Progressive Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s Worse Nightmare–Ron Paul As Peace and Prosperity Party Candidate for President–Videos

Posted on April 29, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul – Is President Obamas His Toughest Competitor !! 

Ron Paul  Third Party Run Would Draw Votes from Republicans AND Democrats

Ron Paul – Revolution in Houston !! 

Great Interview With Mike Warren and Ron Paul on Fox 7 !! 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Peacemaker Vs. Warmongers: Vote For Limited Government Libertarian Constitutionalist Paul for Peace and Prosperity–Vote For Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives Romney, Gingrich or Santorum For Warfare and Welfare!–World War 3 Starts in Iran–Videos

Posted on January 30, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons.”
~Herodotus 
U.S bases surrounding Iran

world war 3 

Why Do The GOP Candidates Want War With Iran? (1/30/2012) 

Chossudovsky: “War on Iran would mean World War III” 

GOP Candidates Scary on Foreign Policy 

Build up to WW3 – GERALD CELENTE: Creating A State Of War

Has War With Iran Already Begun? 

The Real Reason Why War Is Coming To Iran- FSN Interview with Silver Shield Part 1 

The Real Reason Why War Is Coming To Iran Part 2 

START A NEW WAR WITH IRAN? REALLY?

Why War With Iran? The Real Reason? Paul Craig Roberts. (WW3 Watch) 

‘US waging war on Iran with oil ban’ 

Deadly Spark: What can trigger US-Iran war? 

USA War on Iran: Media Conspiracy

Ron Paul Exposes NeoCon Agenda

The Neocon Agenda

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

Betrayal Of The Constitution-An Expose of the Neo-Conservative Agenda

Mitt Romney War Monger 

SA@TAC – No Excuse: Mitt Romney’s Case for American Empire

Newt Gingrich Calls for War on Iran 

Newt Gingrich – I’ll Help Israel Attack Iran 

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative 

The Real Newt Gingrich

Rick Santorum is a warhawk, wants to go to war with Iran. 

Santorum:Attacking Iran isn’t starting a war 

Tea Parties vs. The Warfare State 

Ron Paul on Just War, War Breaking Families

Ron Paul: War with Iran has already been decided by the Financial Elite

Benjamin Netanyahu and Dr. Ron Paul

Ron Paul – Don’t Fall for their War Propaganda (Again) Iraq & Iran War Lies

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! 

Ron Paul: US Should Offer Friendship To Iran Not War

Ron Paul Ad – Secure 

Ron Paul Ad – Plan 

Ron Paul  – “The one who can beat Obama” 

“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”

~ Sun Tzu

Background Articles and Videos

How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie | Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

With US Military Bases surrounding Iran, Who is threatening Who?

by Jeff Smith (GRIID)

“…The United States has already declared a de facto war on Iran. The partners in crime in the European Union and the NATO alliance have joined in, and are ganging up on Iran as instructed by Washington. The EU voted to ban imports of Iranian oil and the Obama administration is attempting to extract similar promises from Asian nations.

Obama has succeeded in doing what George Bush never could. For the second time in less than one year he has managed to get nearly all western nations on board with his plans for conquest. Regime change in Libya has not been without complications for the west, but Gaddafi was not just overthrown, he was killed, and as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed out, Washington could not have been happier with that outcome.

The writing is on the wall, and Americans can expect to see a presidential address within the next few months, announcing bombings, drone attacks or an outright invasion with ground troops against Iran. The thought of this crime is enough to make any conscious individual sick with anger, but with no power in the world capable of stopping the United States, the die are cast.

When George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, millions of people around the world took to the streets. Bush was discredited because of his fraudulent election and his ham-fisted treatment of even allied nations. Obama is hampered by none of these complications. He is loved by Democrats who hated Bush and was likewise welcomed by people around the world who shared that antipathy to his predecessor. He was awarded a Nobel peace prize merely on the basis of having been elected president. Such accolades give him a protective Teflon coating that would have made Ronald Reagan jealous.

