Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[whodare]

Ahahahahahaha

You talk shit about the constitution (which you haven't even read) by saying its old (therefore useless)

But you think a monarchy is just swell



Lol



You definitely went to American schools....

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^oh I think that point we described is impossible. we are just monkeys.

I definitely do not agree with a monarchy. There is no way one person can represent all and decided what should be done with the nations resources. Then you get into the whole family line thing going. Why is one person or family more fit to rule than another? A monarch has the choice to be good or to be a tyrant.

Elected officials are subject to the law of the people. They can be kicked out at any point if enough people are pissed off at them.

See, power is an illusion, and if the the masses believe the power lies with them than it does. Even now. If the people want to start a civil war and make a real stand they could. Citizens build the bombs and tanks in factories, if they want to stop manufacturing missiles for the U.S. military and start making them for rebels than they would. The majority of U.S. soldiers are not willing to fire on U.S. citizens anyways these days. It happened at Kent state and it is still considered a tragedy. No one is gonna defend congress or the executive branch. congress approval rating is 9 %. people prefer herpes over congress. lol

 

[whodare]

That monkey video was too funny lol


http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/10/ben-bernanke-a-real-american-hero/0/

Ben Bernanke: A Real American Hero?
by Jeremy R. Hammond
April 10, 2012



The April issue of*The Atlantic*has*a worshipful piece*on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, featuring him on the cover*with the moniker, “THE HERO”. “Ben Bernanke saved the economy”, hails the author, Roger Lowenstein, who also characterizes the Fed as a temple of wisdom from whence is derived a stable and healthy economy, thanks to the workings of its enlightened monetary policy, without which our economy would descend into chaos and despair.

The piece begins by describing the Fed as “a bulwark to the banking system and an antidote to its frequent runs and panics”. Lowenstein goes into the history of central banking in the U.S., pointing out that the Fed is the U.S.’s “third attempt at a central bank”. The first one lasted from 1791 until 1811, when Congress allowed its charter to expire. But the Congress “realized its error” during the War of 1812 because “in the absence of a central bank, inflation had run rampant”. So the Second Bank of the United States was established and it “astutely managed” its supply of notes “so as to keep the economy humming. Alas, President Andrew Jackson, a fierce opponent of both paper money and national banks, campaigned in 1832 against renewal of the charter,” and after he won the election, the bank was “destroyed” and the “economy promptly plunged into a severe depression.”

The history Lowenstein offers here could perhaps best be described as the establishment-approved version. Murray N. Rothbard offers an antidote to it in his book*A History of Money and Banking in the United States, in which he explains how the federal government, to finance its debt during the War of 1812, “encouraged the formation of new and recklessly inflationary banks … which printed huge quantities of new notes to purchase government bonds.” Unincorporated banks also sprang up, “which were illegal in most states but were allowed to function under war conditions.”

Eventually, unsound banks began to face insolvency, but rather than allowing bankruptcy and liquidation, the government stepped in and, “in one of the most flagrant violations of property rights in American history”, relieved the banks of their contractual obligation to redeem their notes and deposits in gold or silver. In fact, writes Rothbard, “a major inflationary impetus during the War of 1812 came during the year 1815*after*specie payments had been suspended” (emphasis added). He continues:

Historians dedicated to the notion that central banks restrain state or private bank inflation have placed the blame for the multiplicity of banks and bank credit inflation during the War of 1812 on the absence of a central bank. But … the federal government, not the state banks themselves, is largely to blame for encouraging new, inflated banks to monetize the war debt. Then, in particular, it allowed them to suspend specie payment in August 1814, and to continue that suspension for two years after the war was over, until February 1817. Thus, for two and a half years banks were permitted to operate and expand while issuing what was tantamount to fiat paper and bank deposits.

Besides monetary inflation, the cutoff of trade during the war also pushed prices upwards.*And the government’s act of permitting the banks to suspend redemption in specie set a dangerous precedent that was to be followed in numerous banking crises throughout U.S. history. Rothbard comments:

It thus became clear to the banks that in a general crisis they would not be required to meet the ordinary obligations of contract law or of respect for property rights, so their inflationary expansion was permanently encouraged by this massive failure of government to fulfill its obligation to enforce contracts and defend the rights of property.

In the aftermath of the war, rather than compelling banks that had lent irresponsibly to honor their legal obligations or to liquidate, the Second Bank of the United States was established “to support the state banks in their inflationary course”. The banks agreed to resume specie payments only after the new central bank issued $6 million worth of credit to them, a “massive inflation” at the time. Rothbard quotes Senator William H. Wells arguing against the bank bill by saying that it was

ostensibly for the purpose of correcting the diseased state of our paper currency by restraining and curtailing the overissue of bank paper, and yet it came prepared to inflict upon us the same evil, being itself nothing more than simply a paper-making machine.

