intheav.com Blogs - American - My Blog

This is why Ron Paul's foreign affairs are EXACTLY geared for the proper way towards peace. It has SO MUCH to do with FREE TRADE!!! FOR EVERYONE!!!

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:10:54 +0000

Jan 5 2012, 5:22 PM ET 45 A week ago Ron Paul tried to convey how the ever-tightening sanctions on Iran--which may soon include an embargo on its oil--look from an Iranian point of view: It's as if China were to blockade the Gulf of Mexico, he said--"an act of war". This is sheer conjecture; Ron Paul is no expert on Iran. But now someone who does have relevant credentials has weighed in, and the picture he paints is disturbingly reminiscent of the one Paul painted. It suggests we may be closer to war than most people realize. Vali Nasr, in addition to being a highly respected expert on the Middle East, belongs to a family that, according to Lobelog's sources, has "a direct line into Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's inner circle." In a Bloomberg View piece that is getting a lot of attention, Nasr reports that "Iran has interpreted sanctions that hurt its oil exports, which account for about half of government revenue, as acts of war." Indeed, the Iranian leadership now sees U.S. policy as "aimed at regime change." In this light, Iran's recent threats--notably that it will close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an oil embargo--shouldn't be dismissed, says Nasr. "The regime in Tehran is ready for a fight." The good news is that Nasr thinks war can be averted. The bad news is that to accomplish this America and other Western powers need to "imagine how the situation looks from Tehran"--not exactly a favorite pastime among American politicians these days. Still, if only for the intellectual exercise, let's do try to imagine what things look like from Iran's point of view. Iran's nuclear scientists have recently evinced a tendency to get assassinated, and a mysterious explosion at a military facility happened to kill the general in charge of Iran's missile program. These things were almost certainly done by Israel, possibly with American support. If you were Iranian, would you consider assassinations on your soil grounds for attacking the suspected perpetrators? Well, we know that some notable Americans think assassinating people on American soil is punishable by war. After the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi Ambassador in Washington was uncovered, Bill Kristol (whom you may recall from our previous run-up to a disastrous war) recommended that we attack Iran. But I'm guessing that if I tried this Iran-America analogy out on Kristol, he might detect asymmetries. For example: We're us, whereas they're just them. Underlying our Iran strategy is the assumption that if we keep ratcheting up the pressure, the regime will eventually say uncle. A problem with this premise is that throughout human history rulers have shown an aversion to being seen by their people as surrendering. Indeed, when you face dissent, as the Iranian regime does, there's actually a certain appeal to confronting an external threat, since confrontation tends to consolidate domestic support. As Nasr puts it, "the ruling clerics are responding with shows of strength to boost solidarity at home." This doesn't mean Iran's rulers haven't wanted to make a deal. But it does mean the deal would have to leave these rulers with a domestically plausible claim to have benefited from it, and it also means these leaders can't afford to be seen begging for the deal. When President Ahmadinejad visited New York last year, he gave reporters unmistakable signals that he wanted to negotiate, but the Obama administration chose to ignore them. After Ahmadinejad "went home empty handed," reports Nasr, power increasingly shifted to Iranians who argued for confrontation over diplomacy. Even so, Iran's foreign minister made another appeal to re-open talks only days ago, suggesting that they be held in Turkey. But, as the New York Times reported, western nations interpreted this overture "as an effort by Iran to buy time to continue its program." Got that? If Iranians refuse to negotiate it means they don't want a deal, and if they ask to negotiate it means they don't want a deal. Nasr says the tightening of the screws is making Iran increasingly determined to get nuclear weapons--not to start a war, but to prevent one. Having seen what happened to Muammar Qaddafi, says Nasr, Iran's leaders worry that foreign powers would "feel safe enough to interfere in the affairs of a non-nuclear-armed state." This is the kind of thing Ron Paul presumably had in mind when he said Iran may want nuclear weapons in order to get some "respect." But hey, what does Ron Paul know?