After claiming that an Iranian used car salesman hatched a bizarre assassination plot, and lying about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and threatening that nation for pledging to defend itself, the question is not whether there will be an attack, but when. The other question is what the people of this country and this world will say and do when that occurs. Iran has been demonized so thoroughly that only the most ardent peace activists will come to its defense, but defend it they must.

Iran has done nothing to warrant the enmity expressed by the west and its people have the right to live free from yet another American attack on their nation and on their lives. Thirty years ago another American president, Ronald Reagan, supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. This sorry episode has been largely forgotten, but it should be pointed out that more than one million people died in the decade long conflict which would not have taken place without America’s arms and money. …”

http://griid.org/2012/01/25/with-us-military-bases-surrounding-iran-who-is-threatening-who/

Are we headed for war with Iran? A military expert sheds light.

“…As Iran defies the world and works toward building nuclear arms, Washington is turning up the heat in an effort to get the Iranians to back off. President Obama last week convinced Europe to impose economic sanctions on Iran — which some have called an act of war.

The United States doesn’t buy oil from Iran, but Europe is its No. 2 market. Europe’s embargo, with a push from America, could be crippling. And Obama is trying to convince Iran’s customers in Asia — China, India, Japan, South Korea — to join in.

The attack on Iran’s already wounded economy could push its leaders to retaliate: Iran is threatening to use military force to close the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf, and cut off the flow of oil to the United States and its allies.

Obama has moved more U.S. warships into the gulf — just in case — while he tries to find a diplomatic solution.

Tensions with Tehran are getting worse: Did Israel assassinate an Iranian nuclear scientist? Did the United States know about it? Will Japan and South Korea join the oil embargo? Will Iran execute a U.S. spy?

In the background, meanwhile, Obama’s Republican challengers are talking tough and pushing for a show of U.S. force.

Where’s it all heading? Star-Ledger editorial writer Jim Namiotka last week spoke with Eric Davis, a political science professor at Rutgers University and an expert on Middle Eastern affairs.

Q: Let’s start here: What are the odds of a U.S. war with Iran in 2012? 2013?

A: I would say that the odds are relatively small because neither side would benefit.
Iran would find itself isolated even more internationally. A war would increase support for Iran’s isolation by increasing the number of countries willing to impose sanctions.

For the U.S., war would have a very damaging impact on foreign relations in the Middle East, where it already has a poor image and is viewed as a bully and imperialist power.

Domestically, a war would lead to a drastic increase in gas prices. There are warnings that oil prices would go up to $300 or $400 a barrel or even higher. It would undermine the already tepid economic recovery we’re seeing here now in the U.S.

Q: Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. Is that a real possibility?

A: Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be a violation of international law, which might justify action by the United Nations — paralleling the kind of action that was taken against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War over violations of international law. The Iranian regime couldn’t predict what the outcome of closing the strait would be, but it certainly knows that the U.S. wouldn’t allow that to happen.

Q: Europe has now said it will boycott Iranian oil if Iran’s leaders don’t halt their nuclear production. How can we expect Iran to react?

A: International sanctions have already wreaked havoc on Iran’s currency and forced the government to dramatically increase interest rates. The more significant effect is that the deteriorating economic situation is going to affect the parliamentary elections this coming March. It was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has rejected calls to raise interest rates, which is necessary to protect the value of the Iranian rial.

As a result, his parliamentary candidates could suffer in the March elections.
So the sanctions are having both an economic impact and a political impact, as well.

One of the few options available to the Iranians is to try and increase their rhetoric on closing the Strait of Hormuz to force an increase in oil prices. This would have the effect of at least temporarily increasing the price of oil.

Even if Iran sold less oil, what it did sell would bring a higher price.

Iran can saber-rattle and it can threaten certain actions. But the Iranians can only go so far — they’re not about to start attacking tankers and laying mines because that would be considered an international act of war.

Q: What if other countries, such as Japan and South Korea, join in?