“From its inception,” Rothbard writes, “the Second Bank launched a spectacular inflation of money and credit” and, “in a scant year and a half of operation, the Second Bank of the United States had added a net of $19.2 million to the nation’s money supply, a “huge expansion of money and credit” that “impelled a full-scale inflationary boom throughout the country”, which led to the “first nationwide ‘boom-bust’ cycle” in the United States.

So, to review, we are supposed to think that the country needed a central bank to*prevent*“rampant inflation”, and once Jackson killed this central bank, the brakes on inflation were released and disaster ensued when the “economy promptly plunged into a severe depression”, a reference to the Panic of 1837.

What happened was that the bank’s president, Nicholas Biddle, in 1831 filed for early renewal of its charter, which was set to expire in 1836. Jackson vetoed it, and Congress failed to pass it over his veto. In 1833, Jackson removed public Treasury deposits from the Second Bank of the United States and put them in state banks. This marked the effective end of its role as a central bank of the United States, although its charter didn’t expire until 1836, after which it operated as a regular bank until its failure several years later.

Rothbard comments that

Orthodox historians have long maintained that by his reckless act of destroying the Bank of the United States and shifting government funds to the numerous pet banks, Andrew Jackson freed the state banks from the restraints imposed on them by a central bank. Thus, the banks were supposedly allowed to pyramid notes and deposits rashly on top of existing specie and precipitate a wild inflation that was later succeeded by two bank panics and a disastrous deflation.

But the “conventional” view is belied by the fact “that the driving force for monetary expansion was the Bank of the United States, which acted as an inflationary rather than a restraining force upon the state banks.”

As for the inflation that occurred from 1833-37, Rothbard writes that it was the consequence of an inflow of gold and silver coin into the country, such that “the total specie in the country rose swiftly from $31 million to $73 million”. The banks then pyramided on top of their increased reserves, inflating through fractional reserve lending. One could thus argue that the government during the Jackson administration did not go far enough in merely ending the inflationary role of the central bank, but should have also enforced a 100% reserve requirement, which would forbid banks from loaning notes representing gold or silver that*they didn’t have. That is to say, it could be argued that the government should have also ended the practice of legalized counterfeiting.

This brings us back to the description of the Federal Reserve as “an antidote” to the banking system’s “frequent runs and panics”. The Fed’s record of utter failure as far as being an “antidote” to the business cycle speaks for itself, from the Great Depression to today’s “Great Recession”. But what about bank runs? We are supposed to think this was some kind of evil for which we require a central bank to defeat by acting as the lender of last resort. But what was wrong with bank runs? This comes back again to the*purpose*of the Federal Reserve, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding, being not to*check, but to*enable*the coordinated inflation of banks. Bank runs, if they were allowed to occur, would keep banks more honest by requiring them to keep more in reserves to be able to honor their customers’ demands for the return of their own property. Bank runs weren’t some kind of poison requiring the antidote of a central bank; on the contrary, they were an*antidote*to the poison of legalized counterfeiting.

Of course,*banks*didn’t like bank runs, so from the point of view of the counterfeiters, it certainly must have been an “antidote” for the government to step in to support their inflationary habits by permitting them to suspend redemption (i.e., violate their contractual obligations) and by establishing a central bank that could act as a “lender of last resort” to bail them out if they got into trouble.

After providing a history lesson friendly to the moneyed interests of the nation, Lowenstein returns to the present day. He announces that the economy has “begun to show signs that the recovery is gaining steam”, thanks to our “hero”, Ben Bernanke, who has “worked overtime to furnish an ‘elastic currency’—that is, to keep enough money in circulation for the economy to function”. Bernanke has accomplished this “by tripling the size of the Fed’s balance sheet—to an eye-popping $2.9 trillion”. Bernanke had also “bailed out a handful of large banks” and “lowered short-term interest rates to nearly zero”, all of which “was a success”. “[T]he financial crisis”, Lowenstein declares, “is over.” Having thus heroically ended the financial crisis, Bernanke has continued to maintain “short-term interest rates at close to zero” and purchased “in vast quantities, long-term Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities.”

All of this is to say that our “hero” saved the economy by ensuring a total lack of accountability for banks that engaged in unsound practices, rewarding them for their excessive risk-taking and rescuing them from the fate of bankruptcy and liquidation they would have suffered in a free market system, and by *printing money (or, rather, punching some keys to add digits on a computer). There is an alternative hypothesis, which is that such actions haven’t saved the economy from a recession, but merely prolonged the pain and postponed the inevitable. This counter-argument is supported by the more recent history showing that the Federal Reserve responded to the bursting of the dot-com bubble by inflating to prevent a recession, which policy had the consequence of creating the housing bubble. Our “hero”, then, is “saving” the economy by continuing to do the same things that caused the financial crisis in the first place.

