None of us are fooled by CNN's agenda. I am Ron Paul supporter and look at how much of the time he had to speak his perspective to the questions that weren't pinpointed on important issues such as Oil, Corporations, Federal Reserve, Constitution, and the likes:

YouTube question: Good evening, candidates. This is (inaudible) from Arlington, Texas, and this question is for Ron Paul.
I've met a lot of your supporters online, but I've noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council of Foreign Relations, and some plan to make a North American union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico.These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory. So my question to you is: Do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?

Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Paul: Well, it all depends on what you mean by "all of this." the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a, quote, "conspiracy of ideas." This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty. And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up. And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It's not somebody made these up. It's not a conspiracy. They don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there's been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse. So it's not so much a secretive conspiracy, it's a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move into the direction of international government, more U.N. You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So, I'm against all that. But it's not so much as a sinister conspiracy. It's just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.

Cooper: Congressman Paul, thank you.

Emily: Hi, I am Emily and I am from Los Angeles.
The Republican Party once stood for limited government, which meant reduce federal spending because it cost less and we spent less.
However, over the past decade, real discretionary federal spending has in fact increased 40 percent, more than half of which has been non-defense related.
So my question is: What are the names of the top three federal programs you would reduce in size in order to decrease...

(Applause)

Cooper: Congressman Paul, the question was three programs.
Can you name three?

Paul: Yes, and I would like to state that, to the statement earlier made that we all went to Washington to change Washington and Washington changed us, I don't think that applies to me; Washington did not change me.

(Applause)

I would like to change Washington, and we could by cutting three programs, such as the Department of Education -- Ronald Reagan used to talk about that -- Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security is the biggest bureaucracy we ever had.

(Applause)

And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars, and we can spend most of that or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home.

McCain: I do not, and I think we should look very carefully at it. And I think we should look very carefully at some of the provisions, which according to The Wall Street Journal would increase an individual's tax rate up into the 30s.
Obviously, we need a simpler, fairer tax code. Everybody knows that. We need to have a commission that reports out a credible proposal. And then we do what we do with the base closing commissions. Congress can't fool around, they either vote yes or no.
If Congress can't fix the tax code, give me the job and I'll fix it.
I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.
(Applause)
And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed...
(Applause)
We allowed ...
(Audience booing)

Cooper: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.

McCain: We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.

(Audience booing)

And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, "Let us win. Let us...

(Applause)

Cooper: We will -- please. We will get to Iraq...

(Applause)

All right. Let me just remind everyone that these people did take a lot of time to ask these questions, and so we do want direct questions to -- the answers. We will get to Iraq later, but I do have to allow Congressman Paul 30 seconds to respond.

Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?
(Applause)
What John is saying is just totally distorted.
(Protester shouts off-mike)

Paul: He doesn't even understand the difference between non- intervention and isolationism. I'm not an isolationism, (shakes head) em, isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.
(Applause)

Governor Norquist: President Bush made a commitment when he ran for president in 2000 an 2004 that he would oppose and veto any tax increase that Congress sent him. My question to each of the candidates is: Would you promise to the people watching this right now, that you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you're president?

Paul: I have never voted for a tax increase; never will. But the tax issue is only one-half of it.

Journey: Hi. My name is Journey. I'm from Texas. And this question is for all (inaudible) pro-life candidates. In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Paul: You know, it's not a federal function to determine the penalties for a crime of abortion if it's illegal in a state. It's up to the state, it's up to the juries. And it should be up to discretion because it's not an easy issue to deal with. But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need.
(Applause)
But for the ...

Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Paul: Pardon me?

Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Paul: I don't personally think so. I'm an O.B. doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done.
But so I think it certainly is a crime. But I also understand the difficulties. I think when you're talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial birth abortions, I mean, there has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. But I really think it's the person who commits the crime. And I think that is the abortionist.

Cooper: So you're saying a doctor should be punished.
What sort of punishment should they get?

Paul: Well, I think it's up to the states. I'm not in the state -- I'm not running for governor. And I think it's different, and I don't think it should be all 50 states the same way. So, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide that.

Buzz Brockway: Hello. My name is Buzz Brockway from Lawrenceville, Georgia. All the talk about the war in Iraq centers around how quickly we can get out. I think that's the wrong question. We need to make a permanent or long-term military commitment to the region. By staying in Iraq, we provide long-term stability to the region, we provide support for our allies, and we act as a deterrent to the trouble-makers in the region. Which presidential candidate will make a permanent of long-term military commitment to the people of Iraq?
Thank you.