Love It!!! Reform at the Top and LET THAT TRICKLE DOWN!!! Watch out Fascist leaders of ALL municipalities LARGE and SMALL!!!

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:34:58 +0000

THIS IS FROM YAHOO NEWS!! COMMENTARY | It's been fun to watch Texas Congressman Ron Paul this year. He comes across as a nervous little fellow at times, but he has some truly good ideas and some really off-the-wall ideas too. He was virtually ignored by everyone for months, but lately seems to be the candidate that everyone is now watching. The Daily Caller reported Paul was the topic of conversation by all the talking heads on Sunday's installment of "This Week." Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan even went so far as to say Paul can give President Barack Obama a run for the money. I'm not so sure about that. Paul definitely has a loyal set of supporters -- there's no question about that. Articles that praise Ron Paul receive mass praise from his supporters too. But, be the least bit critical of the retiring congressman and masses of negative comments pour in too. It would be laughable if we weren't discussing the future of our country. That's one thing I really like about Paul and his supporters: They get it. They understand the United States is facing serious challenges and it's going to take more than a good sound bite to cure the nation's ills. They understand that the deficit is out of control. They know that a radical new approach is needed in Washington if we are going to avoid a financial collapse on a scale that this country has never seen before. What they don't get, however, is it takes more than just a good idea to win the nomination. And, without the nomination, there is no chance of winning the White House. Paul has to begin winning over mainstream Republicans to secure the nomination. He will win Iowa -- his supporters know how to work the caucus system. That will generate enormous momentum for Paul as he heads to the New Hampshire primaries. Primaries, however, are a different political animal. He's going to have to appeal to the masses and get them to the polls. I definitely was not following Paul this year, but I can say he has won my curiosity. He is a viable alternative to the GOP pack that seems to be saying what Americans want to hear and not what they need to hear. His ideas may be a bit radical at times, but he's got a foundation to work from in crafting new alternatives to governing. I like that. ..

I FOUND IT! I thought it was lost for good, but NO WAY JOSE GONZO BATES....Check this out!!!

Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:47:56 +0000

I saw the debate on the internet after it aired,and EVERY place cut this particular part out. You cant find it anywhere.....EXCEPT NOW....Here it is on the question about Rick Perry joining the race, (this was right before he officially announced, even though those of us who pay attention to the global elites knew he was going to run being the Bilderberg choice for the GOP).

The best speech from the Republican Leadership Conference

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:01:44 +0000

And without further ado ( is that how you spell it)...anyways...here is...the one....the only....

View of the U.S.of A around the world, and is continuing at an alarmingly rapid pace...this needs to change. VOTE FOR RON PAUL 2012!!!