A: You might see perhaps — not a collapse of the Iran economy; that would be too extreme a prediction — but severe economic problems.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/01/are_we_headed_for_war_with_ira.html

Five reasons US must avoid war with Iran

Do the drumbeaters calling for ‘war with Iran’ never learn from history? It is tempting to dismiss their hot air as an attempt to score political points, but its sheer volume is worrying. Two former US hostages in Iran say Obama must ignore the war talk, and keep in mind these five key points.

“…The Iranians are claiming they recently disabled an American drone aircraft. If they did so, Americans should find out how, and apply their techniques to deal with those closer to home who drone on about the “Iranian threat,” beat the war drums by suggesting military strikes and regime change, and risk dragging this country into a new military calamity in the Middle East.

Do these droners and drumbeaters never learn from history? Would they have the United States enter a new catastrophe just as we are extricating ourselves – with great difficulty – from two bloody, costly, and unproductive misadventures in Iran’s neighborhood?

To all appearances American drumbeaters are no smarter than Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who, in 1980, thought that a weakened and divided Iran would fall easily to his better-armed and better-organized forces. Instead his attack united Iranians – even those who detested the prevailing holy fascism – behind defending the homeland. In that sense, Hussein also helped the authorities in Tehran to suppress all domestic dissent and consolidate power under the most authoritarian and intolerant of ideologies.

Just because a war with Iran is foolish, however, does not mean it will not happen. Several discredited former American officials such as former ambassador to the UN John Bolton and former House Speaker Newt Gingrichare essentially calling for one. While it is tempting to dismiss the current rhetoric as hot air intended to score political points, its sheer volume and frequency is worrying. Nine years ago, in the case of Iraq, a similar flood of rhetoric, fear mongering, and distortion overwhelmed good judgment, and led America on a course that defied common sense. It could happen again, this time in a way that could make Iraq look easy.

US officials – particularly the president – who have the difficult task of dealing with Iran should ignore the recent cacophony of war talk, and keep in mind the following:

Iran is chiefly a threat to itself. Its diplomacy has been inept, featuring charm offensives alternating with making gratuitous enemies. It has few friends in its region, beyond tiny, Christian Armenia. Unlike most of its neighbors, it is not Arab, Turkish, or Sunni Muslim, and thus lacks a ready entree into regional affairs. Its support of President Bashir al-Assad’s regime in Syria, while under­standable from a strategic point of view, has won it few friends in the region.

The priority of those in power in Tehran is their own political survival. When that is at stake, they can become remarkably flexible (or brutal). As a former Iranian official once put it, regarding the Iran-Iraq war: They don’t care how many young people die in the Iraqi swamps. But they are not going to commit political suicide. …”

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0117/Five-reasons-US-must-avoid-war-with-Iran

Day One –
The War With Iran

By Douglas Herman

http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Imperialism: Enemy of Freedom–Ludwig von Mises Institute–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Faith, Family, Friends and Freedom First–Paul Priorities: Peace and Prosperity–Support and Vote Ron Paul For President–Champion of The Constitution–Videos

Posted on December 31, 2011. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Resources, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Ron Paul Expects “Dramatic Good News” Night Before Iowa Caucus 

Ron Paul’s Caucus “Stealth Plan”

Ron Paul: A Fiscal Conservative Who Believes in a Constitutional Foreign Policy 

Ron Paul: I Met My Wife in High School

Ron Paul is America’s leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-America foreign policy.

Ron Paul Highlights at the Thanksgiving Family Forum (Family Leader Debate)

You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

Ron Paul on Israel 

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

How Ron Paul Would Defend America

The 1% Are Afraid of Ron Paul 2012 Revolt

first they ignored Ron Paul. Then they mocked Ron Paul. Now they attack Ron Paul. He has gained popularity among the people, and does not represent the corporate establishment, so they are scared to death of him.

Ron Paul – Life is Precious

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

Ron Paul: A 2012 Revolution

Please support and vote for Ron Paul.

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul: A New Hope

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned 

It’s Ron Paul Vs. the Neocons! 