Paul: The best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That's the most important thing that we can do.

(Applause)

Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn't worked. There's less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south. The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They're in charge up north -- the Shia -- the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there's no violence up there or nearly as much. So, let the people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of ours -- we trade with them, the president comes here. What we achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the French and the Americans being in Vietnam. So it's time for us to take care of America first.

(Applause)

Cooper: Senator McCain?

McCain: Well, let me remind you, Congressman, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lost that conflict.

(Applause)

I think it's important for all Americans to understand the fundamental difference. After we left Vietnam, they didn't want to follow us home. They wanted to build their own workers' paradise. If you read Zarqawi, if you read bin Laden, if you read Zawahiri, read what they say. They want to follow us home. They want Iraq to be a base for Al Qaida to launch attacks against the United States. Their ultimate destination is not Iraq. Their ultimate destination is New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Phoenix, Arizona. This is a transcendent challenge of our time.

(Audience booing)

McCain: I believe that we can meet it and we will defeat it.

(Applause)

Cooper: Congressman Paul, I know -- we'll get everyone in on this. Congressman Paul, just wanted to allow you to respond.

Paul: Shortly after the Vietnam War ended, Colonel Tu and Colonel Summers met, and they were talking about this. And our -- and the American colonel said, "You know, we never lost one battle." And Colonel Tu, the Vietnamese says, "Yes, but that's irrelevant."
And it is irrelevant. But we have to realize why they want to come here. Wolfowitz even admitted that one of the major reasons that the Al Qaida was organized and energized was because of our military base in Saudi Arabia. He says, "Oh, now, we can take the base away." He understood why they came here. They come here because we're occupying their country, just as we would object if they occupied our country.

(Audience booing)

Mark Strauss: Mark Strauss, Davenport, Iowa.
This question is for Ron Paul. Mr. Paul, I think we both know that the Republican party is never going to give you the nomination. But I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox like that and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run.

Cooper: We're running short on time. I want to get Ron Paul's video in. Let's watch.

(Begin videotape)

Paul: The people are sick and tired of what they're getting, and they want some real changes.

I don't want to run your life. We need less taxation, less regulations, a better economic system.

We were not meant to be an empire; we were meant to be a republic, protecting liberty here at home.

It's up to you to spread this message around this country. This is an American cause, it's a cause of freedom. There's something going on in this country, and it stinks. It really stinks.

(End videotape)

Cooper: That's part of the Paul campaign.

Dr. Hank Campbell: Good evening. My name is Dr. Hank Campbell. I'm in Lake Worth, Florida. My question is our infrastructure. It's been estimated that to fix the bridges, the tunnels, the power grids, the water delivery systems in this country will be in excess of $2 trillion -- that is "t" for "trillion" -- and it is plural. Who among the candidates here is willing to step forward and begin to articulate the very difficult sacrifices which we need to make in order to start repairing America? Thank you.

Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: Well, I faced a situation like this, a microcosm of it in New York City. New York City hadn't invested in infrastructure for a very, long time. I had kind of gotten through its fiscal crisis that way. We started a long-term capital investment program on the infrastructure. My predecessor started it. I continued it. I turned it over to my successor and it really has done I think remarkable work in rebuilding the infrastructure of New York. That's what America needs. It can't be done by one president. This is something where you're going to need a succession of presidents to have a sustained program. Probably we should have budgeting that allows for -- we can't really have a capital budget under federal budgeting, but we could have a separate accounting. So that kind of budgeting is long-term, because this is going to help America over a 20- or a 30-year period. Most of the time when we're spending money, as Senator Thompson said, we're spending the next generation's money and we shouldn't be doing that. Fiscal conservatism is about preventing that. But when we're rebuilding our roads, rebuilding our bridges, building new bridges, rebuilding our infrastructure, that's actually going to benefit the next generation and the generation after. And there are ways to spread that out over a long period of time. But it needs a sustained program, and it cannot be done just by the federal government. It needs to be done as a partnership with state and local governments. And I believe I'd be in a good position to lead that.

Campbell: Congressman Paul, 30 seconds.

