-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
Replay of how to get butthurt.
Thx for that great to hear post Bentom.
5 states look UNDENIABLE. I LOVE MY AMERICANS THAT ARE AWAKE! Makes my heart release tension with just a thought of Ron Paul and his ARMY, NAVY, AIRFORCE, & MARINES OF SUPPORT
Replay of how to get butthurt.
Thx for that great to hear post Bentom.
5 states look UNDENIABLE. I LOVE MY AMERICANS THAT ARE AWAKE! Makes my heart release tension with just a thought of Ron Paul and his ARMY, NAVY, AIRFORCE, & MARINES OF SUPPORT
we NEED texas and california i hope theres enough people in cali that will trun out,considering the crowds he gets out there at the colleges ect... he should.
[YOUTUBEIF]R3jmkkk6Pus[/YOUTUBEIF]
its tough but we're gonna have to win this one district/county at a time,and fight the media,and fraud, like this in NY [YOUTUBEIF]uTLtTYwqH9Y[/YOUTUBEIF]
im up for it,its too important not to espeacially if you look at it like this,1 term for obama and 1 term for romney thats still 8 years for goldman sachs.
http://www.policymic.com/mobile/article/id/7460
All this and ADAM THE MAN is getting up the VETS to march on the RNC in TAMPA!!! They can run and hide but we will put them up by the roots if need be
It's like Ron Paul says, "You can't stop an idea whose time has come!"
All this and ADAM THE MAN is getting up the VETS to march on the RNC in TAMPA!!! They can run and hide but we will put them up by the roots if need be
It's like Ron Paul says, "You can't stop an idea whose time has come!"
Voters Choose Ron Paul as the True Conservative in 2012
As expected, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney remains the clear Republican frontrunner after five more GOP primary victories in Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Texas Representative Ron Paul, however, continues to improve upon his 2008 election bid, pushing his total delegate count (which stood at 72 prior to Tuesday’s primaries) well past the 40 Republican delegates he won in his 2008 presidential bid.
Even while Romney inches closer to achieving the total number of delegates he needs to win the Republican nomination, Paul’s prominence in the primaries thus far has accentuated the ideological differences between the two candidates. Paul’s success in 2012 demonstrates the growing appeal of truly limited government and devotion to the protection of individual rights, which distinguish Paul’s libertarianism from Romney’s more traditional Republican conservatism.
For starters, Paul decried the cost in lives and dollars of an “undeclared, unnecessary war” in Iraq, and has supported a U.S. withdrawal from a war in Afghanistan that has taken the lives of over 1,900 American soldiers , 3,021 Afghan civilians in 2011 alone, and cost the U.S. hundreds of billions . Romney, on the other hand, has criticized the Obama administration’s plan to draw down the amount of American troops committed to this war in Afghanistan that is adding to the U.S. debt and destroying its reputation abroad.
The candidates’ differences on the drug war also highlight Paul’s commitment to limited government and fiscal responsibility. Paul opposes anti-drug policies that cost government over $40 billion annually and fill prisons with millions of drug offenders, to the point that over half of federal inmates are in prison due to drug crimes. Romney refuses to acknowledge the fiscal and social problems inherent in America’s drug war policies, and continues to support a war on drugs waged by law enforcement.
In a 2008 debate, Romney proclaimed that government’s role in policing political dissidents in the U.S. trumps civil liberties.
“I hear, from time to time, people say -- ‘Hey, we have civil liberties we have to worry about,’—but don’t forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is the right to be kept alive.”
Romney implies that individual liberties ought to be sacrificed for government protection from national security concerns. Paul, on the other hand, has made no such exception, and has steadfastly fought for the civil liberties that protect individuals, including unpopular political minorities, from the powers of government. Paul was one of three Republicans to vote against the PATRIOT Act and its expansion of government surveillance powers, such as Section 206 that allows police to use “roving wiretaps” for surveillance without specifying what person or place is to be searched. No doubt the laws were made in response to a crisis, but Paul never failed to warn that rights are “more easily trampled” in such crises when government makes promises that “initially seem to exceed the cost in lost freedom,” and he was one of very few who stood up for individual liberties threatened by America’s War on Terror.
It seems the difference in delegates between Paul and Romney represents an even bigger difference in governing philosophy, at least if their previous stances on foreign policy, morality, and national security issues are any indication.
If Romney wins the nomination, as it looks like he will, Republicans will have a candidate that supports more government, not less. The good news for Paul supporters, and for Americans that find promoting liberty and limited government to be a worthwhile pursuit, is that more people have recognized and supported Paul’s candidacy in 2012.
As expected, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney remains the clear Republican frontrunner after five more GOP primary victories in Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Texas Representative Ron Paul, however, continues to improve upon his 2008 election bid, pushing his total delegate count (which stood at 72 prior to Tuesday’s primaries) well past the 40 Republican delegates he won in his 2008 presidential bid.
Even while Romney inches closer to achieving the total number of delegates he needs to win the Republican nomination, Paul’s prominence in the primaries thus far has accentuated the ideological differences between the two candidates. Paul’s success in 2012 demonstrates the growing appeal of truly limited government and devotion to the protection of individual rights, which distinguish Paul’s libertarianism from Romney’s more traditional Republican conservatism.
For starters, Paul decried the cost in lives and dollars of an “undeclared, unnecessary war” in Iraq, and has supported a U.S. withdrawal from a war in Afghanistan that has taken the lives of over 1,900 American soldiers , 3,021 Afghan civilians in 2011 alone, and cost the U.S. hundreds of billions . Romney, on the other hand, has criticized the Obama administration’s plan to draw down the amount of American troops committed to this war in Afghanistan that is adding to the U.S. debt and destroying its reputation abroad.
The candidates’ differences on the drug war also highlight Paul’s commitment to limited government and fiscal responsibility. Paul opposes anti-drug policies that cost government over $40 billion annually and fill prisons with millions of drug offenders, to the point that over half of federal inmates are in prison due to drug crimes. Romney refuses to acknowledge the fiscal and social problems inherent in America’s drug war policies, and continues to support a war on drugs waged by law enforcement.
In a 2008 debate, Romney proclaimed that government’s role in policing political dissidents in the U.S. trumps civil liberties.
“I hear, from time to time, people say -- ‘Hey, we have civil liberties we have to worry about,’—but don’t forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is the right to be kept alive.”
Romney implies that individual liberties ought to be sacrificed for government protection from national security concerns. Paul, on the other hand, has made no such exception, and has steadfastly fought for the civil liberties that protect individuals, including unpopular political minorities, from the powers of government. Paul was one of three Republicans to vote against the PATRIOT Act and its expansion of government surveillance powers, such as Section 206 that allows police to use “roving wiretaps” for surveillance without specifying what person or place is to be searched. No doubt the laws were made in response to a crisis, but Paul never failed to warn that rights are “more easily trampled” in such crises when government makes promises that “initially seem to exceed the cost in lost freedom,” and he was one of very few who stood up for individual liberties threatened by America’s War on Terror.
It seems the difference in delegates between Paul and Romney represents an even bigger difference in governing philosophy, at least if their previous stances on foreign policy, morality, and national security issues are any indication.
If Romney wins the nomination, as it looks like he will, Republicans will have a candidate that supports more government, not less. The good news for Paul supporters, and for Americans that find promoting liberty and limited government to be a worthwhile pursuit, is that more people have recognized and supported Paul’s candidacy in 2012.
this maybe perhaps, is the real reason for wanting to desroy iran,they are doing good for themselves ditching the petro dollar, this was the last guy to do that(kaddafi) [YOUTUBEIF]z30-t7TXsnc[/YOUTUBEIF].
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/ditching-dollar
By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist
There's a major shift under way, one the US mainstream media has left largely untouched even though it will send the United States into an economic maelstrom and dramatically reduce the country's importance in the world: the demise of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.
For decades the US dollar has been absolutely dominant in international trade, especially in the oil markets. This role has created immense demand for US dollars, and that international demand constitutes a huge part of the dollar's valuation. Not only did the global-currency role add massive value to the dollar, it also created an almost endless pool of demand for US Treasuries as countries around the world sought to maintain stores of petrodollars. The availability of all this credit, denominated in a dollar supported by nothing less than the entirety of global trade, enabled the American federal government to borrow without limit and spend with abandon.
The dominance of the dollar gave the United States incredible power and influence around the world… but the times they are a-changing. As the world's emerging economies gain ever more prominence, the US is losing hold of its position as the world's superpower. Many on the long list of nations that dislike America are pondering ways to reduce American influence in their affairs. Ditching the dollar is a very good start.
