Thursday, April 19, 2012

Ron Paul's Problem With Earmarks

I admit, it is difficult to prove that Ron Paul is an insider and controlled opposition. I maintain my suspicion because I worked closely with a member of an insider family (deMedici) who was also a national Tea Party Organizer. But that doesn't mean anything to people on this forum.

I don't like Ron Paul for several reasons. 1. connection with Alex Jones and friends, 2. Sustainable Defence Task Force, 3. Proponent of Legalization of Drugs (users need rehab, distributors need prosecution) 4. Membership Lamba Chi Alpha, 5. Didn't accept Medicaid 6. Wants a return to gold standard. 7. Routinely puts pork in bills and votes against them. 8. Romney is a viable alternative. 9. I don't agree with the Libertarian ideology.

Now, I've been reading up on pork and earmarks trying to learn exactly the process by which earmarks get put into bills. And I think this issue proves more than any other how Ron Paul is a "wolf in sheeps clothing". From what I can gather, Earmarks are put into bills while they are in committee. If you are on the Committee and the Commitee chair, then you can put earmarks in the bill. But usually Earmarks are used as a "payoff" for politicians to vote for a bill. If you will agree to vote for a bill, you get a little pork barrel reward for your vote. Thus, Republican-sponsored bills are loaded with Republican earmarks and Democratic bills are loaded with Democrate pork. I bet congressmen get extra rewards for crossing the aisle if the bill needs a few more votes to pass. (i should be a politician, I could really game this system).

So, my question is this: How does Ron Paul get so many Earmarks put into various bills if everyone knows he is going to vote against the bill? If Ron Paul gets Earmarks despite opposing bills, then he could only get them based on being an insider. Ron Paul is chairman of the House Budget Commitee this year but he hasn't prior. And especially during a Democratic controlled House, how did RP get "payoff" Earmarks with everyone knowing he'd vote against the bill?

For Fiscal Year 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork.

Again, what kind of connections does Ron Paul have to get Earmarks in legislation everyone knows he will vote against? My assumption is that Earmarks are "payoffs", "inducements" and "rewards" for supporting a piece of legislation. How does Ron Paul get Earmarks in legislation when he votes "NO" on almost everything?

In this speech Ron Paul says that he is in total support of Earmarks, Earmarks are good, and Everything Congress does should be Earmarked.

The problem is hear that Mr Constitution is forgetting the Constitutional issue here. Accirding to the Constitution, Federal government laws and appropriations should be for the "general welfare" and "common Defence". The problem with "entitlements" just like Ron Paul Pork is that it gives money to specific people and groups that has nothing whatever to do with being about the "general welfare" or the "common Defense". Is this hipocracy? I can't believe RP would defend his Pork in this way.

RP says Earmarks are good because the money would just go to the executive branch if not earmarked for his PET projects and crony political payoffs. This assumes that they have the total appropriation value first before the Earnarks. However, how it really works is that they add up the Earmarks and adds it to the bottom line.

Either way it doesn't matter, Taking 1% of the budget to payoff corrupt individual pet projects as "kickbacks" totally supports the whole system of corruption and violates the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution.

I know what RP says in defense of Earmarks. I have Read RPs talk on Earmarks. RP says the money would go to the Exeuctive Branch, its better to send it locally, only 1%, everything should be Earmarked. Just because RP gives a laundry list of reasons to defend Earmarks doesn't mean they are good reasons.

1. My question that I don't know, and why I am asking is: how does RP get Earmarks if he always votes NO. If I knew another mechanism for earmarks other than a "payoff", I wouldn't be asking the question. My question is: is there another mechanism for Earmarks?

2. Despite all the good reasons RP gives for Earmarks, I believe they violate the "general welfare" clause the same as entitlements do. This violation trumps any other argument. The best way to keep money locally controlled is to not tax and earmark it in the first place.

RP uses his policies (some good) to sets himself up as a "real alternative to the establishment candidates" (media quote). [Google: Ron Paul Outsider and behold the propaganda] However, RP's long history, consistent and admitted approval of Earmark "kickbacks" marks him as the insider he really is. Earmarks is at the very heart of the corrupt political system. Next is that Legislators don't actually write let alone read the bills and laws they sponsor and vote on (Illusion of a Republic).

3. By bypassing the Executive branch of Government in Earmarking Federal Funds to local individuals, doesn't this usurp Federal executive power? Doesn't Congressional Earmarking make Congress the Executive of this funds and not just the appropriators.

What I am saying is. Congress should say, we approve 1 billion dollars for the federal project that will benifit everyone. (general welfare and common defense). Then the Executive branch is supposed to get bids by contractors on the open market for the project.

In the Earmark system, the Congress is both the appropriator and the executive. The Legislator determines who specifically will get the Federal Funds. Even if the project goes up for a bid on the open market, the Legislator is still playing the Execuktive by selecting the winner of the contract. Thus we have a serious conflict of interest the separation of powers in the Constitution was designed to avoid.

Sunday, April 08, 2012

The Nuclear Bible

I have made several postings reporting on media rumors concerning nuclear terror over the last few years. I'm sure these posts seemed rather strange. But an eBook entitled "the Nuclear Bible" by David Chase Taylor carefully reviewed the various mainstream and alternative media reports on the subject.