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:34:33 +0000

Dear Western Leaders: Please shut up By: Mike Tudoreanu | February 06, 2011 | ShareThis Courtesy blog.uswtmc.org The peoples of the Arab world are rising. It started in Tunisia, spread to Egypt, and there are rumblings of discontent in Yemen, Jordan and Sudan. Corrupt dictators, who have ignored the needs of the many and pandered to the interests of big business for decades, finally have reason to be afraid. One of them, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, has already fled his sinking ship. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak seems determined to go down fighting, and take as many innocent lives as possible with him. In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh quickly announced that he will quit later this year, and the protests have only just begun. All three of them have ruled for over 20 years � almost 30 in Mubarak�s case. The King of Jordan is also looking worried. Saudi Arabia is quiet at the moment, but the amazingly rich � and amazingly repressive � House of Saud is probably concerned about the family business. Democracy is coming to the Middle East, and it looks like secular democracy. Young Arabs do not seem to share the West�s obsession with political Islam, and religion is no more than a background issue at best. Islamic extremists exist, but they were caught by surprise and left in the dust. Egyptian Muslims and Christians are marching in the streets side by side. Western leaders have been talking about stuff like this for years. One would expect them to be overjoyed at the prospect of a democratic Middle East. But instead, they look concerned and somber. They call for �stability,� not freedom or democracy. The problem, you see, is that most of the endangered dictators are their friends. Mubarak alone receives $1.5 billion in US military aid every year. Some Western leaders have made clear where their sympathies lie, and it�s not with the people of Egypt. Joe Biden said in a recent interview that he doesn�t think Mubarak is a dictator. That�s right: a man who has been president for 30 years and was, until recently, planning to hand over power to his son; a man who relies on a brutal secret police; a man who keeps �winning� elections just as free as the ones that used to be �won� by Saddam Hussein; a man who routinely imprisons people who speak out against him � this man is not a dictator. Why is that again? Because, in Joe Biden�s own words, �Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he�s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel.� So, apparently, being a friend of the US automatically makes you okay no matter how often you send your thugs to beat up or kill innocent people. Even worse were the comments of Tony Blair. Just this Wednesday, he actually had the audacity to say that Mubarak is �extremely courageous and a force for good.� Now, bear in mind, this is Tony Blair we�re talking about, the second most enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War. The former British Prime Minister who said he had to send troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein despite massive anti-war protests, because removing a dictator was the right thing to do. Now he sings the praises of a different dictator and compliments him on his great courage � presumably the courageous way he decided to repress the protesters calling for his resignation. I used to think Tony Blair had misguided principles, now I see he has no principles at all. The hypocrisy of Western leaders is utterly shocking. Tyrants who oppose the interests of Western capitalism are evil dictators who must be removed by force in the name of justice and freedom. If some people get killed in the process, well, that�s just collateral damage. Tyrants who support the interests of Western capitalism, on the other hand, are responsible and courageous forces for good, and totally not dictators. When people rise up against them to demand affordable food and fewer jackboots in their faces, well, that�s just rude. You see, it�s oh so very destabilizing when you topple a dictator- sorry, I mean a courageous leader. Before you know it, there might be free elections, and that means we don�t know who�s going to win! It might be anyone! Imagine that. Sarcasm aside, can you imagine what would have happened if people were protesting on the streets of Iran instead of Egypt? Actually, you don�t need to imagine, it happened last year. Predictably, Western leaders immediately called for democracy and the resignation of Ahmadinejad � who does count as a dictator, apparently, even though he has far less power than Mubarak. It is now clear as day that the only things Western politicians care about are their own interests, and they are equally willing to support a democracy or a brutal dictatorship as long as it is self-serving. The fact that these people can support Mubarak (or the House of Saud for that matter) while fighting wars for �democracy� elsewhere is frankly sickening. Western leaders have completely lost any right to talk about democracy anywhere in the world.

ATTN: Black People...Dont be fooled!!!!!

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:58:42 +0000

This is the kind of knowledge I like to see being spread....grassroots, homegrown....straight truth

The Bill Hicks Story

Thu, 05 May 2011 03:29:29 +0000

This guy KNOWS EXACTLY what he is talking about!!!!

This is for all of us young, interested individualcome on here, and don't say anything. Just Listen.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:22:09 +0000

Don't trust anybody over 30 unless they agree with this man!!!!

This is maybe one of the ONLY videos that makes me feel like marijuana should remain illegal.

Sun, 09 Jan 2011 04:23:33 +0000

Nothing Political, just a little motivation!!

Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:25:59 +0000

This is where I ended up in a Sativa data mining session. It wraps it all up right here!!!

The New Deal and Prohibition.