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’ 

SA@TAC – Israel and the Right

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Who is Jeffrey Lord? Why Is He Attacking Ron Paul on Talk Radio Shows Including: Levin, Medved and Bennett? Big Government Interventionist Neoconservative Republican Establishment Hit Man!

Posted on December 30, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The 1% Are Afraid of Ron Paul 2012 Revolt –

NWO Corporate Minions (MSM Whores) Getting Desperate!

How Ron Paul Would Defend America

Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord Precious Delicate Utopian Neocons

Mark Levin Interviews Jeffrey Lord On Ron Paul And His Supporters Being Neoliberal

Michael Medved, Jeffery Lord On Ron Paul’s Neoliberal Reeducation

Mark Levin, Ron Paul Hater, Put in His Place

American Spectator Dead Wrong on Ron Paul

SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – A Conservative Foreign Policy Comeback?

 

SA@TheDC – Conservatism for What?

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Pledge to America

 

Jack Hunter on FOX News 12-29-11

 

Establishment Media Crucifies Ron Paul On Every Front

“As long as nations cling to protective tariffs, migration barriers, compulsory education, interventionism and etatism, new conflicts capable of breaking out at any time into open warfare will continually arise to plague mankind.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, pages 150-151

Jeffrey Lord has been attacking Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy on various so-called “conservative” talk radio shows and accuses Ron Paul of not being a conservative.

Really, he must be kidding or simply does not know the history of the conservative movement.

Suggest he read George H. Nash’s book, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945.

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

If Lord means that Ron Paul is  not a neoconservative, then Lord is correct.

Ron Paul is definitely not a neoconservative.

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

Neoconservatives are right-wing progressives Democrats that became “boat people” and switched to the Republican Party in the 1970s when the Democratic Party nominated George McGovern as their Presidential candidate.

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

 

SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?

SA@TAC – Is Ron Paul Weird?

Most conservatives and libertarians do not consider neoconservatives as either new or conservative. They are really progressives that want the United States to have an aggressive interventionist foreign policy that supports nation or empire building, the U.S. as policeman of the world and Israel with foreign aid.

Both the progressives and/or neoconservatives that are in the Republican Party establishment are in panic mode that Paul may win the presidential nomination.

I suggest neoconservative Republicans get back in their boats and go back to the Democratic Party, where most of them came from in the first place.

Please take your hitman, Jeffrey Lord, with you.

Big government interventionists pervade the Democratic and Republican party establishments and leaderships.

The Democratic Party is the party of  left-wing progressives that favor the expansion of welfare dependency.

The Republican Party is the party of right-wing progressives that favor the expansion of warfare dependency.

Both favor big government interventionism at home and abroad.

Making government omnipotent with a massive bureaucracy advocating and supporting the warfare and welfare state is the goal of the progressive interventionists of the Democratic and Republican Party establishments.

SA@TheDC – ‘Fixing’ Big Government is Not Conservative

Ron Paul favors limited government and opposes government intervention at home and abroad.

Ron Paul is a conservative traditionalist libertarian that puts faith, family, friends and freedom first.

Paul wants to replace the big government warfare and welfare economy with a limited government peace and prosperity economy.

This is the reason more and more American people are coming to the conclusion that Ron Paul should be President of the United States.

SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

This is the reason Ron Paul is leading in Iowa.

This is the reason Ron Paul will be elected President of the United States.

The Republican Party establishment might talk conservative, but they walk and spend like big government progressives and neocons, which most of them are.

Just look at the Republican Party  budget passed in the House of Representatives. The Fiscal Year 2012 deficit will exceed $1 trillion each year.

This is not limited government.

This is not fiscally responsible.

This is not conservative or libertarian.

The neoconservatives want a war with Iran.

Starting World War III with Iran is the progressive answer to the United States economic problems.

The war on poverty, the war of drugs and the war on terror are all progressive wars of big government interventionists.

The U.S. government led by progressives of both the Democratic and Republican party establishments have lost all three wars that never end.