In fact, they are doing more than pondering. Over the past few years China and other emerging powers such as Russia have been quietly making agreements to move away from the US dollar in international trade. Several major oil-producing nations have begun selling oil in currencies other than the dollar, and both the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have issued reports arguing for the need to create a new global reserve currency independent of the dollar.
The supremacy of the dollar is not nearly as solid as most Americans believe it to be. More generally, the United States is not the global superpower it once was. These trends are very much connected, as demonstrated by the world's response to US sanctions against Iran.
US allies, including much of Europe and parts of Asia, fell into line quickly, reducing imports of Iranian oil. But a good number of Iran's clients do not feel the need to toe America's party line, and Iran certainly doesn't feel any need to take orders from the US. Some countries have objected to America's sanctions on Iran vocally, adamantly refusing to be ordered around. Others are being more discreet, choosing instead to simply trade with Iran through avenues that get around the sanctions.
It's ironic. The United States fashioned its Iranian sanctions assuming that oil trades occur in US dollars. That assumption – an echo of the more general assumption that the US dollar will continue to dominate international trade – has given countries unfriendly to the US a great reason to continue their moves away from the dollar: if they don't trade in dollars, America's dollar-centric policies carry no weight! It's a classic backfire: sanctions intended in part to illustrate the US's continued world supremacy are in fact encouraging countries disillusioned with that very notion to continue their moves away from the US currency, a slow but steady trend that will eat away at its economic power until there is little left.
Let's delve into both situations – the demise of the dollar's dominance and the Iranian sanction shortcuts – in more detail.
(The continual erosion of the dollar could well be the tipping point that causes oil prices to skyrocket. But investors who get positioned before that happens could make life-changing gains.)
Signs the Dollar Is Going the Way of the Dodo
The biggest oil-trading partners in the world, China and Saudi Arabia, are still using the petrodollar in their transactions. How long this will persist is a very important question. China imported 1.4 million barrels of oil a day from Saudi Arabia in February, a 39% increase from a year earlier, and the two countries have teamed up to build a massive oil refinery in Saudi Arabia. As the nations continue to pursue increased bilateral trade, at some point they will decide that involving US dollars in every transaction is unnecessary and expensive, and they will ditch the dollar.
When that happens, the tide will have truly turned against the dollar, as it was an agreement between President Nixon and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia in 1973 that originally created the petrodollar system. Nixon asked Faisal to accept only US dollars as payment for oil and to invest any excess profits in US Treasury bonds, notes, and bills. In exchange, Nixon pledged to protect Saudi oilfields from the Soviet Union and other potential aggressors, such as Iran and Iraq.
That agreement created the foundation for an incredibly strong US dollar. All of the world's oil money started to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing demand for both US dollars and US debt. Every oil-importing nation in the world started converting its surplus funds into US dollars to be able to buy oil. Oil-exporting countries started spending their cash on Treasury securities. And slowly but surely the petrodollar system spread beyond oil to encompass almost every facet of global trade.
The value of the US dollar is based on this role as the conduit for global trade. If that role vanishes, much of the value in the dollar will evaporate. Massive inflation, high interest rates, and substantial increases in the cost of food, clothing, and gasoline will make the 2008 recession look like nothing more than a bump in the road. This will be a crater. The government will be unable to finance its debts. The house of cards, built on the assumption that the world would rely on US dollars forever, will come tumbling down.
It is a scary proposition, but don't bury your head in the sand because countries around the world are already starting to ditch the dollar.
Russia and China are leading the charge. More than a year ago, the two nations made good on talks to move away from the dollar and have been using rubles and renminbi to trade with each other since. A few months ago the second-largest economy on earth – China – and the third-largest economy on the planet – Japan – followed suit, striking a deal to promote the use of their own currencies when trading with each other. The deal will allow firms to convert Chinese and Japanese currencies into each other directly, instead of using US dollars as the intermediary as has been the requirement for years. China is now discussing a similar plan with South Korea.
Similarly, a new agreement among the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) promotes the use of their national currencies when trading, instead of using the US dollar. China is also pursuing bilateral trades with Malaysia using the renminbi and ringgit. And Russia and Iran have agreed to use rubles as a means of currency in their trades.
Then there's the entire continent of Africa. In 2009 China became Africa's largest trading partner, eclipsing the United States, and now China is working to expand the use of Chinese currency in Africa instead of US dollars. Standard Bank, Africa's largest financial institution, predicts that $100 billion worth of trade between China and Africa will be settled in renminbi by 2015. That's more than the total bilateral trade between China and Africa in 2010.
The idea of moving away from the dollar is also finding support from major international agencies. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has stated that "the current system of currencies and capital rules that binds the world economy is not working properly and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises." The statement continued, saying "the dollar should be replaced with a global currency." The International Monetary Fund agrees, recently arguing that the dollar should cede its role as global reserve currency to an international currency, which is in effect a basket of national currencies.
There is also a host of countries that have started using their own currencies to complete oil trades, a move that strikes right at the heart of US-dollar dominance. China and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to ditch the dollar and use their own currencies in oil transactions. The Chinese National Bank says this agreement is worth roughly $5.5 billion annually. India is buying oil from Iran with gold and rupees. China and Iran are working on a barter system to exchange Iranian oil for Chinese imported products.
Speaking of Bartering for Oil… How about Those Iranian Sanctions?
The United States and the European Union based their Iran sanctions on the financial system behind Iran's oil trade. The country uses its central bank to run its oil business – the bank settles trades through the Belgium company Swift (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) and the trades are always in US dollars. Once they take full effect in July, US and EU sanctions against Iran will make transactions with the Iranian central bank illegal. When that occurs, this official avenue of trade will shut down. In fact, Iran was shut out of Swift a few weeks ago, so that road is already blockaded.
But the arrogance in the sanctions is the assumption that Iran can only use this one, dollar-based avenue. In reality, the Islamic Republic is considerably more agile than that; removing its ability to trade in the official manner is only encouraging the country to find imaginative new methods to sell its oil.
Since the sanctions were announced, Tehran's official oil sales have certainly declined. Iran actually preemptively halted oil shipments to Germany, Spain, Greece, Britain, and France, which together had bought some 18% of Iran's oil. But covert sales have curbed or perhaps even reversed the reduction in shipments. It is impossible to know the details, as buyers and sellers involved in skirting the sanctions are being very discreet, but the transactions are undoubtedly happening.
As mentioned above, Iran is selling oil to India for gold and rupees. China and Iran are working on a barter system to exchange Iranian oil for Chinese imported products. China and South Korea are also quietly buying Iranian oil with their own currencies.
The evidence? Millions of barrels of Iranian oil that were in storage in Iranian tankers a few weeks ago now seem to have disappeared. Officially, no one knows where the oil went. Was it rerouted? Has production been shut in? Is the oil being stored elsewhere?
Oil is fungible, which means one barrel of crude is interchangeable with another. Once it leaves its home country, it can be nearly impossible to know where a barrel of oil originated, if its handlers so desire. And it's not just barrels that are hard to track – even though oil is carried on ships so large they are dubbed "supertankers" it is surprisingly difficult to keep tabs on every tanker full of Iranian oil.
And the Iranians are using every trick in the book to move their oil undetected. In the last week it became apparent that Tehran has ordered the captains of its oil tankers to switch off the black-box transponders used in the shipping industry to monitor vessel movements and oil transactions. As such, most of Iran's 39-strong fleet of tankers is "off radar." According to Reuters, only seven of Iran's Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) are still operating their onboard transponders, while only two of the country's nine smaller Suezmax tankers are trackable.
Under international law ships are required to have a satellite tracking device on board when travelling at sea, but a ship's master has the discretion to turn the device off on safety grounds, if he has permission from the ship's home state. Some tankers turned off their trackers to avoid detection last year during the Libyan civil war in order to trade with the Gaddafi government.
And Iran is about to gain even greater flexibility in disguising the locations of oil sales, as the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) is about to take delivery of the first of 12 new supertankers on order from China. The new tankers will add much-needed capacity to NITC's fleet at a time when the number of maritime firms willing to transport Iranian crude has dwindled significantly, forcing Iran's remaining buyers to rely on NITC tankers. Thankfully for NITC, the 12 new VLCCs – each capable of transporting two million barrels of crude – will significantly expand the company's current fleet of 39 ships.
Sanctions or no sanctions, Iran is moving its oil. But even having your own, off-radar ships to transport oil bought in renminbi or rupees or won doesn't mean all these tricks and maneuvers don't have a cost.