Lowenstein seems not to countenance this alternative hypothesis, but returns to history for guidance, comparing the present situation to the Great Depression. Following the collapse of the (Fed-created) housing bubble, Bernanke was faced with “the negative territory known as”—(cue the music)—“deflation.” Oh, the horror! “One reason the Great Depression lasted so long is that prices kept falling, year after year.” According to famed economist Milton Friedman, “the Fed’s failure in the 1930s was a matter of not printing enough money.” Bernanke, however, believes that “it wasn’t the quantity of money”, per se, but that “the banks stopped lending”. The problem during the Great Depression, Lowenstein asserts matter-of-factly, “was deflation: goods were worth less each year—or, alternatively, dollars were worth more”. (Imagine the horror of having increased buying power!) As a result of falling prices, “no one would spend, because lower prices are forever just around the corner, and no one would borrow, because they would have to repay their debts with*more valuable*currency.” The lack of spending led to production and employment “spiraling downward” in what British economist John Maynard Keynes called a “liquidity trap.”

The underlying assumption here is that consumer*spending*is what drives economic growth. But where does the money to spend come from? Can simply printing additional money to encourage people to borrow and spend more create real wealth? It’s a bit like asking whether money grows on trees. True economic growth cannot come from simply inflating the money supply, but must come from*savings,*production,*and investment of*capital.

Printing money to lower interest rates serves only to distort the economy, sending wrong signals to investors. In a free market economy, when the available pool of capital is great because savings rates are high, that is reflected in low rates of interest. Banks with plentiful reserves want to attract borrowers, just as when reserves are low, they will raise interest rates to attract depositors. When savings are high, entrepreneurs can borrow at low interest to invest in capital goods to be able to increase production for*future*consumption, once people start spending again. Saving, after all, is simply the act of*deferring*spending to the future (a behavior often denounced as “hoarding”).

But when interest rates are*artificially*low because the central bank has engaged in a policy of monetary inflation, it creates the*illusion*that there is plenty of capital available to invest in longer-term projects. Price inflation may not manifest itself as a uniform rise in prices of consumer goods, but as the new money enters the economy and the excess credit is directed into particular sectors (such as capital goods, tech stocks, housing, etc.), prices in those sectors begin to rise. Everyone hails how wonderful the boom is, but it is an*artificial*and*unsustainable*boom, and this bubble eventually must burst. Reality sinks in as the malinvestment reveals itself.

As for unemployment, the reason it remained so high during the Great Depression is not because prices were falling, but because*wages, which are also a price,*weren’t permitted to also fall at the same time. Real wages actually increased, and the consequence of the price-fixing of wages was massive unemployment. Ironically, this phenomenon is indirectly acknowledged by Lowenstein further into the article (which we’ll return to).

As for falling prices, why should this be something we are to fear? Isn’t it a good thing that one can buy a computer today that is a hundred or a thousand times better machine than was available ten years ago, and yet the cost is actually*less? In what way is paying less*for more*a*bad*thing? All else being equal, as advancements are made in the means of production, it is a natural consequence that prices will fall over time. In what way is it not*desirable*to have*more*purchasing power for each dollar you spend, rather than*less?

This returns us to the basic assumption that*spending*drives the economy. People must be incentivized to borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend, according to this logic. This is the same logic upon which was premised the Fed’s policy of artificially low interest rates following the collapse of the dot-com bubble. It was this inflationary policy that created the housing bubble.

As Lowenstein points out, Bernanke “did not anticipate the looming crash in home prices”. His “training” had “failed him.” But rather than examining the Fed’s role (under Bernanke’s predecessor, Alan Greenspan) in*creating*the housing bubble, Lowenstein offers that Bernanke’s fault was that “he didn’t scrutinize the banks closely enough” and “overlooked the fact that dicey mortgage-backed securities made up a sizable portion of the assets of the biggest banks.”

After having observed that Bernanke’s education had “failed him” and that Bernanke had been completely*blind*to the housing bubble, Lowenstein nevertheless offers the remarkable comment that “No one was better suited to the job” of rescuing the economy.