Those who support big government interventionism at home and abroad are progressive statistist and neoconservatives.

Progressives  are collectivists that oppose individualists with a conservative and libertarian political philosophy.

These progressives are not conservatives.

Do not fall for the neoconservative con men of talk radio that say Ron Paul is not conservative and invite Jeffrey Lord on their shows to smear and discredit Paul.

Most of them are closet neoconservative big government interventionists. This includes talk radio show hosts Levin, Medved, Hewitt and Bennett, just to name a few.

Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions = Act of War

“Interventionism begets economic nationalism. It thus kindles the antagonism resulting in war. An abandonment of economic nationalism is not feasible if nations cling to interference with business. Free trade in international relations requires domestic free trade.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, page 66. 

SA@TAC – The End of Right-Wing Progressivism?

This is a massively huge and interventionist government that favors the warfare and welfare dependency of the American people.

 

Gingrich Gone Wild – Might Vote For Obama

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

Ron Paul Interview w/ Jack Hunter on Foreign Policy & Israel

Jeffrey Lord Doesn’t Know The Founders or Ron Paul

 

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul – The Power of Nightmares

Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question

SA@TAC – Joe Sobran’s Conservative Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – Obama Kept Us Safe

Poo Blobs & Jeffrey Lord Try to Say that DropDobbs.com is About Killing Debate, NOT Racist Diatribe

RON PAUL on RUSH LIMBAUGH

Jack Hunter Versus Mark Levin

 

Richard Perle PNAC and AIPAC hawk on why Ron Paul will not win the 2012 election

 

Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

By Jeffrey Lord

“…Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.

This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul’s views are, self-described, “non-interventionist.”

The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.

There is no great sin in Paul’s non-interventionist stance (or “isolationist” stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul’s idea of evil spawn — the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)

The deception — and it is a considerable deception — is that almost to a person those prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left.

From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.

But of particular interest, and here is where the deception by Paulists is so considerable, the Ron Paul view of foreign policy has been the cornerstone of Republican liberals and progressives. Those who, using current political terminology, would be called the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) of their day. …”

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re/1

 

“…Jeffrey Lord is a former member of the Ronald Reagan administration, journalist, author, and political strategist in Pennsylvania.

Lord earned a degree from Franklin and Marshall College.[1] He first worked as a press aide in the Pennsylvania State Senate.[1] He worked for Pennsylvania Congressman Bud Shuster as Legislative Director and Press Secretary and for U.S. Senator H. John Heinz III as Executive Assistant.[1] Later Lord worked as Chief of Staff to Drew Lewis, who was a Co-chair of the Ronald Reagan presidential campaign.[1] He also served in the Reagan White House as an associate political director.[1] In that position he assisted in the judicial nomination process for several nominees, including Robert Bork.[2] He also worked for Jack Kemp during the Presidency of George H. W. Bush.[1]

Lord now works as a journalist, contributing material to The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, National Review Online, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Harrisburg Patriot-News. He has appeared as a guest on numerous televisions and radio programs.[1] He also works as a political consultant for Quantum Communications, a Harrisburg-based political strategy firm.[1]

He is the author of The Borking Rebellion, about the confirmation of Federal Judge D. Brooks Smith.[1] It received a generally positive review in the Wall Street Journal.[3]

In July 2010, Jeffrey Lord claimed that the “lynching” of a relative of Shirley Sherrod is fallacious.[4]

In August 2011, Jeffrey Lord wrote an article in The American Spectator which was critical of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), and the views of some of Ron Paul’s supporters.[5] It sparked considerable debate within the conservative movement.[6] …”

Jeffrey Lord: When Attacks on Ron Paul Fail, then Attack his Voters

“…

Get this. The reason Ron Paul is polling well in Iowa is because it’s Iowa. Jeffrey Lord is a special kind of dense. He is so dense he doesn’t know he is dense. He keeps repeating the same untruths (that non-interventionism is inherently left-wing) over and over again despite being corrected repeatedly. My reply is below:

I get it. When your attacks on Ron Paul aren’t working, then attack the people who vote for him.