Freight costs for each voyage add up to nearly $5 million, a sizeable hit for Tehran. Iran is often also shelling out millions of dollars in insurance for each oil shipment, because the majority of international shipments are insured through a European insurance consortium that is backing away from Iranian vessels because the EU sanctions will make such transactions illegal.
And since business is business, buyers are also demanding much better credit terms from the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) than normal. Traders are reporting agreements giving the buyer as much as six months to pay for each two-million-barrel cargo, a grace period that would cost Tehran as much as $10 million per shipment.
For Tehran to cover freight costs, insurance, and the cost of generous credit terms wipes out as much as 10 percent of the value of each supertanker load. Beyond that, customers are also negotiating better prices. For example, the flow of Iranian oil to China did slow in the first quarter of the year, but not because China endorsed the sanctions. Rather, Chinese refiner Sinopec reduced purchases to negotiate better prices with the National Iranian Oil Company. The country's imports from Iran are expected to climb back to the 560,000 barrel-per-day level in April.
That trade, along with non-dollar-denominated deals with India, Turkey, Syria, and a long list of other friendly nations, will keep Iran's finances afloat for a long time. The sanctions may be preventing Tehran from banking full value for each tanker of oil, but there is still a lot of Iranian oil money flowing.
The mainstream media is avoiding all discussion of the demise of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. Even fewer people are talking about how sanctions based on Iran's supposed need to use the US dollar to sell its oil leave loopholes wide enough for VLCCs to sail right through.
Without acknowledging the elephant in the room, articles about Iranian tankers turning off their transponders or India using gold to buy Iranian oil invariably sound like plot developments in a spy thriller. Much more useful would be to convey the real message: The world doesn't need to revolve around US dollars anymore and the longer the US tries to pretend that the dollar is still and will remain dominant, the more often its international actions will backfire.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/ditching-dollar
By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist
There's a major shift under way, one the US mainstream media has left largely untouched even though it will send the United States into an economic maelstrom and dramatically reduce the country's importance in the world: the demise of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.
For decades the US dollar has been absolutely dominant in international trade, especially in the oil markets. This role has created immense demand for US dollars, and that international demand constitutes a huge part of the dollar's valuation. Not only did the global-currency role add massive value to the dollar, it also created an almost endless pool of demand for US Treasuries as countries around the world sought to maintain stores of petrodollars. The availability of all this credit, denominated in a dollar supported by nothing less than the entirety of global trade, enabled the American federal government to borrow without limit and spend with abandon.
The dominance of the dollar gave the United States incredible power and influence around the world… but the times they are a-changing. As the world's emerging economies gain ever more prominence, the US is losing hold of its position as the world's superpower. Many on the long list of nations that dislike America are pondering ways to reduce American influence in their affairs. Ditching the dollar is a very good start.
In fact, they are doing more than pondering. Over the past few years China and other emerging powers such as Russia have been quietly making agreements to move away from the US dollar in international trade. Several major oil-producing nations have begun selling oil in currencies other than the dollar, and both the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have issued reports arguing for the need to create a new global reserve currency independent of the dollar.
The supremacy of the dollar is not nearly as solid as most Americans believe it to be. More generally, the United States is not the global superpower it once was. These trends are very much connected, as demonstrated by the world's response to US sanctions against Iran.
US allies, including much of Europe and parts of Asia, fell into line quickly, reducing imports of Iranian oil. But a good number of Iran's clients do not feel the need to toe America's party line, and Iran certainly doesn't feel any need to take orders from the US. Some countries have objected to America's sanctions on Iran vocally, adamantly refusing to be ordered around. Others are being more discreet, choosing instead to simply trade with Iran through avenues that get around the sanctions.
It's ironic. The United States fashioned its Iranian sanctions assuming that oil trades occur in US dollars. That assumption – an echo of the more general assumption that the US dollar will continue to dominate international trade – has given countries unfriendly to the US a great reason to continue their moves away from the dollar: if they don't trade in dollars, America's dollar-centric policies carry no weight! It's a classic backfire: sanctions intended in part to illustrate the US's continued world supremacy are in fact encouraging countries disillusioned with that very notion to continue their moves away from the US currency, a slow but steady trend that will eat away at its economic power until there is little left.
Let's delve into both situations – the demise of the dollar's dominance and the Iranian sanction shortcuts – in more detail.
(The continual erosion of the dollar could well be the tipping point that causes oil prices to skyrocket. But investors who get positioned before that happens could make life-changing gains.)
Signs the Dollar Is Going the Way of the Dodo
The biggest oil-trading partners in the world, China and Saudi Arabia, are still using the petrodollar in their transactions. How long this will persist is a very important question. China imported 1.4 million barrels of oil a day from Saudi Arabia in February, a 39% increase from a year earlier, and the two countries have teamed up to build a massive oil refinery in Saudi Arabia. As the nations continue to pursue increased bilateral trade, at some point they will decide that involving US dollars in every transaction is unnecessary and expensive, and they will ditch the dollar.
When that happens, the tide will have truly turned against the dollar, as it was an agreement between President Nixon and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia in 1973 that originally created the petrodollar system. Nixon asked Faisal to accept only US dollars as payment for oil and to invest any excess profits in US Treasury bonds, notes, and bills. In exchange, Nixon pledged to protect Saudi oilfields from the Soviet Union and other potential aggressors, such as Iran and Iraq.
That agreement created the foundation for an incredibly strong US dollar. All of the world's oil money started to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing demand for both US dollars and US debt. Every oil-importing nation in the world started converting its surplus funds into US dollars to be able to buy oil. Oil-exporting countries started spending their cash on Treasury securities. And slowly but surely the petrodollar system spread beyond oil to encompass almost every facet of global trade.
The value of the US dollar is based on this role as the conduit for global trade. If that role vanishes, much of the value in the dollar will evaporate. Massive inflation, high interest rates, and substantial increases in the cost of food, clothing, and gasoline will make the 2008 recession look like nothing more than a bump in the road. This will be a crater. The government will be unable to finance its debts. The house of cards, built on the assumption that the world would rely on US dollars forever, will come tumbling down.
It is a scary proposition, but don't bury your head in the sand because countries around the world are already starting to ditch the dollar.
Russia and China are leading the charge. More than a year ago, the two nations made good on talks to move away from the dollar and have been using rubles and renminbi to trade with each other since. A few months ago the second-largest economy on earth – China – and the third-largest economy on the planet – Japan – followed suit, striking a deal to promote the use of their own currencies when trading with each other. The deal will allow firms to convert Chinese and Japanese currencies into each other directly, instead of using US dollars as the intermediary as has been the requirement for years. China is now discussing a similar plan with South Korea.
Similarly, a new agreement among the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) promotes the use of their national currencies when trading, instead of using the US dollar. China is also pursuing bilateral trades with Malaysia using the renminbi and ringgit. And Russia and Iran have agreed to use rubles as a means of currency in their trades.
Then there's the entire continent of Africa. In 2009 China became Africa's largest trading partner, eclipsing the United States, and now China is working to expand the use of Chinese currency in Africa instead of US dollars. Standard Bank, Africa's largest financial institution, predicts that $100 billion worth of trade between China and Africa will be settled in renminbi by 2015. That's more than the total bilateral trade between China and Africa in 2010.
The idea of moving away from the dollar is also finding support from major international agencies. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has stated that "the current system of currencies and capital rules that binds the world economy is not working properly and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises." The statement continued, saying "the dollar should be replaced with a global currency." The International Monetary Fund agrees, recently arguing that the dollar should cede its role as global reserve currency to an international currency, which is in effect a basket of national currencies.
There is also a host of countries that have started using their own currencies to complete oil trades, a move that strikes right at the heart of US-dollar dominance. China and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to ditch the dollar and use their own currencies in oil transactions. The Chinese National Bank says this agreement is worth roughly $5.5 billion annually. India is buying oil from Iran with gold and rupees. China and Iran are working on a barter system to exchange Iranian oil for Chinese imported products.
Speaking of Bartering for Oil… How about Those Iranian Sanctions?
The United States and the European Union based their Iran sanctions on the financial system behind Iran's oil trade. The country uses its central bank to run its oil business – the bank settles trades through the Belgium company Swift (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) and the trades are always in US dollars. Once they take full effect in July, US and EU sanctions against Iran will make transactions with the Iranian central bank illegal. When that occurs, this official avenue of trade will shut down. In fact, Iran was shut out of Swift a few weeks ago, so that road is already blockaded.
But the arrogance in the sanctions is the assumption that Iran can only use this one, dollar-based avenue. In reality, the Islamic Republic is considerably more agile than that; removing its ability to trade in the official manner is only encouraging the country to find imaginative new methods to sell its oil.