He returns to the discussion of unemployment with the acknowledgment that “Printing money, of course, does not create jobs”. He points out that businesses seeking to maintain their profit margin will tend to lay some people off rather than cut wages. It’s interesting, therefore, that he doesn’t allow that the problem of unemployment during the Great Depression was not that prices were falling, but that wages*weren’t. But what he writes next is remarkable for its candidness. Printing money can be good for the economy, he writes, because “Inflation is a less visible way of reducing pay. Workers think they are making the same amount, but since the dollars are worth less, employers can better afford to pay them.” That is to say, inflation is good because it defrauds the working class and stealthily robs them of their purchasing power.

“The second way in which inflation could help the economy”, Lowenstein continues, “is that it makes borrowing and spending more attractive (debtors can repay their loans in cheaper dollars).” That is to say, inflation allows contracts to be effectively violated without any laws protecting property rights having been broken. Perhaps few people care that “Banks and bondholders get cheated” by this, but what about widows and pensioners? Should we care whether*they*get cheated? Lowenstein continues, pointing out that, “Similarly, people with fixed savings, such as retirees, get punished for their thrift.” But this consideration doesn’t sway him from his view that Bernanke is a “hero” for presiding over the most dramatically monetary inflation in U.S. history.

One of the Fed’s weapons, the article continues, has been so-called “quantitative easing”, or “QE”, Fedspeak for printing money through purchases of long-term securities, which artificially lowers long-term interest rates. The massive increase in the base money supply, however, has not translated into massive price inflation because the banks are sitting on excess reserves. If the banks were to actually loan out their excess reserves, Lowenstein writes, “the supply of currency would nearly triple overnight, and the price of a burger would, you can bet, do the same.”

The reason banks are sitting on excess reserves is “partly because loan demand is weak”. (This would seem to call into question the previous assertion that the problem stems from not having “enough money in circulation for the economy to function”.) The other reason the banks are sitting on excess reserves is because the Fed is paying them to. In 2008, Bernanke “asked for and received expedited authority from Congress to pay interest to banks on their reserves.” This, it is hoped, “will give him time to unwind the balance sheet gradually”, but “No one knows whether this gamble will work.”

It is a feature of centralized banking that power is so greatly concentrated into so few hands, where a single individual may make decisions that affect the whole economy and “gamble” with the lives and fates of others. And yet it is this same establishment, the Federal Reserve, a government-legislated private monopoly over the supply of money and credit, whose altar we are supposed to bow down to.

The article ends with a few remarks about how Bernanke “sticks to his notion of what inflation should be”, “trusting that his judgment will tell him when to add more liquidity, when to subtract.” But we are not supposed to fear or distrust all of this power in the hands of a single man. Rather, we are supposed to worship this individual, elevated to the status of a god by the state, claiming to know better than the free market, better than the law of supply and demand; a god who, endowed with this mystical omniscience, we must entrust to guide us through the darkness and lead us into the light. We are supposed to regard this man as a “hero” who “saved the economy”.

Never mind that all of this man’s powers of insight, all of the vast resources available to him, all of his learned enlightenment told him that there*was*no housing bubble right up until it burst. Clearly, we are not meant to dwell on such minor details. To “a greater extent than he is credited with now,” Lowenstein concludes, “history may marvel that Bernanke has been a success.”

You just might not want to bet on it.

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst and a recipient of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. He is the founding editor of Foreign Policy Journal (www.foreignpolicyjournal.com) and can also be found on the web at JeremyRHammond.com. His new book, "Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis", is now available at Amazon.com. Read more articles by Jeremy R. Hammond.
http://www.jeremyrhammond.com

 

[itisme]

Ahahahahahaha

You talk shit about the constitution (which you haven't even read) by saying its old (therefore useless)

But you think a monarchy is just swell

Lol

You definitely went to American schools....

Monarchies were created in an IPAD Applet
They didn't exsist untill 2007 In all their glory. I wonder what Diana was going to do.

 

[itisme]

Letter: GOP county convention flawed

Elections are one of the most serious responsibilities of the citizens of this nation. Election fairness has always been the goal sought, but unfortunately, standards have been conveniently overlooked or bypassed. Sadly, here in Washington state, this happened at the GOP county convention delegates’ meeting in March.

Witnessed at this meeting was double-dealing by the Rick Santorum people, with 60 delegates, and the Ron Paul people, with 62 delegates. They purposely combined their votes, therefore becoming the majority and blocking all votes for Mitt Romney, who had 115 delegates. This is despicable to those who desire honest methods of choosing delegates for the state or national conventions.

Are we going to accept this swindle and victimizing? No, we will not be apathetic to this stealth. If we let these methods prevail in state or in our national elections, how much easier for the dishonest to claim victory over and over? Stand up, Washingtonians. America, wake up. Don’t let this happen again.