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:27:17 +0000

"Cut and Paste" from Jay Nock on December 28, 2010 Sorry guys, but I just have to share this paper.... [This article originally appeared in the American Mercury in March 1936.] I believe that when the historian looks back on the last 20 years of American life, the thing that will puzzle him most is the amount of self-inflicted punishment that Americans seem able to stand. They take it squarely on the chin at the slightest provocation and do not even wait for the count before they are back for more. True, they have always been good at it. For instance, once on a time they were comparatively a free people, regulating a large portion of their lives to suit themselves. They had a great deal of freedom as compared with other peoples of the world. But apparently they could not rest until they threw their freedom away. They made a present of it to their own politicians, who have made them sweat for their gullibility ever since. They put their liberties in the hands of a praetorian guard made up exactly on the old Roman model, and not only never got them back, but as long as that praetorian guard of professional politicians lives and thrives � which will be quite a while if its numbers keep on increasing at the present rate � they never will. But though Americans have always known how to make the old-time Flagellants look like amateurs at the business of scourging themselves, it is only in the last 20 years that they have really shown what they can do. The plagues of Egypt, the flies, frogs, hail, locusts, murrain, boils, and blains are as nothing by comparison with the curses they have brought down on themselves in that time, all of their own free will and accord. They diddled themselves into a war to make the world safe for democracy � and look at democracy now! They took on the war debts and financed the "reconstruction" of Europe � and now they are holding the bag. They fell for the "new economics" of blessed memory and took a handsome fling at jazz-and-paper in the 1920s. They went in strong for Prohibition; and then, even before they came out from under that nightmare, they threw themselves body and soul into the fantastic imbecilities of the New Deal. What a spectacle! There is no use, none in the world, of pretending that the praetorian guard dragooned, cajoled, or humbugged the people of this country into taking up with all this appalling nonsense, and at the same time pretending that the country is a republic in which the people are sovereign. You cannot have it both ways. If the professional politicians, who are known of all men to be pliant mountebanks when they are not time-serving scoundrels, and are usually both � if these have power to herd the people headlong into such bizarre rascalities and follies against their will and judgment, then the country is not a republic but an oligarchy built on an imperial model, and its people are not citizens, but subjects. If, on the other hand, it is a republic and the people are sovereign, then the misfeasances of the professional politicians run straight back to the people who elected them. When Golden Rule Jones was mayor of Toledo, a man wrote him for help, saying that whisky had been his ruin. Jones answered his letter, saying, "I do not believe whisky has been your ruin. I believe it was the whisky that you drank." The reader may take his choice between these alternatives. No matter which of the two is right, the fact remains that the individual citizen, or subject, has lost the best that was in him. Whether he surrendered it or whether he let it be confiscated is not what I am so much concerned with at the moment � although the question is important enough and ought to be ventilated � as I am with the fact that it is gone. Not only his liberty is gone but something much more valuable: his belief in liberty and his love of it, his power of quick and effective resentment against any tampering with the principle of liberty by anybody. This is as much as to say that his self-respect, dignity, his sense of what is due to him as a human being, has gone, and that is exactly what I mean to say. It has gone into the keeping of persons most notoriously unworthy of such a trust, or of any trust; persons capable of deliberately conniving � and who do connive � at the temporary ruin of their country for political purposes. I say this with respect to no particular party or faction, for however many nominally there may be of these, there are never actually more than two. As Mr. Jefferson said, The nest of office being too small for them all to cuddle into at once, the contest is eternal which shall crowd the other out. For this purpose they are divided into two parties, the Ins and the Outs. In the last conversation I had with the late Brand Whitlock, a few months before his death, we spoke of the remarkably rapid dwindling of the sense of self-respect in America, and he asked me if I remembered how thoroughly the country was worked up by a little incident that took place only 25 years before. I remembered it well, because we had happened to be together at the time, and we had commented on the wholesome general resentment that the outrage provoked. State prohibition was in force then, and somewhere down south a posse of state officials boarded a train and slashed open the suitcase of a through passenger who had stood on his rights and refused to unlock it. That incident went the length and