A few minutes ago Ron Paul had his allotted 5 minutes to ask questions during a joint hearing regarding U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan. He used his time to fight for his own view on a non-interventionist foreign policy. He did so rather sarcastically. Then he questions the top 3 foreign policy makers in the U.S. (other than Obama) whether or not they believe in the “Bush Doctrine” of “preventive war”.
Unsurprisingly, they didn’t answer the question as Paul’s time ran out. Check it out below.
During Ron Paul’s alloted 5 minutes to question Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding foreign policy Clinton took the opportunity to heap praise on Ron Paul and his enthusiastic supporters during the Presidential campaign following her answer.
It was a rather classy move by Clinton I must say. We even got to hear here infamous cackle when the chair of the committee said following her remarks, “Now your going to encourage them!”
Check out the lovefest below which also includes Ron Paul’s full question.
Quote of the Day: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
There’s a civil war going on in Mexico. It’s the drug cartels, funded by obscene black market profits, versus the government, funded by obscene taxes.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico this week. She’s from the U.S. Federal Government and she was there to help. She promised . . .
* More taxpayer money to fight Mexico’s war on drugs
* Gun control laws here in the U.S.A. . . .
. . .to stop the flow of guns to the Mexican drug cartels.
Ms. Clinton seems to think that gun prohibition is the way to enforce drug prohibition. She’s right about one thing. Drug prohibition and gun prohibition are the same issue.
Now, you might think drugs are bad. You might believe them to be so harmful you’d never use them. But you probably expect the politicians to keep their hands off your firearms.
On the other hand, you may think guns are evil. You might believe they’re so dangerous, you’d never own one. But you think you have every right to choose what substances you take into to your own body.
“You can’t walk around unless you’ve got flak jackets, helmets on all the time, no matter where you are. It’s always struck me it’s almost like a Fellini movie, kind of unreal. The American people are told things are stable and secure, and violence is down. No American would walk outside there without a convoy!” — Chuck Hagel, upon returning from Baghdad
Many people think the U.S. occupation of Iraq has become a non-issue, for two reasons . . .
1. Violence is down
2. The U.S. government signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to continue the occupation
We feel differently. We think the occupation is still an issue, because . . .
* American soldiers continue to die
* The factions in Iraq haven’t reached a settlement, and have no incentive to do so as long as we remain there
* Somalia and Lebanon show that stable societies are grown from within, not engineered from without
* The “agreement” to continue the occupation was signed by a U.S. government that has now been repudiated
* The public legitimacy of the Iraqi government is also highly questionable
* The dollars being spent in Iraq belong in the pockets of struggling U.S. taxpayers
This is why we think the occupation is still an issue. We still want the occupation to end. We want change.
Barack Obama won election by promising change. He distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton and John McCain by having always opposed the Iraq invasion, and by promising to leave Iraq sooner rather than later. Iraq was a key issue to millions of Obama voters. Will they get the change they sought? Consider these points . . .
“When the American people, facing a foreclosure crisis and struggling economy, turned to this administration for help, the answer was no,” Clinton said in a statement. ”Now, the administration is turning to the American people for help, to rescue the credit markets and take on hundreds of billions in debt and financial obligations as a consequence of that same foreclosure crisis. The truth is, Main Street came to Washington and got little. Now Washington is coming to Main Street and asking for a lot.”
“I will be examining the administration’s proposal very closely to ensure that we do not approve a policy that may stabilize the markets in the short term without addressing the root problems facing middle class families or the kinds of reckless gambling that was permitted for far too long by the administration. The Bush Administration may have changed its tune once the crisis facing Main Street hit Wall Street. But we need to be sure that the American taxpayers – asked to shoulder yet more risk and responsibility – have a voice.”
As Mike Miller pointed out in his article (rant) earlier this week, it was Hillary’s husband Bill who deserves at least some of the blame for our current economic woes. Clinton politics and politics in general has become based on strategic convenience rather than truth. No wonder the U.S. electorate can’t decide between Obama and McCain as evidenced by the yo-yo polling results. Once one of them gets a lead in the polls people realize, “Oh crap, we can’t have him as President” so the other then takes the lead only to lose it again due to the same dissatisfaction. I’ll keep on dreaming that someday people will realize they have other viable options.