Paul: The infrastructure problem in this country is very, very serious. We as Americans are taxed to blow up the bridges overseas. We're taxed to go over and rebuild the bridges overseas while our bridges are falling down in this country. This country is going bankrupt, and we can't afford this. We need to take care of ourselves. We do not need to sacrifice one thing more. We just need to take care of ourselves and get the government out of our lives and off our back and out of our wallets.

(Applause)

Mark Strauss: Mark Strauss, Davenport, Iowa. This question is for Ron Paul. Mr. Paul, I think we both know that the Republican party is never going to give you the nomination. But I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox like that and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run. My question is for Ron Paul: Mr. Paul, are you going to let America down by not running as an independent? Thank you.

Paul: Now that's what I call a tough question, because I have no intention of doing this.
I am a Republican. I have won 10 times as a Republican and we're doing quite well. We had 5,000 people show up at a rally in front of the Independence Hall with blacks and Hispanics and a cross-section of this country. You know that we raised $4.3 million in one day?

(Applause)

Without spending one cent. We didn't even pay an individual to go out and they weren't professional fund-raisers. It came in here -- it was automatic. We're struggling to figure out how to spend the money. This is country is in a revolution. They're sick and tired of what they're getting. And I happen to be lucky enough to be part of it.

Out of at least 26 questions, Ron Paul was given chance to answer a few. In my perspective as well as any contenders', CNN YouTube Republican Debate wasn't impartial. It's truly sickening to see how each candidate was treated. If the host were to have a debate, it's the host's responsibility to make sure that every candidate have the opportunity to answer EVERY question or concern. CNN has lost my respect for them.

Source Link:
CNN YouTube Republican Debate Transcript
Part One
Part Two
The Huffington Post's Article and Comments
GOP Contenders Face YouTube Debate

"We Did It!!"

This is a thank you note by an organization, November 5th:

"I just wanted to thank you all for coming through on this momentous and now historic event. We’ve accomplished much and have added greatly to the Ron Paul advertising arsenal. To top it off we’re getting an amazing amount of free press and publicity for our efforts.

Many are baffled, they don’t understand how a rag tag bunch of patriots can defy the will of the “Main Stream Monarchy” and “The Decider” (King) George W. Bush. Well, they’ve never been too good at paying attention to history have they?

Of course we’re going to go for round two.. look for an event around the 15th and 16th of December (I’ll keep you informed). In the meantime there is another push for a donation rally on November 11th. This is a seperate group who are running the website http://www.ThisNovember11th.com. Check it out!

This was an incredible group effort and I’m proud to be fighting for liberty with Americans like you.

Sincerely,

Trevor Lyman"

Should you be interested to check out their website:

(1) http://thisnovember5th.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/we-did-it/

If you're interested in daily numbers on funds that were raised:

(2) http://thisnovember5th.wordpress.com/category/daily-numbers/

A Reality Check on Iran Policy and U.S. Campaign Politics

What in the world is going on here?! Why are they reluctant to sign the bill to prevent Bush Administration from going military? Does it feels like they are getting ready for another war? Aren't they confidence with their diplomacy skills with foreigners? Are they playing it safe for their chance to win presidency? What's going on here?? I wonder, though, what is Ron Paul's position on all this?:

"On November 1, 30 Democratic senators, led by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, delivered a strong letter to President Bush in response to his increasingly bellicose language on Iran. The letter informs the president that he does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without prior, specific authorization from the Congress. This message follows up on the bill proposed by Senator Webb and co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force on Iran. Senator Clinton, in fact, first proposed that the administration could not act without a wholly new authorization in a floor speech on February 14.

The November 1 letter directly addresses the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution, which declares a sense of the Senate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, an autonomous force within the Iranian military structure, is a terrorist organization. The resolution also makes explicit that it is a diplomatic sanction, not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action. During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran."

Durbin explained, "I am opposed to military action in Iran. To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''

As those who voted for its final Durbin version, including Senator Clinton, have made clear, the resolution is an attempt to inject a diplomatic element into a situation fraught with potential danger. This measure is just one of the appropriate tools at our disposal, and there should be other diplomatic initiatives, as Senator Clinton has proposed: strengthening multilateral negotiations and opening direct bilateral relations with Iran. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has not adopted the comprehensive diplomatic approach proposed by Senator Clinton.