breadth of the land, and was talked about in good plain language, not by a few doctrinaires, but by Tom, Dick, and Harry on the streets. Yet, as Mr. Whitlock said, in the America of 25 years later, such a thing would not even be news, and nowhere would there be a breath of indignation against it. Mr. Whitlock died, as an honorable man would wish to do, before he could see the upshot of most of the policies that the people of Prohibitionist and post-Prohibitionist America have inflicted on themselves in the name of good government. Many of us, indeed, appear or pretend not to see it even now. I think, for instance, that no one has adequately remarked the ease and naturalness of the transition from Prohibition to the New Deal. Someone may have done it, but if so it has escaped me. There is a complete parallel between them. They are alike in their inception. They are alike in their professed intention. As for their fundamental principle, they are so far alike that the one is a mere expansion of the other. They are alike in respect of the quality of the people who support them, alike in respect of the kind of apologists they attract to their service, and, finally, they are alike in their effect upon the spirit and character of the nation. Alike in their origin, both were brought about by a coup d'�tat, the work of a determined minority at a time when the country was writhing in one of its recurrent spasms of discreditable and senseless funk � or, I should rather say, when it had passed beyond its norm of imbecile apathy and gone into the stage of vociferous idiocy. Not long ago I had a letter from a French friend who remarked that "quand les Am�ricains se mettent � �tre nerveux, ils d�passent tout commentaire,"[1] which is indeed true, so I imagine that what I have just said is perhaps the best one can do by way of describing the country's state of mind. Prohibition came when we were "making a business of being nervous" about the great cause of righteousness that we were defending against the furious Goth and fiery Hun. The New Deal came when we were making a business of being nervous about the depression; that is, nervous about having to pay collectively the due and just penalty of our collective ignorance, carelessness, and culpable greed. Prohibition and the New Deal are alike in their professed intention, if one may put it so, to "do us for our own good." Both assumed the guise of disinterested benevolence towards the body politic. In the one case we were adjudged incapable of setting up an adequate social defense against the seductions of vicious rum-sellers; in the other, of defending ourselves against injuries wrought by malefactors of great wealth; therefore the State would obligingly come forward and take the job off our hands. "Both were brought about by a coup d'�tat, the work of a determined minority at a time when the country was writhing in one of its recurrent spasms of discreditable and senseless funk." In the case of Prohibition we can now see what those professions amounted to, and we are beginning to see what they amount to in the case of the New Deal; and in either case we see nothing but what we might have seen at the outset � and what some of us did see � by a brief glance at the kind of people engaged in promoting both these nostrums, and a briefer glance at their record. We see now that the promotion of Prohibition was purely professional, and there is nothing to prevent our seeing that so was the promotion of the New Deal. In 1932, the local politicians and the political hangers-on who together make up the "machine" � and of whom there are more in America than there were lice in Egypt in Moses's day � saw a great starving time ahead of them, and when the New Deal was broached, they fell upon it with yells of joy, as one who comes upon an oasis of date palms in a trackless desert. Their dearth was miraculously turned into plenty. Faced with a dead stoppage of their machine from lack of money to keep it going, they suddenly found themselves with more money in their hands than they had ever imagined there was in the world. Prohibition and the New Deal are alike in their fundamental principle, which is the principle of coercion. Prohibition proposed to make the nation sober by force majeure, and incidentally to charge a thundering brokerage for doing the job. It said to us, "This is all for your own good, and you ought to fall in line cheerfully, but if you do not fall in, we will make you." The New Deal proposes a redistribution of wealth and is charging a brokerage that makes the Janissaries of the Anti-Saloon League look like pickpockets at a county fair. The national headquarters of the New Deal has a slush fund of something over $4 billion to blow in between now and next November [1937], and about 700,000 devoted heelers on the job of seeing that it is spent where it will bring the best results. All this, we are told, is for our own good, and we ought to appreciate it, but whether we appreciate it or not, we must take it. The two enterprises are alike also in respect of the quality of the people who support it. There are some statistics available on this. About four years ago � in November 1931, to be exact � Mr. Henry L. Mencken published in this magazine the results of an elaborate statistical study that he had been making, in collaboration with Mr. Charles Angoff, in order to determine the relative cultural standing of the 48 states. He tabulated his findings in the form