Since the sanctions were announced, Tehran's official oil sales have certainly declined. Iran actually preemptively halted oil shipments to Germany, Spain, Greece, Britain, and France, which together had bought some 18% of Iran's oil. But covert sales have curbed or perhaps even reversed the reduction in shipments. It is impossible to know the details, as buyers and sellers involved in skirting the sanctions are being very discreet, but the transactions are undoubtedly happening.
As mentioned above, Iran is selling oil to India for gold and rupees. China and Iran are working on a barter system to exchange Iranian oil for Chinese imported products. China and South Korea are also quietly buying Iranian oil with their own currencies.
The evidence? Millions of barrels of Iranian oil that were in storage in Iranian tankers a few weeks ago now seem to have disappeared. Officially, no one knows where the oil went. Was it rerouted? Has production been shut in? Is the oil being stored elsewhere?
Oil is fungible, which means one barrel of crude is interchangeable with another. Once it leaves its home country, it can be nearly impossible to know where a barrel of oil originated, if its handlers so desire. And it's not just barrels that are hard to track – even though oil is carried on ships so large they are dubbed "supertankers" it is surprisingly difficult to keep tabs on every tanker full of Iranian oil.
And the Iranians are using every trick in the book to move their oil undetected. In the last week it became apparent that Tehran has ordered the captains of its oil tankers to switch off the black-box transponders used in the shipping industry to monitor vessel movements and oil transactions. As such, most of Iran's 39-strong fleet of tankers is "off radar." According to Reuters, only seven of Iran's Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) are still operating their onboard transponders, while only two of the country's nine smaller Suezmax tankers are trackable.
Under international law ships are required to have a satellite tracking device on board when travelling at sea, but a ship's master has the discretion to turn the device off on safety grounds, if he has permission from the ship's home state. Some tankers turned off their trackers to avoid detection last year during the Libyan civil war in order to trade with the Gaddafi government.
And Iran is about to gain even greater flexibility in disguising the locations of oil sales, as the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) is about to take delivery of the first of 12 new supertankers on order from China. The new tankers will add much-needed capacity to NITC's fleet at a time when the number of maritime firms willing to transport Iranian crude has dwindled significantly, forcing Iran's remaining buyers to rely on NITC tankers. Thankfully for NITC, the 12 new VLCCs – each capable of transporting two million barrels of crude – will significantly expand the company's current fleet of 39 ships.
Sanctions or no sanctions, Iran is moving its oil. But even having your own, off-radar ships to transport oil bought in renminbi or rupees or won doesn't mean all these tricks and maneuvers don't have a cost.
Freight costs for each voyage add up to nearly $5 million, a sizeable hit for Tehran. Iran is often also shelling out millions of dollars in insurance for each oil shipment, because the majority of international shipments are insured through a European insurance consortium that is backing away from Iranian vessels because the EU sanctions will make such transactions illegal.
And since business is business, buyers are also demanding much better credit terms from the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) than normal. Traders are reporting agreements giving the buyer as much as six months to pay for each two-million-barrel cargo, a grace period that would cost Tehran as much as $10 million per shipment.
For Tehran to cover freight costs, insurance, and the cost of generous credit terms wipes out as much as 10 percent of the value of each supertanker load. Beyond that, customers are also negotiating better prices. For example, the flow of Iranian oil to China did slow in the first quarter of the year, but not because China endorsed the sanctions. Rather, Chinese refiner Sinopec reduced purchases to negotiate better prices with the National Iranian Oil Company. The country's imports from Iran are expected to climb back to the 560,000 barrel-per-day level in April.
That trade, along with non-dollar-denominated deals with India, Turkey, Syria, and a long list of other friendly nations, will keep Iran's finances afloat for a long time. The sanctions may be preventing Tehran from banking full value for each tanker of oil, but there is still a lot of Iranian oil money flowing.
The mainstream media is avoiding all discussion of the demise of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. Even fewer people are talking about how sanctions based on Iran's supposed need to use the US dollar to sell its oil leave loopholes wide enough for VLCCs to sail right through.
Without acknowledging the elephant in the room, articles about Iranian tankers turning off their transponders or India using gold to buy Iranian oil invariably sound like plot developments in a spy thriller. Much more useful would be to convey the real message: The world doesn't need to revolve around US dollars anymore and the longer the US tries to pretend that the dollar is still and will remain dominant, the more often its international actions will backfire.
Last edited:
i just found the site and the article today at the rp forums, it seems decent.
Freedom and Peace END ALL WARS NOW!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiS6FwIrlDQ
Ron Paul Has Been Quietly Piling Up Delegates – For a Brokered Convention?
Romney Nomination in doubt – Brokered Convention likely
White Out Press
April 25, 2012
Two networks yesterday, CNBC and MSNBC, broadcast a little known fact – Ron Paul appears to be winning the Republican nomination for President. When the popular Texas Congressman repeatedly assured supporters that the race was about delegates, not beauty contests, he apparently knew what he was talking about. Now, after three more states locked in delegates to the GOP nominating convention – CO, MN and IA – indicators point to a brokered convention with a possible, even probable, Ron Paul victory.
Mitt Romney in a panic
The only report announcing the news of another Paul victory yesterday was the Doug Wead Blog. That write-up, which included the headline, ‘Romney in a Panic’, was picked-up and reprinted by a number of independent news outlets like RT News and The Daily Paul. Wead’s conclusion is based on a number of factors. First and foremost, Ron Paul continues to win more delegates than Mitt Romney during each state’s respective slating processes. Additionally, the writer points to drastic, last-minute changes to GOP procedure showing an attempt to limit the Paul vote. Some measures include a new poll tax in Washington and robo-calls in New York telling Republican voters that only Mitt Romney remains in the race.
What has the GOP power-brokers and their candidate in such a panic? In three short words – Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa.
Keep in mind that every major US news outlet continues to show Texas Congressman Ron Paul in last place for the GOP nomination and with only 75 delegates. View Politico’s delegate tracker as an example. They show Rep. Paul winning 3 delegates in Colorado, 17 in Minnesota and 1 in Iowa. Those networks however, have based their numbers on which candidate each state’s delegates arepledged or likely to vote for. The more important number is who they actually do vote for. And in that race, the only race that matters, Ron Paul is shocking the political world.
Colorado
As reported by this author last week in the article, ‘Colo, Minn, GOP Delegates chosen – Paul Strategy Working’, the local Colorado Ron Paul campaign teamed up with the remnants of former candidate Rick Santorum’s supporters. Together, they created a fusion slate of delegates to take on front-runner Mitt Romney and throw their collective voting power behind the last challenger remaining, Ron Paul.
Last week, the Paul campaign sent out a press release quoting the Denver Post’s headline proclaiming, ‘Stunning Upset’. The Post was referring to Congressman Paul’s delegate haul in the state party’s selection process. More importantly, the Colorado selection was the first to be conducted since former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum dropped out of the race, leaving it to the final two men standing – Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
The result, and a possible indicator of things to come, was Colorado Republicans refusing to give Mitt Romney even half their state’s voting delegates. If that trend continues, Mitt Romney cannot mathematically reach the needed 1,144 delegates, at least not on the first ballot.
This author pointed out last week that most of the national media, as well as the Colorado GOP, refuse to acknowledge Rep. Paul’s delegates in Colorado. The state party simply calls Paul’s delegates, “unpledged”. As the Paul campaign, as well as a small handful of other publications pointed out – Ron Paul actually took home 12 Colorado delegates, compared to 16 for Mitt Romney and 8 for Rick Santorum. Together, the anti-Romney delegates outnumber Romney’s 20 to 16.
Minnesota
The independent-leaning state of Minnesota was one that many thought Ron Paul might win outright. While the candidate didn’t win the “beauty contest” as Paul calls it, the libertarian conservative is cleaning up with regard to delegates. Minnesota’s delegate selection process is one of those that happens over the course of a few weeks and occurs locally, as Ron Paul puts it, “one precinct at a time, one delegate at a time.”
A few days ago, the Paul campaign and this author both announced the candidate’s surprise delegate haul in Minnesota. At the time, three major Congressional districts locked in their delegates and Ron Paul carried all three. In the excited words of the candidate himself, Ron Paul exclaimed, “Have you heard the news yet? Yesterday, Minnesota held three district conventions. Our campaign swept all three – winning nine delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.” Again, read this author’s April 16th column titled, ‘Colo, Minn, GOP Delegates chosen, Paul Strategy Working’ for more information.