Evelyn Mallet

Vancouver

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/apr/18/letter-gop-county-convention-flawed/

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/santorum-delegates-begin-flocking-ron-paul

Santorum delegates begin flocking to Ron Paul

Recent delegate counts show that Ron Paul is picking up a part of the anti-Romney protest vote, and he remains popular among young voters, but it's unclear if that will amount to anything.
There are a number of compelling reasons why Ron Paul might want to drop his presidential campaign.
First off, Mitt Romney has pretty much won the GOP nomination. That means the single-digit chance Congressman Paul had of sitting in the White House has now fallen to a number perilously close to zero.
Second, the trail is long, and the days are hard. Food is bad and sleep is limited. It can be tough to find the time to get in a good walk in the morning and an afternoon bike ride, as Paul likes to do.
“When I don’t get my adequate amount of exercise I get very grouchy,” admitted Paul last week during an interview with John Stossel on Fox Business News.

But Paul remains in it, if not to win it, then to promote his ideas. He’s long said that he wants to build a political movement as much as anything else, and if you look at his upcoming events, they remain heavy on appearances at colleges, which remain his most fertile ground for winning converts.
On April 18 Paul is scheduled to speak at the University of Rhode Island, for instance. On April 19 he’s supposed to be at Cornell. On April 20 the venue is the University of Pittsburgh.
This emphasis on youth points out one of Paul’s remaining electoral strengths – he’s relatively strong in the 18-to-34 demographic, while presumptive nominee Mr. Romney is relatively weak. A Gallup poll from April 12 shows them about tied in that sub-group, though Romney leads comfortably among GOP voters overall.
This could give Paul some leverage in regard to speaking spots and platform planks leading into the GOP National Convention in Tampa.

“Romney has a significant problem among younger Republican voters ... Romney’s challenge is to capture some of the enthusiasm young Republican voters have for Paul in an attempt to blunt Obama’s strength among this group,” wrote Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport last week.

Paul’s leverage may be enhanced by the fact that he appears to be picking up some former supporters of Rick Santorum, who are turning to him as the means for an anti-Romney protest vote.
For instance, at Colorado’s state GOP convention last weekend, Paul and Santorum supporters joined in a “Conservative Unity Slate” to win national convention delegate spots that the Romney forces had thought would fall to them.
The Paul/Santorum forces won 13 of the Colorado delegates chosen by congressional district. The Romney forces rallied to take at least eight at-large delegates,

Paul’s continuing strategy of focusing on delegates as opposed to straw-poll beauty contests also paid off last week in Minnesota. Of delegates and alternates chosen last week by the Minnesota GOP in congressional district meetings, the Paul forces were “18 for 18: 9 dels/9 alts,” tweeted Pat Anderson, a national committeewoman from Minnesota for the Republican National Committee.
Paul’s campaign crowed about these successes last Saturday, issuing a release saying that the Texas libertarian “achieved consequential delegate wins in Colorado and Minnesota today, affirming his delegate-attainment strategy and auguring a prominent role for Paul at the Republican National Convention in Tampa.”
The fact is, however, that “consequential delegate wins” is in the eye of the beholder. According to the Associated Press delegate tracker, Paul has won 52 delegates. Santorum, in contrast, had 270 when he dropped out. Romney has 684 and counting.
Going forward, Paul is thus facing the somewhat difficult task of continuing a campaign devoted to spreading his ideas without appearing as if he is out-of-touch with electoral reality.

 

[Blue Socks]

 

[monkey5]

WHAT...^^^^ is that about? Lol.. Ron Paul? You got some splanin to do.... monkey5

 

[bentom187]

Times 100 most influential people "Ron Paul"
the magazine didnt arrange the list in the order they were voted on,so im not sure how well he's done but they were in that order,while the voting was happening and he was 3rd everytime i seen it,in first was the creator of the drudge report website.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2111975_2111976_2111999,00.html

ralf nader wrote the article,he just had to add he has no way of winning the nomination,i hope we get to prove him wrong.

 

[bentom187]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/17/obamas-new-drug-control-report-calls-for

Obama’s New Drug Control Report Calls for More Workplace Drug Testing, Nationwide Zero Tolerance Laws, Prescription-Only Ephedrine Products, and the Return of the “Above the Influence” Campaign

Mike Riggs | April 17, 2012

The first thing you should know about President Barack Obama’s 2012 Drug Control Strategy report is that it begins and ends with the declaration that the war on drugs is working and will continue apace.

Obama administration policies have “yielded significant results,” according to the President’s introductory letter, which concludes by saying, “While difficult budget decisions must be made at all levels of government, we must ensure continued support for policies and programs that reduce drug use and its enormous costs to American society.”