First, you continue with the lie that non-interventionism is inherently left-wing. You have been corrected on this so many times, and I know you read these responses since you reply, that you have no excuse. You are engaging in demagoguery.

Second, you are making the case against yourself and don’t even know it. It is not a coincidence that non-interventionism was the preferred policy of heartland Americans in flyover country. And it is not a coincidence that support for war came from elite internationalists on the East Coast. So if you want to throw your hat in with elitist internationalists then be my guest. I’ll throw mine in with parochial Americans in the Heartland. Lord, you are a shill and you don’t even realize you are a shill. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T57yvB4RDHs

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul 2012: Speaks the truth with JFK and Martin L King!-Videos

Posted on December 8, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Culture, Economics, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

“…Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society, predicted today’s problems with uncanny accuracy back in 1958 and prescribed solutions in 1974 that are very similar to Ron Paul’s positions today. …”

Background Articles and Videos

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 1

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 2

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 3

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 4

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Memo To Gingrich: 33 Million Americans Looking For Full Time Jobs–Deport All Illegal Aliens–It Is The Law–Video

Leave It To Beaver–Newt Gingrich–The Beaver Puppet of The Republican Washington D.C. Establishment Political Class With It Social Engineered Warfare and Welfare Economy with A $3,500 Billion Unbalanced Budget For Fiscal Year 2012 with Nearly $1,000 Billion In Deficit Spending!–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Vote Your Conscience–Vote Your Heart–Vote Ron Paul–Faith, Family, Friends, Freedom, First–Peace and Prosperity–President Paul–Videos

Posted on December 4, 2011. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Drug Cartels, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“I want to use all my strength, to resist the notion that I can run your lives, or run the economy, or run the world. I want to use that strength to repeal and reject that notion, and stand up and defend the principles of liberty.”

~Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul Money Bomb Dec. 16, 2011 – Pledge Now!

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

BIG DOG

Ron Paul Ad – Consistent

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad TRUST

Ron Paul Ad – Life

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Thanksgiving Family Forum – Ron Paul Highlights

Ron Paul’s Full Speech at the Value Voters Summit 2011

Vintage Dr Ron Paul for Congress Political Infomercial

Ron Paul The Media Should Be Exposing Newt… Not Me

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

Ron Paul: There Are No “Cuts”

Ron Paul: Yes, We Can Cut $1 Trillion Immediately

Ron Paul’s Plan for Monetary Freedom

The Amazingly Accurate Predictions of Ron Paul

Ron Paul Predicted 9/11 a Decade Ago!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fox Fails to Make Ron Paul Look Like A Fool!

Newt Gingrich Agrees w/ Ron Paul on Closing Overseas Bases

Ron Paul’s What If ? Remastered

END THIS WAR!! Golden State – Bombs (The Ron Paul song)

This Video Changed My Life: ‘Ron Paul: Stop Dreaming’

Ron Paul: A New Hope

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Power of An Idea–Ron Paul Rallies–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Republican Presidential Debate On National Security–November 22, 2011–CNN, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute–Videos

Posted on November 22, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Programming, Psychology, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Science, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.1

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.2

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.3

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.4

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.5

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.6

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.7

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Republican Party Presidential/Commander In Chief Debate–November 12, 2011-Spartanburg, South Carolina–Foreign Policy and National Security–CBS–Videos

Posted on November 13, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Crime, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

GOP Presidential Debate Spartanburg, South Carolina – Wofford College November 12, 2011 – Part 1

GOP Presidential Debate Spartanburg, South Carolina – Wofford College November 12, 2011 – Part 2

GOP Presidential Debate Spartanburg, South Carolina – Wofford College November 12, 2011 – Part 3

GOP Presidential Debate Spartanburg, South Carolina – Wofford College November 12, 2011 – Part 4

GOP Presidential Debate Spartanburg, South Carolina – Wofford College November 12, 2011 – Part 5