Now, just a few days later and with another block of Minnesota GOP delegates being chosen, Ron Paul has guaranteed himself a victory in the state. As confirmed by Rachel Maddow last night and byRon Paul himself while he was the special guest host of CNBC in the morning, Ron Paul has already locked in 20 of the state’s 40 delegates. 16 of those 40 still remain to be chosen and will be awarded over the coming days. As Paul announced yesterday, and Maddow confirmed last night, 24 Minnesota delegates were chosen through this weekend and 20 of them are Ron Paul’s.
Iowa
In the most stunning and unbelievable example of the Republican Party’s dysfunctional Presidential nominating process this year, the state of Iowa now has its third official winner. As humorously noted last night by Maddow, Newt Gingrich is the only candidate not to have won Iowa.
First, Mitt Romney was forced into the winner’s circle in a crazed, midnight, backroom announcement, even though the votes didn’t warrant it. Whiteout Press was one of the only media outlets in the nation to write about the faulty vote totals and was vindicated two weeks later when the Iowa GOP reversed its decision and awarded the victory in Iowa to Rick Santorum. Read the Whiteout Press article ‘Sandorum Won Iowa and didn’t say Black‘ predicting the reversal two weeks before the Iowa GOP reversed its ruling. As a result of the fiasco, the Iowa Republican state chairman resigned. Read the article, ‘Midnight Chaos at Iowa Caucus’ for election night details.
Nothing sums up this weekend’s surprise results like Rachel Maddow’s on-air announcement on MSNBC, “I think Ron Paul just won Iowa.”
The left-leaning political anchor was referring to this weekend’s official awarding of Iowa GOP delegates to the party’s national nominating convention. While the state party has yet to post the results or make any announcement, the results are trickling out on their own, including the Paul campaign and on-air comments on CNBC and MSNBC. Those results show Ron Paul winning the most Iowa GOP delegates, including the new Iowa state party Chairmanship.
Iowa has 28 total delegates to the GOP nominating convention. The national media still shows Ron Paul with only 1 Iowa delegate however. Watch closely over the coming days as the state party quietly changes its totals to show Ron Paul going from 1 delegate to 14 – a full 50 percent of the state’s entire delegation to the nominating convention. And again, many of the remaining delegates are party leaders, elected officials and other super delegates who have yet to assign their votes.
Romney in trouble
The only good news for Mitt Romney is that Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado weren’t the former Governor’s strongest states to begin with. And while the Romney campaign may not be in “panic” mode just yet as some independent reports are suggesting, the candidate and his establishment backers must be concerned. With Mitt Romney failing to capture even half of the delegates from these initial states, he is on course to fight it out for the party nomination at a brokered convention this summer.
The Warren Harding lesson
Many political observers, not just within the Ron Paul campaign, are calling the Texas Congressman’s nomination plan the ‘Harding Strategy’. Referring to the 1920 Republican nominating convention held in Chicago, Warren Harding was at the bottom of a list of 12 potential GOP nominees. Unable to unite behind one candidate during the primary process, the delegates were forced into a brokered convention.
Through the first 6 rounds of delegate voting, Harding didn’t even finish in the top three during any of the votes. But by the 10th vote, Warren Harding walked away with the Republican nomination. He went on to win the general election and become President.
While many political analysts are calling Ron Paul’s current journey a mirror image of Harding’s 1920 trek, others aren’t quite convinced. As the Paul campaign itself continues to point out, only half of the states have voted so far. Nothing’s been decided yet. If nothing else, just when the Republican leadership and the national media have proclaimed Mitt Romney the GOP nominee, Ron Paul’s string of delegate victories this week may force them to do what they were forced to do in Iowa – admit they’re wrong.
Whether or not the Texas Congressman can duplicate Warren Harding’s stunning upset on the way to the White House is another question. But if delegate selections continue on the course they’re on, Mitt Romney will not have enough delegates to win the nomination outright. If that turns out to be the case and the GOP heads into a brokered convention, Ron Paul may have the party right where he wants it. A brokered convention has been his strategy all along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiS6FwIrlDQ
Ron Paul Has Been Quietly Piling Up Delegates – For a Brokered Convention?
Romney Nomination in doubt – Brokered Convention likely
White Out Press
April 25, 2012
Two networks yesterday, CNBC and MSNBC, broadcast a little known fact – Ron Paul appears to be winning the Republican nomination for President. When the popular Texas Congressman repeatedly assured supporters that the race was about delegates, not beauty contests, he apparently knew what he was talking about. Now, after three more states locked in delegates to the GOP nominating convention – CO, MN and IA – indicators point to a brokered convention with a possible, even probable, Ron Paul victory.
Mitt Romney in a panic
The only report announcing the news of another Paul victory yesterday was the Doug Wead Blog. That write-up, which included the headline, ‘Romney in a Panic’, was picked-up and reprinted by a number of independent news outlets like RT News and The Daily Paul. Wead’s conclusion is based on a number of factors. First and foremost, Ron Paul continues to win more delegates than Mitt Romney during each state’s respective slating processes. Additionally, the writer points to drastic, last-minute changes to GOP procedure showing an attempt to limit the Paul vote. Some measures include a new poll tax in Washington and robo-calls in New York telling Republican voters that only Mitt Romney remains in the race.
What has the GOP power-brokers and their candidate in such a panic? In three short words – Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa.
Keep in mind that every major US news outlet continues to show Texas Congressman Ron Paul in last place for the GOP nomination and with only 75 delegates. View Politico’s delegate tracker as an example. They show Rep. Paul winning 3 delegates in Colorado, 17 in Minnesota and 1 in Iowa. Those networks however, have based their numbers on which candidate each state’s delegates arepledged or likely to vote for. The more important number is who they actually do vote for. And in that race, the only race that matters, Ron Paul is shocking the political world.
Colorado
As reported by this author last week in the article, ‘Colo, Minn, GOP Delegates chosen – Paul Strategy Working’, the local Colorado Ron Paul campaign teamed up with the remnants of former candidate Rick Santorum’s supporters. Together, they created a fusion slate of delegates to take on front-runner Mitt Romney and throw their collective voting power behind the last challenger remaining, Ron Paul.
Last week, the Paul campaign sent out a press release quoting the Denver Post’s headline proclaiming, ‘Stunning Upset’. The Post was referring to Congressman Paul’s delegate haul in the state party’s selection process. More importantly, the Colorado selection was the first to be conducted since former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum dropped out of the race, leaving it to the final two men standing – Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
The result, and a possible indicator of things to come, was Colorado Republicans refusing to give Mitt Romney even half their state’s voting delegates. If that trend continues, Mitt Romney cannot mathematically reach the needed 1,144 delegates, at least not on the first ballot.
This author pointed out last week that most of the national media, as well as the Colorado GOP, refuse to acknowledge Rep. Paul’s delegates in Colorado. The state party simply calls Paul’s delegates, “unpledged”. As the Paul campaign, as well as a small handful of other publications pointed out – Ron Paul actually took home 12 Colorado delegates, compared to 16 for Mitt Romney and 8 for Rick Santorum. Together, the anti-Romney delegates outnumber Romney’s 20 to 16.
Minnesota
The independent-leaning state of Minnesota was one that many thought Ron Paul might win outright. While the candidate didn’t win the “beauty contest” as Paul calls it, the libertarian conservative is cleaning up with regard to delegates. Minnesota’s delegate selection process is one of those that happens over the course of a few weeks and occurs locally, as Ron Paul puts it, “one precinct at a time, one delegate at a time.”
A few days ago, the Paul campaign and this author both announced the candidate’s surprise delegate haul in Minnesota. At the time, three major Congressional districts locked in their delegates and Ron Paul carried all three. In the excited words of the candidate himself, Ron Paul exclaimed, “Have you heard the news yet? Yesterday, Minnesota held three district conventions. Our campaign swept all three – winning nine delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.” Again, read this author’s April 16th column titled, ‘Colo, Minn, GOP Delegates chosen, Paul Strategy Working’ for more information.
Now, just a few days later and with another block of Minnesota GOP delegates being chosen, Ron Paul has guaranteed himself a victory in the state. As confirmed by Rachel Maddow last night and byRon Paul himself while he was the special guest host of CNBC in the morning, Ron Paul has already locked in 20 of the state’s 40 delegates. 16 of those 40 still remain to be chosen and will be awarded over the coming days. As Paul announced yesterday, and Maddow confirmed last night, 24 Minnesota delegates were chosen through this weekend and 20 of them are Ron Paul’s.