The report ends with a familiar refrain: “Legalization of drugs will not be considered in this approach. Making drugs more available and more accessible will not reduce drug use and its adverse consequences for public health and safety. We will continue to educate young
people and all Americans about the science on the harmful health effects of marijuana use.”

The pages in between those two statements contain a broad outline for increased drug enforcement, mandatory rehabilitation programs for people who don’t need or want them, and the return of melodramatic Reefer Madness-style agitprop aimed at teenagers.

The worst policy plans contained in the report are outlined after the jump.

- The report implicitly blames the debate over drug reform—one Obama recently told Univision he’s more than willing to hear—for increased use of drugs by teens:


One possible influence on this observed trend in drug use and perception of risk is the decreased exposure of youth to prevention messages and the presence of messages and policies that downplay the consequences of drug use. While the Administration supports ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine, to date, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine has found the marijuana plant itself to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition. The Administration also recognizes that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.

- The report encourages carte blanche workplace drug testing, on the grounds that it will curtail productivity losses associated with drug use and improve users’ lives. It also describes the Obama administration’s attempt to develop on oral test for workplace drug testing:


In addition to the youth programs mentioned previously, as our young people enter the workplace and others remain engaged in workforce, it is important to ensure a drug-free workplace. The consequences of illicit drug use in America’s workforce include job-related accidents and injuries, absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity.

Workplace programs that provide clear policies regarding drug use; offer prevention and education opportunities for employers and supervisors; conduct drug testing to detect and deter use; and support referral and treatment for those who have substance use disorders can play a large role in reducing the demand for drugs throughout our Nation and in helping drug users get into treatment.

These programs provide employees with the opportunity to self-identify and get help. Often, such programs give employees an opportunity to return to the same job, or a similar job in the same industry, thereby creating an incentive to succeed in their recovery and resume a fulfilling career. Consequently, drug-free workplace programs are beneficial for our labor force, employers, families, and communities in general.

In 2011, the Administration committed to funding for the scientific determination for oral fluids testing as a complement to urine testing. HHS published a Federal Register notice requesting public comment on the scientific basis for oral fluid testing . HHS is moving forward to set standards for oral fluid testing that will be published in the future for public comment before they can be finalized in the Mandatory Guidelines for Drug Workplace Testing. These Guidelines will also be available for state and local jurisdictions to apply as appropriate for the prosecution of drugged driving violations, and to encourage the drug testing industry to develop accurate point-of-collection oral fluid testing devices.

- The report contains a request to Congress for $20 million to Revamp and Reenergize the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, which was defunded by Congress last year because it doesn’t work:


Since 2005, there has been a significant public investment in developing the widely-recognized “Above the Influence” (ATI) brand, a campaign that has been found by independent scientific analyses to be effective, relevant to youth, and instrumental to drug prevention efforts in communities across the country. Unfortunately, despite evidence of its effectiveness, Congress appropriated no funding for the Media Campaign in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, and the campaign is now operating on a minimal budget composed of its unobligated balances as the Youth Drug Prevention Media Program.

The report also calls for a nationwide zero tolerance policy for "drugged driving," which would mean all drivers would be subjected to laws that currently affect only commercial drivers:


The Administration encourages states to pursue enhanced legal responses, such as per se (or “zero tolerance”) laws. Seventeen states already have per se statutes, and additional states should consider adopting these standards. These same standards have been applied to 12 million commercial drivers in the United States for the past two decades. The Administration has developed educational packets for states, providing them with information on the dangers of drugged driving and why per se laws are beneficial.

- The report also says that “Several options are being considered to further reduce methamphetamine production including prescription-only status for pseudoephedrine/ephedrine products.”

The Marijuana Policy Project’s Rob Kampia has called the report “appalling,” adding, “The drug czar is trying to resurrect those stupid TV ads, like the one where a teenager gets his fist stuck in his mouth. The budget intentionally undercounts the federal government's expenditures on incarcerating drug offenders, who comprise more than half of the federal prison population. And the budget dangerously proposes a massive escalation in using the military to fight drugs domestically. Congress should just ignore this budget and start from scratch. Specifically, Congress should not provide the Obama administration with any money to go after nonviolent marijuana users, growers, or distributors."

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition also attacked the report.

"President Obama keeps saying he is open to a discussion but he never seems willing to actually have that discussion,” said LEAP Director Neil Franklin said in a press release. “Polls show that three out of four U.S. voters think the 'war on drugs' is a failure and a majority now support marijuana legalization. The time for real change is now, but at the Summit of the Americas President Obama announced more than $130 million in aid to fund the continued effort to arrest drug traffickers in Latin America. This prohibition strategy hasn't worked in the past and it cannot work in the future. Latin American leaders know it, and President Obama must know it. Let's stop the charade and begin to bring drugs under control through legalization."