Thankfully nothing has happened along those lines. Thankfully, there have been no significant terrorist attacks on US soil like 9/11 since 9/11. There have been some foiled bomb plots.

Some believe many of these foiled domestic terror plots like the "Time Square Bomber" or the "Underwear and Shoe Bombers" involved the FBI "handlers" "raking" mosques for mentally ill muslims who were easily radicalized. These mentally ill, radicalized muslims are then provided with bomb components. The FBI then stops the terrorist plot after the bomb fizzles instead of long before. Thus the American people are led to believe we are all in peril and must give all our liberties so the Federal Government can protect us.

When people find out the FBI has been tracking the terrorist for years, and asked why they didn't stop the bombing before it occurred and not wait until after, the FBI or CIA gives the same "Fast and Furious" cover story that they were watching the terrorist to see of he would lead them to bigger fish. The truth is, the CIA back-ops handlers are the bigger fish and are protecting the suspect from arrest by honest law enforcement.

Anyways, for several years we heard fear-mongering about Soviet suitcase nukes going missing or nuclear bombs being accidentally transported from North Dakota to Louisiana. We hear about AWOL Afghans in Texas and also heard about alqaeda operatives studying and stealing nuclear materials from a Canadian University and threatening a "nuclear 911".

At the same time we were hearing rumors of Operation Black Jack which was published by the UK Telegraph. This comic series predicted a series of nuclear attacks on several US cities resulting in the declaration of martial law and the imposition of the Security and Prosperity Partnership which would have placed Canada Mexico and the US under a single government-a North American Union. Julian Assange and Wiki Leaks released information about a similar attack.

There was even mention of strange occult numerology that Super Bowl 44 was going to be the last Super Bowl, Pres Obama was the 44th and last POTUS and the US Postage at 44c was the last postage rate.

Conspiracy theory radio talk show personality Alex Jones was fear-mongering about an al Qaeda nuclear attack during the 2011 Super Bowl in Texas Stadium. Rumor has it that Alex Jones started doing a Sunday afternoon show so he would be on the air if anything happened. Like Y2K, Alex Jones was ready to whip his listeners into a frenzy had anything occurred. On Y2K, Jones attempted a "War of the Worlds"-like episode claiming the Russians were going to nuke the US.

Well, just like Y2K, nothing happened during Super Bowel XLV. The explanation why nothing occurred was that an author David Chase Taylor released an online book "the Nuclear Bible" a few days before the Super Bowl, which laid out the whole plan and all the predictive programming by the media to take full advantage of the fear and chaos that would have resulted from such an event. According to Taylor, in addition to declaring martial law and creating the North American Union, the point of the terrorist attack was to blame it on Pakistan so the US military could have the excuse to seize Pakistani nukes.

You will remember the media reported on another attempt to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. A US CIA agent Ray Davis was discovered by Pakistani ISI trying to selling nuclear material to Al Qaeda. The point was that if the US could make it look like Pakistani nuclear materials were not secure, the US military could persuade the international community that the US should seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

As it happened, nothing has happened except losing trust with the Pakistani government and people. I admit being rather paranoid about all this Operation Black Jack stuff at the time. I had just "woken up" to the reality of Bohemian Grove and Globalist Conspiracy and didn't yet understand about the extent of misinformation out there on the Internet and in the media. I have to admit bringing MREs with me on a family vacation just in case something were to happen while we were on the road.

But what about David Chase Taylor and his publication of "the Nuclear Bible" that saved the day just before the Super Bowl? Supposedly this online publication saved the day. Taylor's online book reviewed all the above details and supposedly tipped of investigators who thwarted the attack before it happened.

The whole thing is weird. Who goes to the trouble of documenting all that? It reminds me of Lord Monckton fighting against UN climate change legislation and finding the "climate gate" emails just in time. I don't trust the either side. Black hats and white hats are controlled. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

New Attack Strategy on Mitt Romney

When it came to controlled opposition Libertarian candidate Ron Paul, the media obviously ignored him. When it comes to Mitt Romney, the real target, the media is much more sophisticated and calculated in their opposition.

During the primary, the Media played the "anyone but Mitt" game, artificially propping up different alternative candidates week after week telling us Romney hasn't generated enough enthusiasm and hoping one of their globalist alternative candidates will gain traction. In the end NPR said, we all knew Romney was going to be the GOP nominee all along and the media is guilty of making the primary sound like more of a "horse race" than it really was.

Michael Savage then articulated the new "veiled" attack strategy on Mitt Romney. According to an article linked on the Drudge Report website talking about Savages newest book, Savage on one hand says he will vote for Mitt Romney as better than the Obama alternative. However, Savage says that Romney "still remains a mystery". Savage questions, " who really is Mott Romney" and what is his "commitment to the Constitution?"

With friends like this, who needs enemy. Again and again, the controlled mainstream and alternative media, continue to inject doubt and uncertainty, undermine enthusiasm and confidence.

The truth is that I have seen Mitt Romney on the campaign trail and him all his speeches he has spoken passionately about the Constitution and preserving traditional conservative values. However, the media, mainstream or alternative, have never aired these sound bites.

Drudge reported Mitt Romney is looking at SC governor Nikki Haley as VP. I saw her campaign with Mitt in SC and I had a positive impression of her. Truthfully, I don't know much about her, but being female and being from the South may help Romney. Interesting she is of Indian ethnicity, identifies herself as Christian but was raised Sikh.