Iowa
In the most stunning and unbelievable example of the Republican Party’s dysfunctional Presidential nominating process this year, the state of Iowa now has its third official winner. As humorously noted last night by Maddow, Newt Gingrich is the only candidate not to have won Iowa.
First, Mitt Romney was forced into the winner’s circle in a crazed, midnight, backroom announcement, even though the votes didn’t warrant it. Whiteout Press was one of the only media outlets in the nation to write about the faulty vote totals and was vindicated two weeks later when the Iowa GOP reversed its decision and awarded the victory in Iowa to Rick Santorum. Read the Whiteout Press article ‘Sandorum Won Iowa and didn’t say Black‘ predicting the reversal two weeks before the Iowa GOP reversed its ruling. As a result of the fiasco, the Iowa Republican state chairman resigned. Read the article, ‘Midnight Chaos at Iowa Caucus’ for election night details.
Nothing sums up this weekend’s surprise results like Rachel Maddow’s on-air announcement on MSNBC, “I think Ron Paul just won Iowa.”
The left-leaning political anchor was referring to this weekend’s official awarding of Iowa GOP delegates to the party’s national nominating convention. While the state party has yet to post the results or make any announcement, the results are trickling out on their own, including the Paul campaign and on-air comments on CNBC and MSNBC. Those results show Ron Paul winning the most Iowa GOP delegates, including the new Iowa state party Chairmanship.
Iowa has 28 total delegates to the GOP nominating convention. The national media still shows Ron Paul with only 1 Iowa delegate however. Watch closely over the coming days as the state party quietly changes its totals to show Ron Paul going from 1 delegate to 14 – a full 50 percent of the state’s entire delegation to the nominating convention. And again, many of the remaining delegates are party leaders, elected officials and other super delegates who have yet to assign their votes.
Romney in trouble
The only good news for Mitt Romney is that Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado weren’t the former Governor’s strongest states to begin with. And while the Romney campaign may not be in “panic” mode just yet as some independent reports are suggesting, the candidate and his establishment backers must be concerned. With Mitt Romney failing to capture even half of the delegates from these initial states, he is on course to fight it out for the party nomination at a brokered convention this summer.
The Warren Harding lesson
Many political observers, not just within the Ron Paul campaign, are calling the Texas Congressman’s nomination plan the ‘Harding Strategy’. Referring to the 1920 Republican nominating convention held in Chicago, Warren Harding was at the bottom of a list of 12 potential GOP nominees. Unable to unite behind one candidate during the primary process, the delegates were forced into a brokered convention.
Through the first 6 rounds of delegate voting, Harding didn’t even finish in the top three during any of the votes. But by the 10th vote, Warren Harding walked away with the Republican nomination. He went on to win the general election and become President.
While many political analysts are calling Ron Paul’s current journey a mirror image of Harding’s 1920 trek, others aren’t quite convinced. As the Paul campaign itself continues to point out, only half of the states have voted so far. Nothing’s been decided yet. If nothing else, just when the Republican leadership and the national media have proclaimed Mitt Romney the GOP nominee, Ron Paul’s string of delegate victories this week may force them to do what they were forced to do in Iowa – admit they’re wrong.
Whether or not the Texas Congressman can duplicate Warren Harding’s stunning upset on the way to the White House is another question. But if delegate selections continue on the course they’re on, Mitt Romney will not have enough delegates to win the nomination outright. If that turns out to be the case and the GOP heads into a brokered convention, Ron Paul may have the party right where he wants it. A brokered convention has been his strategy all along.
Judge Napolitano - Your 1st Amendment has been Rescinded by the
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb3v0BHV7h4
Reality Check: Infighting at More GOP Caucuses and What the MSM Won't Tell You About Iowa and Minnesota
http://www.fox19.com/story/17768724...he-msm-wont-tell-you-about-iowa-and-minnesota
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb3v0BHV7h4
Reality Check: Infighting at More GOP Caucuses and What the MSM Won't Tell You About Iowa and Minnesota
http://www.fox19.com/story/17768724...he-msm-wont-tell-you-about-iowa-and-minnesota
Last edited:
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/romney-ron-paul-in-brutal-battle/
Romney – Ron Paul in brutal battle !
The war over delegates at the district level last weekend descended into a brutal battle, more like a scene from the plains of the Serengeti than a political convention. Romney Hawks, now in complete control of his campaign (See Romney Hawks) are using strong arm tactics to shut out the Ron Paul forces. A county chairman in New York has commissioned robo calls declaring that all other candidates have dropped out of the race except Mitt Romney.
“If Mitt Romney has won the nomination,” says one of the Ron Paul state directors, “Why are they so threatening and running so scared? Why would they risk breaking the law or openly lying to people on phone calls?”
I reported to you yesterday on the Ron Paul success in Minnesota and Iowa. But only partially. I held back the full extent of the good news. The Des Moines Register reported that Ron Paul had won six members on the state committee. Ahem. There is much more to say but it is not wise to share. But since Dr. Paul, himself, let one of the cats out of the bag on CNBC today, I will reiterate his announcement that we took 15 out of 17 members of the Iowa state GOP steering committee.
But don’t cry for Mitt Argentina. Romneyites are using every trick in the book and then some. In one instance they literally locked the door to keep Ron Paul young people from participating.
From scattered reports of district conventions in numerous states, the Rick Santorum forces are scattered, like sheep without a shepherd. In many places his campaign is being picked clean by the Romney forces with their “unity” slates, which are anti-prolife and anti-everything else for which Rick Santorum stood.
BTW, if you are Santorum delegate, don’t sell yourself cheap. The Romney people are making big promises to your colleagues, don’t give away your vote for nothing. And if you happen to still believe in something, come over to us.
In Missouri, where a Santorum-Ron Paul coalition could have split the delegation, the Santorum people flipped and moved to Mitt Romney, instead. Depending on how one interprets the final tally, it looks like Ron Paul will get 20 of the delegates, and Romney will get most of the rest, giving only a token to Santorum. Ironically, the socially conservative, Rick Santorum had asked his people in Missouri to cooperate with Ron Paul, a pro lifer and an evangelical Christian. But in the end most of the delegates were Santorum supporters in name only and did their own thing, cutting a deal with Mitt Romney.
In Washington State, where Ron Paul and Santorum people are openly cooperating in some districts, the modus operandi of the Romney establishment was especially curt. The 37th legislative district of King County is a case in point. Borrowing successful tactics used by the Romney Gestapo in Alaska, a determined King County Chairwoman, Lori Sotelo, instituted a last minute “poll tax” of ten dollars. The Ron Paul people were not deterred. They meekly submitted to this surprise “rule” and paid her the money. The meeting began, late but the duly elected delegates were committed to see it through.
When the delegates in attendance, overwhelmingly Ron Paul supporters, duly elected their own Tamra Smilanich as the permanent chair of the caucus, Sotelo watched for a few minutes and then began what can only be described as a continuous assault on democracy at work. First she interrupted the proceedings to announce that the caucus was adjourned. She declared that Smilanich was an “operative” of the Ron Paul campaign and had turned the event into a Ron Paul campaign meeting. Since the insurance was paid for by the King County GOP, she determined it did not cover a Ron Paul event, thus the meeting was closed.
No reason was cited to substantiate the accusation and videos now abound on the internet giving viewers a blow by blow account of events as they unfolded. Participants insist that Smilanich operated within the Robert’s Rules of Order and her election was legitimate. Her only fault was she hailed from the Ron Paul camp.
After Smilanich allowed for speeches and just before the body could vote, Lori Sotelo made another attempt to end the proceeding and prevent any vote from taking place. Once more she contended that the premises had to be vacated because chairman Smilanich was acting as a Ron Paul campaign surrogate. A few minutes later she announced that the premises had to be vacated because the place had been rented for a limited amount of time and that time was now ended.
With this ugly tug of war ongoing, the meeting dragged on for hours, relocating to different places, but, miraculously, a quorum was maintained and delegates were elected to the next round.
See: High noon in Washington State.
Of course, the establishment GOP and the Romney campaign continue to make every effort to stop or discourage the Ron Paul involvement on the grounds that Mitt Romney has won the nomination and the party should unite.
Vincent Reda, the Rockland County, New York chairman had robo phones call to all Republicans in the county declaring that all other candidates had dropped out of the race except Mitt Romney. Where the calls made with Republican money? If so, it was illegal.
Listen to Vincent Reda give his false message.
One wonders why the Romney forces are so nervous. Why would they misrepresent the facts? Why would their shills in the main stream media keep beating the drums, saying to the Ron Paul supporters, “Get out, get out, get out.”