of a list of the states, arranged in the order of their approach to civilization, and he has stated publicly that his table has never been successfully challenged. In 1932 Mr. Mencken compared his table with the returns of the Literary Digest's poll on Prohibition, and found that they fitted precisely. Nearly all the states that turned in heavy majorities against Prohibition stood high on his table, and nearly all that supported it stood low. In the Baltimore Evening Sun of January 13, 1936, he made a similar comparison with the Digest's poll on the New Deal, and got a similar result. The more nearly civilized states are against it, and the more uncivilized states are for it. He says, In the five most civilized of American states, according to the Angoff-Mencken table, the percentage of voters voting for the New Deal is but 32.32; in the five least civilized states it is 67.68, or more than double� Of the states giving the New Deal less than 30% of their votes (seven in number) all are among the first twenty-two; of those giving it more than 70% (two in number) both are among the last three. Of those giving it less than 35% (thirteen in number) all are among the first twenty-eight; of those giving it more than 65% (four in number) all are clumped together at the bottom. Finally, of those giving it less than 40% (twenty-two in number) all are among the first thirty-three; and of those giving it more than 60% (eight in number) all are among the last eleven. From this it may be seen that, precisely like Prohibition, the New Deal, as Mr. Mencken concludes, makes its most powerful appeal, not to the intelligent and enlightened moiety of the American people, but to the ignorant and credulous. It is, in truth, demagogy pure and simple, quackery undiluted. � The states that show a majority for it, including the anomalous Utah, are exactly the states that inflicted the Eighteenth Amendment on us, and most of them are still dry. Also they are the states whose people still believe by large majorities that William Jennings Bryan was a profounder scientist than Darwin, that any man who pays his debts is an enemy to society, and that a horsehair put into a bottle of water will turn into a snake. As for its moral effect upon the nation, the New Deal simply carries on Prohibition's work of making corruption and hypocrisy respectable. Both enterprises are bureaucratic, both are coercive, and, as Mr. Jefferson said, the moral effect of coercion is "to make one-half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." $12 And what has Prohibition had to show by way of offset? Simply nothing. What has the New Deal to show, so far? Can anybody point to a single one of its policies that has really worked? I know of none. No recovery in business is due to it. It has as many unemployed on its hands as it ever had and as many derelicts. Its agricultural policy is said to have worked, but, as the Supreme Court observed, that simply amounted to the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another. In other words, it amounted to larceny, and official larceny always works. The unofficial practitioners of that art who are now in Sing Sing were simply at a disadvantage. Prohibition and the New Deal, in short, breed straight back to the incredible appetite of the American people for self-inflicted punishment. One wonders how long they can take it and how hard; and above all, one wonders, when the New Deal has gone the way of Prohibition, what more dismal and depraving form of self-torture they will turn to next. Albert Jay Nock (October 13, 1870 � August 19, 1945) was an influential American libertarian author, educational theorist, and social critic of the early and middle 20th century. Murray Rothbard was deeply influenced by him, and so was the whole generation of free-market thinkers of the 1950s. See Albert Jay Nock's article archives. This article was orginally published in 1936 in Nock's column "State of the Union" in the American Mercury 37, no. 147

Pat Robertson and The 700 Club.If you know this man, you have to see this!!!

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:41:11 +0000

KEEP AN EAR OUT AT THE 4:20 MARK IN THIS VIDEO...LISTEN TO WHAT HE IS SAYING!!!!

Now this is my kind of National Party!!

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:28:37 +0000

Willie Nelson not only started Farm Aid, but is a source of a true American Soul.

Brazilian Arms for Drugs Campaign!!! This is why Wikileaks needs to stay open. Don't trust politicians!!!

Mon, 13 Dec 2010 05:41:00 +0000

http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2004/03/04BRASILIA623.html

The reason Steve Cooley lost.

Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:26:44 +0000

As somebody who admires the tea party, I did not vote for Cooley because of this reason. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXAk5OLiflI Watch this clip. Cooley is a Republican we needed to take a look at because of this reason. Other conservative elected officials will be held to their words when it comes to this issue. This issue is a "bellweather" decision. Especially when it comes to your role and understanding of the peoples rights, combined with free market and proper libertarianism the way the constitution intended. Do you know what the first rough draft of the constitution was written on?!?! Why would any conservative (especially in California) make this mistake? Listen to what Ron Paul says about this issue!!!