalition Navy: Canadian Rear Admiral Roger Girouard was in charge of the war coalition’s fleet.

Providing war planners: At least two dozen Canadian war planners working at US Central Command in Florida were transferred to the Persian Gulf in early 2003 to help oversee the war’s complicated logistics.

Commanding the war: In 2004, Canadian Brigadier General Walt Natynczyk commanded 10 brigades totalling 35,000 troops. He was Second-in-Command of the entire Iraq War for that year. When Governor General Clarkson gave Natynczyk the Meritorious Service Cross, her office extolled his “pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations [which] resulted in a tremendous contribution… to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and… brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.”

Helping coordinate the war: Canadian military personnel working aboard American E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System warplanes helped direct the electronic war by providing surveillance, command, control and communications services to US war fighters.

Providing airspace and refuelling: Countless US troop and equipment transport aircraft have flown over Canada, to and from the Iraq War, and many refuelled in Gander, Newfoundland.

Providing air transport: At least three Canadian CC-130 military transport planes were listed by US military to supply coalition forces during the Iraq War.

Freeing up US troops: Canada’s major role in Afghan war has freed up thousands of US troops for deployment to Iraq.

Providing ground troops: At least 35 Canadian soldiers were directly under US command, in an “exchange” capacity on the ground, participating in the invasion of Iraq.

Testing weapons and drones: Two types of cruise missiles (AGM-86 and -129) and the “Global Hawk” (RQ-4A) surveillance drone, used in Iraq, were tested over Canada.

Depleted uranium (DU) weapons: Canada is the world’s top exporter of uranium. Our government pretends that Canada’s uranium is sold for “peaceful” purposes only, but absolutely nothing is done to stop the US from using DU in their weapons. America’s A-10 Wart Hog warplanes have fired DU munitions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, while each cruise missile contains three kgs of DU ballast. Providing RADARSAT data: Eagle Vision, a US Air Force mobile ground station, ­which controls Canada’s RADARSAT-1 satellite and downlinks its data­, was used from the start of the Iraq War.

Diplomatic support: Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien supported the “right” of the US to invade Iraq, although Kofi Annan said it was an illegal occupation. Chrétien criticized Canadian citizens who questioned the war, saying they provided comfort to Saddam Hussein.

Training Iraqi police: Canada has spent millions sending RCMP officers to Jordan to train tens of thousands of cadets for Iraq’s paramilitary police force.

Training Iraqi troops: High-level Canadian military personnel joined the “NATO Training Mission in Iraq” to “train the trainers” of Iraqi Security Forces who are on the leading edge of the US occupation.

A Canadian colonel, under NATO command, was chief of staff at the Baghdad-based training mission.

Canada was the leading donor to this centre, providing an initial $810 thousand.

Funding Iraq’s interior ministry: Canada provides advisors and financial support to this ministry, which has been caught running torture centres.

Thousands of its officers have been withdrawn for corruption, and it has been accused of working with death squads that executed a thousand people per month in Baghdad alone in the summer of 2006.

Military exports: At least 100 Canadian companies sold parts and/or services for major weapons systems used in the Iraq War. Quebec’s SNC-TEC sold millions of bullets to the US military forces occupying Iraq. General Dynamics Canada, in London Ontario, sold hundreds of armoured vehicles to the US and Australia. Between October 2003 and November 2005, these troop transport vehicles logged over six million miles in Iraq. Winnipeg’s Bristol Aerospace sells cluster-bomb dispensing warheads used by US aircraft in Iraq.

Canada Pension Plan investments: Canadians are forced to invest their pension money in hundreds of military industries, including most of the world’s top 20 weapons producers, which are the leading prime contractors for virtually all the major weapons systems used in Iraq.

So the next time a proud fellow citizen tells you that Canada didn’t join the Iraq War, remind them of Mark Twain’s famous quip: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”  [From, 'Canada's Secret War in Iraq'; by Richard Sanders; as seen in Global Research.ca, February 17, 2008.]

Canada's support for Israel will lead to their 9/11 Part 1