No one stops to ask the question that if Mitt Romney has the nomination won, why should all of these people have to get out? Why wouldn’t the Romney organizers be saying, “Get in, get in, get in?”
Romney – Ron Paul in brutal battle !
The war over delegates at the district level last weekend descended into a brutal battle, more like a scene from the plains of the Serengeti than a political convention. Romney Hawks, now in complete control of his campaign (See Romney Hawks) are using strong arm tactics to shut out the Ron Paul forces. A county chairman in New York has commissioned robo calls declaring that all other candidates have dropped out of the race except Mitt Romney.
“If Mitt Romney has won the nomination,” says one of the Ron Paul state directors, “Why are they so threatening and running so scared? Why would they risk breaking the law or openly lying to people on phone calls?”
I reported to you yesterday on the Ron Paul success in Minnesota and Iowa. But only partially. I held back the full extent of the good news. The Des Moines Register reported that Ron Paul had won six members on the state committee. Ahem. There is much more to say but it is not wise to share. But since Dr. Paul, himself, let one of the cats out of the bag on CNBC today, I will reiterate his announcement that we took 15 out of 17 members of the Iowa state GOP steering committee.
But don’t cry for Mitt Argentina. Romneyites are using every trick in the book and then some. In one instance they literally locked the door to keep Ron Paul young people from participating.
From scattered reports of district conventions in numerous states, the Rick Santorum forces are scattered, like sheep without a shepherd. In many places his campaign is being picked clean by the Romney forces with their “unity” slates, which are anti-prolife and anti-everything else for which Rick Santorum stood.
BTW, if you are Santorum delegate, don’t sell yourself cheap. The Romney people are making big promises to your colleagues, don’t give away your vote for nothing. And if you happen to still believe in something, come over to us.
In Missouri, where a Santorum-Ron Paul coalition could have split the delegation, the Santorum people flipped and moved to Mitt Romney, instead. Depending on how one interprets the final tally, it looks like Ron Paul will get 20 of the delegates, and Romney will get most of the rest, giving only a token to Santorum. Ironically, the socially conservative, Rick Santorum had asked his people in Missouri to cooperate with Ron Paul, a pro lifer and an evangelical Christian. But in the end most of the delegates were Santorum supporters in name only and did their own thing, cutting a deal with Mitt Romney.
In Washington State, where Ron Paul and Santorum people are openly cooperating in some districts, the modus operandi of the Romney establishment was especially curt. The 37th legislative district of King County is a case in point. Borrowing successful tactics used by the Romney Gestapo in Alaska, a determined King County Chairwoman, Lori Sotelo, instituted a last minute “poll tax” of ten dollars. The Ron Paul people were not deterred. They meekly submitted to this surprise “rule” and paid her the money. The meeting began, late but the duly elected delegates were committed to see it through.
When the delegates in attendance, overwhelmingly Ron Paul supporters, duly elected their own Tamra Smilanich as the permanent chair of the caucus, Sotelo watched for a few minutes and then began what can only be described as a continuous assault on democracy at work. First she interrupted the proceedings to announce that the caucus was adjourned. She declared that Smilanich was an “operative” of the Ron Paul campaign and had turned the event into a Ron Paul campaign meeting. Since the insurance was paid for by the King County GOP, she determined it did not cover a Ron Paul event, thus the meeting was closed.
No reason was cited to substantiate the accusation and videos now abound on the internet giving viewers a blow by blow account of events as they unfolded. Participants insist that Smilanich operated within the Robert’s Rules of Order and her election was legitimate. Her only fault was she hailed from the Ron Paul camp.
After Smilanich allowed for speeches and just before the body could vote, Lori Sotelo made another attempt to end the proceeding and prevent any vote from taking place. Once more she contended that the premises had to be vacated because chairman Smilanich was acting as a Ron Paul campaign surrogate. A few minutes later she announced that the premises had to be vacated because the place had been rented for a limited amount of time and that time was now ended.
With this ugly tug of war ongoing, the meeting dragged on for hours, relocating to different places, but, miraculously, a quorum was maintained and delegates were elected to the next round.
See: High noon in Washington State.
Of course, the establishment GOP and the Romney campaign continue to make every effort to stop or discourage the Ron Paul involvement on the grounds that Mitt Romney has won the nomination and the party should unite.
Vincent Reda, the Rockland County, New York chairman had robo phones call to all Republicans in the county declaring that all other candidates had dropped out of the race except Mitt Romney. Where the calls made with Republican money? If so, it was illegal.
Listen to Vincent Reda give his false message.
One wonders why the Romney forces are so nervous. Why would they misrepresent the facts? Why would their shills in the main stream media keep beating the drums, saying to the Ron Paul supporters, “Get out, get out, get out.”
No one stops to ask the question that if Mitt Romney has the nomination won, why should all of these people have to get out? Why wouldn’t the Romney organizers be saying, “Get in, get in, get in?”
what a guy,take their rights and for whatever reason doesnt even want to acknowledge them as people.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...ervative-marco-rubio-wants-to-rule-the-world/
Neoconservative Marco Rubio wants to rule the world
Nobody usually cares when a Senator gives a speech on foreign policy to the Brookings Institute, but the US media was all over Marco Rubio’s Wednesday effort. It mattered because Rubio is top of Romney’s list to be the Vice Presidential nominee – and the press was struck by its statesmanlike tone and attempt to bridge the partisan divide. But while the sound of the talk was moderate, its content was not. This was the most hawkish speech since John Wayne told that Mexican lady in The Alamo what he was fighting for: “There’s right and there’s wrong. You gotta do one or the other. You do the one and you’re living. You do the other and you maybe walking around, but you’re dead as a beaver hat…”
While Rubio did list some Democrats that he likes (Roosevelt, Truman, Scoop Jackson), he really seemed to want to send a message to the Republicans that he dislikes. This is the relevant section:
“Until very recently, the general perception was that American Conservatism believed in a robust and muscular foreign policy … But when I arrived in the Senate last year I found that some of the traditional sides in the foreign policy debate had shifted. On the one hand, I found liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans working together to advocate our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and staying out of Libya. On the other hand I found myself partnering with Democrats … on a more forceful foreign policy … I recently joked that today, in the US Senate, on foreign policy, if you go far enough to the right, you wind up on the left.”
Rubio’s target is obvious: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and those elements of the Tea Party Right that dissented on Libya. Given that it barely scraped 20 percent in most primaries, it’s amazing how much the Paulite revolt seems to have upset the Republican establishment. In fact, Rubio’s entire speech (and it’s a long one) reads like a step-by-step rebuttal of the Paulite critique of neoconservative foreign policy – the belief that America has a moral duty and a strategic interest to promote global democracy.
Rubio is a Cuban American, which may have shaped his views on the subject. For many years, the US was the only consistent world power critic of a communist dictatorship that effectively drove the Rubios from their own country. There are certainly a lot of anticommunist memories informing contemporary neocon policies.
Nevertheless, it’s hard not to be troubled by Rubio’s all-encompassing vision of American hegemony. Especially if you’re not American. Another quote: “What happens all over the world is our business. Every aspect of [our] lives is directly impacted by global events. The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.”
Apparently, if some goatherd in the mountains of Afghanistan loses one of his flock to a landmine, the consequences for Topeka, Kansas could be terrible. The absurdity of the theory that literally every security problem in the world is a direct threat to the United States is but one example of Rubio’s naïveté. In his vision, America never makes mistakes and everyone loves it. Small nations regard the US as their protector against bigger nations, whose wickedness is irrational: “Other countries look apprehensively on the growing influence of newly emerging powers in their midst, and look to the U.S. to counterbalance them.”
Of course, there’s plenty that’s right in Rubio’s talk. He highlights the importance of alliances and free trade, as well as engaging constructively with Latin America. Europeans will rejoice that he sees a “U.S.-EU partnership” that is critical to balancing the rise of China or the intrigues of Moscow.
But the Senator does insist on pursuing Iran as if it were a latter-day USSR – again, the influence of those old Kremlinologists is obvious. Nobody likes the Iranian dictatorship and nobody (outside a small body of cranks) wants to see it get a nuclear weapon. But these are issues of containment. Rubio deals with Iran as if it were an existential threat: “Iran’s dangerous nuclear ambitions are about more than just weapons. Iran wants to become the most dominant power in the Middle East … The prospect of a nuclear capable Iran is so unacceptable that we must be prepared to act with or without [the consent of others].” Rubio doesn’t just raise the possibility of war; he practically sets a timetable for it.