What is most interesting is that we are now hearing a somewhat libertarian or typical conservative low tax argument from Mrs. Clinton. I guess the strategy is any attack is a good attack even if it doesn’t suit the attacker all that well.
While watching Neil Cavuto rip apart Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor, my blood pressure rose a few points when I heard Bill O’Reilly call for the government to “watch over” banks and businesses to make sure they’re not preying on unsuspecting innocent people. He ranted that “it was wrong for those banks to lend to people who can’t pay it back” and my my blood pressure shot through the roof. While in chat with a friend, I ranted: (slightly edited to remove cursing)
(12:32:26 AM) LibertarianMikeM:I get so (bleep)ing pissed off when liberals (and apparently also neocons like Bill O’Reilly) say that “it was wrong for those banks to lend to people who can’t pay it back” when in fact it was Clinton Administration (thanks to the Community Redevelopment Act in the late 60′s) who FORCED the banks to give out loans to “underprivileged” buyers. So the banks did what they were told even though it was a bad idea, and then when things went wrong, they blame the banks. WTF? (12:32:45 AM) LibertarianMikeM:Here in Baltimore, the exact thing is happening. Wells Fargo was coerced (by threat of being called racists) to make loans available to many people who didn’t have the means to pay back to the loans. Then the housing bubble burst, and people started defaulting on their loans causing this huge mess, and now the city is suing Wells Fargo for being “greedy” and handing out these loans. (12:32:58 AM) LibertarianMikeM:What a (bleeped) up situation!
While I’m sure there were some cases of overly-zealous loan officers taking advantage of the “good times” at the height of the bubble, it cannot be denied that many banks were coerced into handing out questionable loans against their will. They were forced by legislators to go against their own policies in the name of “social progress”. Then when all the foreclosures came, nobody seemed to remember it was the government’s intervention that cause the problem in the first place. It’s oh so convenient to blame the “greedy” bankers.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
Nevertheless, the media constantly repeats the lies and the drooling masses suck it all up. Then all these unconstitutional bailouts, and we’re way over our heads in debt. There’s no doubt in my mind that the only possible end result of all of this is economic collapse.
Although Ron flounders a little at the end there, he pretty much sums it up in a way that I think a lot of us have never fully considered: 16% of the country votes for one candidate, and the rest of us, the true majority, are all left feeling like “the minority”. Footage below, including what we can and need to do about it:
Although it’s only been a few short days since the announcement that Sarah Palin will be John McCain’s running-mate, those few days have been interesting ones, indeed.Regardless of your choice of party or candidate, Mrs. Palin’s candidacy has evoked strong responses across the board.And I am sure there is much more to come.
In an effort to respond to recent criticisms of Palin, and also draw sympathy from Democratic Hillary supporters, McCain promptly marched out his original choice for a Republican “answer to Hillary” herself, Carly Fiorina.
“I am appalled by the Obama campaign’s attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience”, Carly Fiorina said in a statement on Tuesday.
“The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a mayor and governor than Barack Obama has made in his life.”
Well, Carly, speaking of “executive decisions”, we need not mention that a string of successive and significantly devious executive decisions of your own directly lead to the downfall of several great companies, and the financial ruin of many American families.
Quite frankly, Carly, I, myself, am appalled that a “newly-decided” Republican, such as yourself, is allowed to speak at the RNC, while a true conservative and long-standing Republican, Ron Paul, has been repeatedly denied the opportunity to speak, and essentially banned from the Convention altogether (please see previous posts regarding both the Ron Paul Rally, as well as the mixed messages surrounding Ron Paul’s potential admission into the RNC via “escort only”.)
I am more than slightly concerned that a corrupt former executive is becoming a face for the Republican Party, while a phenomenally successful Presidential Candidate, one who preaches fiscal conservatism and responsibility; one who glistens with integrity and honor, is not only shut out by the media, but also by his own party.
As far as “Sarah Plain ‘N Tall” herself goes, don’t sweat it. If it doesn’t even occur to The McCain Team to perform due diligence step number one, look for potential skeletons and scandals, then there isn’t really much hope that McCain could possibly be a good leader.