The November 1 letter reinforces the actual language of the Durbin amended version of Kyl-Lieberman, calls for broad diplomacy of the kind advocated by Senator Clinton and puts the Bush administration on notice that it has no authorization for the use of military force against Iran. The letter states that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution "should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran. We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress."

Given these facts, distorted criticism of those senators who voted for the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman, especially Senator Clinton, and refusal to sign the November 1 letter lacks merit on the substance.

Senator Barack Obama was absent when the vote on Kyl-Lieberman was taken, though that has not prevented him from criticizing colleagues who participated in the debate and voted for it. He has also opted not to sign the letter to the president. Since then, he has repeatedly argued for direct presidential talks with the Iranian leadership with no preconditions. Rather than reinforcing diplomatic options, his actions have the effect of eschewing diplomatic efforts to bring the Revolutionary Guard to heel, while placing all his bets for peaceful coexistence with Iran in the future on his own charisma and charm.

He has also made clear that for him the paramount enemy is George W. Bush, not an organization that has a history of involvement in terrorism and has been actively targeting American troops in Iraq.

As one who practiced diplomacy on behalf of our country for decades, including as the acting ambassador in Iraq during Desert Shield, where I personally confronted Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, Senator Obama's approach seems to me to misunderstand diplomacy. Needless to say, profound distrust of Bush and the administration is more than merited. I yield to nobody in my own efforts to bring their lies to public attention. But the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman and the November 1 letter are clear in drawing lines in not granting the Bush administration authority it does not have.

The administration has rightly been criticized for its refusal to use the broad array of tools at our disposal other than military action in the conduct of national security. War has been its first, second and final option -- its preferred option -- with disastrous results. Successful policy-making requires the use of complex diplomacy, carrots and sticks -- incentives, such as structured talks, and disincentives, such as sanctions against rogue elements. Coping with the Bush administration should not cause us to ignore at our peril very real adversaries that would do us harm. These clearly include Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Senator Obama's criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic."

Source Link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/a-reality-check-on-iran-p_b_70973.html

A respond to "What Really Divides Us" Article

Cal,

I enjoyed the article you contributed under "What Really Divides Us" post. It made me think hard about it's final paragraph/statement of what really makes the case of liberty. To quote, "the true antidote to racism is liberty" which reinforces that, "we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism" clearly drives those nails at the stake. I can't think of a better way to put it than that article. Jumping over to your comments in reference to this article, I found myself with this dilemma: Obama and Hillary's ordeal as proving themselves individuals, while clashing across political grounds of chess playing you-ain't-enough tokenism. A month ago during DPHH socializing, I found myself returning home and stopped by the Eastern Market Metro area in a bar. I ended up getting into a discussion with a group of African-Americans/Blacks (whichever's the appropriate term nowadays) about who they were going to vote. All five of them proclaimed that they were voting for Hillary or Kucinich. I politely asked them why they weren't going to vote for Obama since it would-in my own thinking-reinforce their viewpoint that anyone can run as president despite race, creed, or personal choices. The majority of them stated that they didn't think he would do well with serving the Af-Am/Black community or that he didn't have the right background to represent. I find this statement directly parallelling Hillary's case as well. When I ask females of miscellaneous social areas why they weren't voting for Hillary it was either she's "too radical/feminist" or they simply were not ready to see a woman being able to run this country. However, to make a note of the last sentence: it came from a majority of senior citizen women...I would guess that their conscious and well-being are still based on their thoughts from youth which evidently planted their seeds firmly. Another interesting comment I heard was that this person strongly did not believe that a woman should submit and stay with their partner after an affair. This is solely the ONLY reason why this person wasn't voting for Hillary. Now here's my question and thoughts: why is any of this a matter to be reckoned with??? Why should their status as who they are nowadays (as well as their historical past) be relevant in how they will run this country??? In fact, everything that people talk about is clearly missing out on the very thing that needs to be discussed: are they able to run this country well? If so, can they clearly demonstrate themselves as competent beings that effectively follow suit just as previous great presidents (Kennedy & Clinton) as well as provide reasonable control that showcase directness of role model that puts the bad presidents out of image (Bush & Nixon)? I personally try my best to judge each candidate for 2008 election with these questions in mind. It is indeed sad that collective members associate their bias views and labels of judgement solely on whether these candidate's membership is viewed as acceptable. Kudos to you Cal for bringing up a wonderful article.

-Joshua