The shallowness of Rubio’s speech is best demonstrated by his brief, almost innocent mention of the anti-Kony video campaign run by Invisible Children: “All around us we see the human face of America’s influence in the world. It actually begins with not just our government, but our people … The atrocities of Joseph Kony would still be largely unknown. But in fact, millions now know because an American filmmaker made a short film about it and then distributed it on another American invention YouTube.”
Where to begin? The people of Africa certainly knew about Kony before the Kony 2012 video was released. So did the President: he sent Special Forces to Uganda to deal with the warlord back in October 2011 (and was attacked by Republicans for doing so). Perhaps a few well-meaning kids in the US suburbs didn’t know, but what has Invisible Children actually contributed towards resolution of that conflict (especially given that Kony might not even be in Uganda anymore)? And is Rubio suggesting that US foreign policy be guided by whatever video has the most hits on YouTube? If Kim Jong Un makes a sex tape, will America invade North Korea?
Finally, who should be our target in Uganda? Kony, certainly. But also successive Ugandan governments that have stolen from and terrorised their own people. Do we deal with them all at once? And if we do, who shall replace them? The Earth is not divided between good and evil, as Rubio seems to suggest. Rather, it is an amoral mess governed by flawed souls – many of them found within the US State Department. People have tried to bring order to the world before and they’ve all failed. So will Marco Rubio.
Neoconservative Marco Rubio wants to rule the world
Nobody usually cares when a Senator gives a speech on foreign policy to the Brookings Institute, but the US media was all over Marco Rubio’s Wednesday effort. It mattered because Rubio is top of Romney’s list to be the Vice Presidential nominee – and the press was struck by its statesmanlike tone and attempt to bridge the partisan divide. But while the sound of the talk was moderate, its content was not. This was the most hawkish speech since John Wayne told that Mexican lady in The Alamo what he was fighting for: “There’s right and there’s wrong. You gotta do one or the other. You do the one and you’re living. You do the other and you maybe walking around, but you’re dead as a beaver hat…”
While Rubio did list some Democrats that he likes (Roosevelt, Truman, Scoop Jackson), he really seemed to want to send a message to the Republicans that he dislikes. This is the relevant section:
“Until very recently, the general perception was that American Conservatism believed in a robust and muscular foreign policy … But when I arrived in the Senate last year I found that some of the traditional sides in the foreign policy debate had shifted. On the one hand, I found liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans working together to advocate our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and staying out of Libya. On the other hand I found myself partnering with Democrats … on a more forceful foreign policy … I recently joked that today, in the US Senate, on foreign policy, if you go far enough to the right, you wind up on the left.”
Rubio’s target is obvious: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and those elements of the Tea Party Right that dissented on Libya. Given that it barely scraped 20 percent in most primaries, it’s amazing how much the Paulite revolt seems to have upset the Republican establishment. In fact, Rubio’s entire speech (and it’s a long one) reads like a step-by-step rebuttal of the Paulite critique of neoconservative foreign policy – the belief that America has a moral duty and a strategic interest to promote global democracy.
Rubio is a Cuban American, which may have shaped his views on the subject. For many years, the US was the only consistent world power critic of a communist dictatorship that effectively drove the Rubios from their own country. There are certainly a lot of anticommunist memories informing contemporary neocon policies.
Nevertheless, it’s hard not to be troubled by Rubio’s all-encompassing vision of American hegemony. Especially if you’re not American. Another quote: “What happens all over the world is our business. Every aspect of [our] lives is directly impacted by global events. The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.”
Apparently, if some goatherd in the mountains of Afghanistan loses one of his flock to a landmine, the consequences for Topeka, Kansas could be terrible. The absurdity of the theory that literally every security problem in the world is a direct threat to the United States is but one example of Rubio’s naïveté. In his vision, America never makes mistakes and everyone loves it. Small nations regard the US as their protector against bigger nations, whose wickedness is irrational: “Other countries look apprehensively on the growing influence of newly emerging powers in their midst, and look to the U.S. to counterbalance them.”
Of course, there’s plenty that’s right in Rubio’s talk. He highlights the importance of alliances and free trade, as well as engaging constructively with Latin America. Europeans will rejoice that he sees a “U.S.-EU partnership” that is critical to balancing the rise of China or the intrigues of Moscow.
But the Senator does insist on pursuing Iran as if it were a latter-day USSR – again, the influence of those old Kremlinologists is obvious. Nobody likes the Iranian dictatorship and nobody (outside a small body of cranks) wants to see it get a nuclear weapon. But these are issues of containment. Rubio deals with Iran as if it were an existential threat: “Iran’s dangerous nuclear ambitions are about more than just weapons. Iran wants to become the most dominant power in the Middle East … The prospect of a nuclear capable Iran is so unacceptable that we must be prepared to act with or without [the consent of others].” Rubio doesn’t just raise the possibility of war; he practically sets a timetable for it.
The shallowness of Rubio’s speech is best demonstrated by his brief, almost innocent mention of the anti-Kony video campaign run by Invisible Children: “All around us we see the human face of America’s influence in the world. It actually begins with not just our government, but our people … The atrocities of Joseph Kony would still be largely unknown. But in fact, millions now know because an American filmmaker made a short film about it and then distributed it on another American invention YouTube.”
Where to begin? The people of Africa certainly knew about Kony before the Kony 2012 video was released. So did the President: he sent Special Forces to Uganda to deal with the warlord back in October 2011 (and was attacked by Republicans for doing so). Perhaps a few well-meaning kids in the US suburbs didn’t know, but what has Invisible Children actually contributed towards resolution of that conflict (especially given that Kony might not even be in Uganda anymore)? And is Rubio suggesting that US foreign policy be guided by whatever video has the most hits on YouTube? If Kim Jong Un makes a sex tape, will America invade North Korea?
Finally, who should be our target in Uganda? Kony, certainly. But also successive Ugandan governments that have stolen from and terrorised their own people. Do we deal with them all at once? And if we do, who shall replace them? The Earth is not divided between good and evil, as Rubio seems to suggest. Rather, it is an amoral mess governed by flawed souls – many of them found within the US State Department. People have tried to bring order to the world before and they’ve all failed. So will Marco Rubio.
OOopps...So the US Gov't has been caught LAUNDERING $$$, Running Guns (Fast&Furious), and with 4 tons of Cocaine all within a year or so.
CIA Torture Jet wrecks with 4 Tons of COCAINE
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/131207_b_cocaine.htm
US laundered millions for drug cartels
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-drug-cartels-mexican-489/
All this and Fast & Furious is to take our guns away by making us think guns are bad. They are doing Monarch Programming. So get this right. Eric Holder our AG is giving DRUG CARTELS FULLY AUTO/SEMI AUTO guns so Americans don't need them???? HHmmmm. Funny that he was in charge of Fast and Furious. RON PAUL WOULD GIVE HIM A PINK SLIP!
Fast and Furious Scandal Gives Rise to Gun Regulation Debate
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-rise-to-gun-regulation-debate/#ixzz1tBZVeChR
Holder Says People Need to be Brainwashed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw
CIA Torture Jet wrecks with 4 Tons of COCAINE
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/131207_b_cocaine.htm
US laundered millions for drug cartels
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-drug-cartels-mexican-489/
All this and Fast & Furious is to take our guns away by making us think guns are bad. They are doing Monarch Programming. So get this right. Eric Holder our AG is giving DRUG CARTELS FULLY AUTO/SEMI AUTO guns so Americans don't need them???? HHmmmm. Funny that he was in charge of Fast and Furious. RON PAUL WOULD GIVE HIM A PINK SLIP!
Fast and Furious Scandal Gives Rise to Gun Regulation Debate
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-rise-to-gun-regulation-debate/#ixzz1tBZVeChR
Holder Says People Need to be Brainwashed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw
i find it rather amusing that all of you love democracy, yet support the UN-democratic way in which dr paul is attempting to win the GOP nomination.
i also find it intriguing that dr paul campaigns the same way...
Pure democracy is one person one vote (even if 95% of people are assholes).
(FWIW Romney needs 312 of the remaining 966 delegates. [or 32.3% of the remaining, and actually less because Utah awards all their delegates to the winner, and Romney would beat jesus there).
Dr Paul was mathematically eliminated from winning the majority of delegates (on the first vote) two nights ago.
-
i also find it intriguing that dr paul campaigns the same way...
Pure democracy is one person one vote (even if 95% of people are assholes).
(FWIW Romney needs 312 of the remaining 966 delegates. [or 32.3% of the remaining, and actually less because Utah awards all their delegates to the winner, and Romney would beat jesus there).
Dr Paul was mathematically eliminated from winning the majority of delegates (on the first vote) two nights ago.
-
- Status