Former ONDCP senior advisor Kevin Sabet, meanwhile, is doing promotion for the report, which he refers to as “Wake Up and Grow Up.” In anticipating criticism of the report, Sabet writes, "The 2012 release is likely to be attacked by those who are waiting for the day the President will make a U-turn and support legalization—but attackers will unfortunately miss the nuance and striking clarity which characterizes this particular document and its connection with the first Strategy." Fun fact: Sabet wrote the first strategy!

More Reason on Obama's drug policies, including investments in police violence, the myth that the president's policies are "compassionate" and Jacob Sullum's must-read feature on how Obama turned out to be just another drug warrior.

 

[monkey5]

Hash Zeppelin this is a great post!

Hash Zeppelin this is a great post!

^oh I think that point we described is impossible. we are just monkeys.

I definitely do not agree with a monarchy. There is no way one person can represent all and decided what should be done with the nations resources. Then you get into the whole family line thing going. Why is one person or family more fit to rule than another? A monarch has the choice to be good or to be a tyrant.

Elected officials are subject to the law of the people. They can be kicked out at any point if enough people are pissed off at them.

See, power is an illusion, and if the the masses believe the power lies with them than it does. Even now. If the people want to start a civil war and make a real stand they could. Citizens build the bombs and tanks in factories, if they want to stop manufacturing missiles for the U.S. military and start making them for rebels than they would. The majority of U.S. soldiers are not willing to fire on U.S. citizens anyways these days. It happened at Kent state and it is still considered a tragedy. No one is gonna defend congress or the executive branch. congress approval rating is 9 %. people prefer herpes over congress. lol

~~ I like this! 9% approval..herpes over congress!! Lol.. monkey5

 

[itisme]

OBAMA the TYRANT MORON SATANIST!!!

 

[zymos]

OBAMA the TYRANT MORON SATANIST!!!

You left out "Muslim"....

I'm sure after you all help Romney win the election he'll be MUCH friendlier to cannabis....

 

[dagnabit]

You left out "Muslim"....

I'm sure after you all help Romney win the election he'll be MUCH friendlier to cannabis....

I actually believe he would be better....
But then I believed obama would be better than bush so im 0 for 1.

It will be hard to be worse than obama toward mj.

 

[zymos]

It will be hard to be worse than obama toward mj.

No argument there.
It's almost like he wants to alienate any potential voters...

 

[bentom187]

http://www.sherrypeeljackson.org/newsletter/april-2012/

What Ron Paul Did For Me


April 2012

April 18, 2012


What Ron Paul Did For Me

Many of you don’t know that Ron Paul played a part in my rescue when I was in prison. First, let me say that I met Ron Paul a couple of times before I went to the slammer, and he and his wife were gracious and warm. Even though we didn’t get together during the filming of Aaron Russo’s movie America: Freedom To Fascism, both of us were featured in the movie.



When I was ill in late 2009 there was an outcry after people were informed of the severity of my condition. I had written a letter to my U.S. Congressman (Hank Johnson) via prison e-mail, and forwarded it to my husband to deliver to him since the congressman was not on my approved e-mail list. My husband, without editing the letter, sent it out to about 20 supporters after furnishing a copy to the congressman. These supporters were outraged at what I was going through. At least one of these supporters had a large e-mail list and he forwarded the letter to his entire list. That desperate cry for help went viral, and soon I was receiving letters of encouragement and financial support from literally all over the globe.

Someone got in touch with Ron Paul’s office. I don’t live in Texas, but he and his staff took action and contacted the prison with a demand for information about my situation. Shortly after Ron Paul’s inquiry about my treatment I was shipped away to a high security prison. While in solitary confinement there (for the security of the institution, they say) my medical situation was constantly observed, and I was treated with respect by the medical staff.

Along with Congressman Hank Johnson, I believe that Congressman Ron Paul’s eye on the situation got me the care that I needed so that my condition did not go critical. I was in really bad shape as you can see here.



For those that say that Ron Paul is a racist, you would never be able to convince me of that. His actions speak louder than your words. He has delivered thousands of lives into this world, of all races and colors. He has helped people of all races, even when it was not popular and could have put him and his family’s lives in danger.

For those that say that Ron Paul is a nut, a large oak tree is yesterday’s nut that held its ground. For over 30 years Ron Paul has not switched his position on any of the socio-political issues of our day. You can call him a nut if you want, but at least he’s not a flip flopper that changes his position with the ebb and flow of the masses.

For those that say that Ron Paul can’t win, God says nothing is impossible with Him. His sticking to his guns and staying in the race shows me that he cares not only about his own family, for he could have made a fortune and bilked the country, like others. He could have taken bribes, high paying corporate positions or even created policies that would have enriched him and his family for generations to come. Instead, his stick-to-it attitude shows me that he cares about me, about us, about America as a whole, about the rule of law, about justice, about equity. Very few people in power care about you, I hope you understand that fact.

Ron Paul takes the criticism and the flack, the jokes and the insults because he knows who he is and he knows what God has told him to do. He knows that he has the truth on his side, and sooner or later truth will prevail. He has been a beacon in the darkness, one that shows up the evil that is in our country and shows the way to correct it, to the chagrin of the evildoers.

I sent a thank you letter to Ron Paul’s offices in Texas and in DC. I wanted them to know that I appreciate them reaching down to help a lowly prisoner that was afraid for her life. Life, that is important to us as humans, or at least should be. Do the people that you trust and endorse care if you live or die? Selah (pause and think about that).

 

[bentom187]

positive deligate outlook from the michigan campaign
taken from RP forums:

Ron Paul Delegates may block Romney from reaching 1145...


Dear Michigan Patriots,

You probably know by now that the major media is not to be trusted.

Knowing that, I decided to count the national delegates and see where we are.

The results almost made me fall out of my chair.

I added up the national delegates who will be attending the national convention unbound. And here's what I discovered:

-In states that have held their major nominating contests so far, 627 delegates are unbound (including states where those are the rules, plus the Santorum and Huntsman delegates who are now un-bound.)

-In states yet to come, their rules assign no less than 198 un-bound national delegates.

-When Newt Gingrich drops out, his 130 delegates are un-bound.

-In states with proportional delegate allocation, Ron Paul winning 1/3 the vote (as he did in Virginia) would net us 110 delegates.

-60 delegates in two states are elected as individuals and "unaffiliated" delegates are running in those races where Romney's abysmal unpopularity may take him down.

-Then there are Missouri's 52 delegates, which have not yet been sorted.

But suppose we win only 20 in Missouri.

627 + 198+ 130+110 + 60 + 52 = 1,177 delegates.

"Uncommitted" clears the so-called "magic number," 1144, the majority of national delegates.

In other words, there's a very good chance that the majority of national delegates--who by then will have experienced months of Romney's failure to engage President Obama--will be un-committed. And Romney can be vetoed right there and then.

Of course, there's little we can do to help out in other states (except making a donation to boost our ground operations, and if you haven't given this month, please consider doing so.)

But let's talk about what we can do, right here in Michigan.

We need every Ron Paul supporter attending their county convention, Thursday May 3rd at 7pm. You can ask around for the location, or call your county Republican Chair and inquire the location. (Click here for the Republican Party directory.)

But first and foremost, we need every Ron Paul supporter registered to become a Precinct Delegate.



http://state.ronpaul2012.com/mi/pdch...166&k=HBDMUYQ5


It's as easy as it gets--simply visit any city, township, or county clerk's office, tell them you would like to file to run for precinct delegate, and they will give you the form.

It's one page. It's free. They will notarize it and file it for you right there (you just need proof of ID and residence).

In almost all cases, you'll be running un-opposed. You don't have to campaign at all.

If you never do anything as a precinct delegate, nobody will ever bother you.

But being a precinct delegate will enable you to vote in the August conventions.

And it will have a dramatic effect on the May 3 conventions, when Ron Paul supporters fill the room, forms in hand, interested in attending the May 19 state convention in Detroit.




http://state.ronpaul2012.com/mi/pdch...166&k=HBDMUYQ5


Please take a moment to check in as a delegate. Either let us know if you have already filed to become a delegate, or that you plan to do so.


Thanks again for all you do for Liberty,
Adam

 

[bentom187]

(Picture) Line to see Ron Paul speak at Rhode Island (off twitter)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I always thought terrible Ted would endorse RP.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

That monkey video was too funny lol


http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/10/ben-bernanke-a-real-american-hero/0/

Ya I love the "what we are" video. It is hilarious and humbling. Also relieving because it makes me not feel bad for acting like a monkey sometimes. lol

 

[itisme]

You left out "Muslim"....

I'm sure after you all help Romney win the election he'll be MUCH friendlier to cannabis....

I don't care what religion he is unless he worships Satan: Then I don't care if he does that as long as he isn't sending our kids off to WARS! Well I care but it is a free country and you have free will, that is what Obama, the Clintons, and Bush's are trying to take away. I don't care about your right or left bullcrap as that is all just lies from the same evil bastards behind the curtains.


Government ADMITS secretly SPRAYING POISON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7HkXyK-fBk