GOP Presidential Debate Spartanburg, South Carolina – Wofford College November 12, 2011 – Part 6

Background Articles and Videos

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Is Newt Gingrich the Next Republican Flavor of the Month? Political Buzz 11.4

Newt Gingrich on the rise

Ron Paul at CBS GOP Debate – All Questions and Answers – 11/12/2011

Ron Paul 2012 – Wins Again – Nov. 12th 2011 CBS Debate (MUST SEE) CORRUPT MEDIA (UPDATED) 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Ron Paul Tells It Like It Is: Peace and Prosperity vs. Warfare and Welfare–American People Will Decide!–Momentum!–Videos

Posted on November 4, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul on Morning Joe (Part 1 of 2 – November 3, 2011)

Ron Paul on Morning Joe (Part 2 of 2 – November 3, 2011)

 Ron Paul fiat money is our biggest export

★ THE R[ƎVO˩]UTION IS HERE, THE R[ƎVO˩]UTION IS NOW ★

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul: A 2012 Revolution

Ron Paul 2008 Stop Dreaming

The Tea Party Started In 2007 And Ron Paul Is The Godfather

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul’s Economic Plan for Restoring America to Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Posted on October 18, 2011. Filed under: American History, Babies, Banking, Biology, Blogroll, Books, Business, Chemistry, College, Communications, Computers, Demographics, Dirty Bomb, Economics, Education, Employment, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Rifles, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 50:October 19, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 49:October 12, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 48:October 5, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 47:September 28, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 46:September 21, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-50

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Black THIS Out – Ron Paul 2012!

Dr. Ron Paul: Protect Life, Protect Liberty

Ron Paul Explains Plan to Restore America on Meet the Press

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

New Ron Paul Ad: A Veteran With a Plan – Secure The Borders

Ron Paul  Preserve Social Security Benefits, Cut Foreign Spending, End Wasteful Agencies

Ron Paul Plan To Restore A

Ron Paul – Because Of Overseas Spending Last 10 Years Our National Debt Went Up 4 Trillion Dollars!

Ron Paul predicted economic collapse in presidential debates!

Ron Paul Interview on Cavuto Fox News 10/18/2011

Ron Paul on The Sean Hannity Show – 10/18

Ron Paul Restoring American Plan on CNBC

Ron Paul Could Win the GOP Nomination!

Ron Paul 2012: The New Revolution of America

Ron Paul Wins Values Voter Summit Presidential Straw Poll

Ron Paul: Stop Dreaming

My choice for president is Ron Paul. Why? The American people are asking three important questions of all the candidates.  Can I trust this candidate? Was the candidate right on the economic issues in the past? Does the candidate know what needs to be done to get America growing and working again? For Paul the American people find the answers to these questions to be yes.

I greatly respect the character, honesty and integrity of Paul. As an economist and former financial advisor, I am equally impressed that Paul not only predicted the recent financial crisis, he understood its’ causes. In an article entitled Predictions, dated April 26, 2002, Paul said, “In the next decade the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.” He knows what needs to be done to lead the U.S. economy back to high rates of economic growth and employment–reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

Source: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Historical Table 1.2

In just three years, President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party-controlled House and Senate ran up massive budgetary deficits and debt totaling more than $4 trillion. The United States is broke. The American people are searching for a fiscally responsible president that will balance the government’s budget and establish the necessary economic conditions for the creation of more than 30 million full-time jobs.

Federal government spending outlays are largely for warfare and welfare entitlements. This spending encourages businesses and individuals to become dependent upon the government for contracts and handouts. From less than 3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product prior to 1930, federal government spending outlays have increased in percentage terms by more than eight-fold to more than 24 percent of GDP.

On Oct.17 in Las Vegas, the day before the Republican debates, presidential candidate Ron Paul unveiled his economic “Plan to Restore America to peace and prosperity by limiting the size and scope of the federal government. Paul would stop foreign wars and bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, eliminate all foreign aid,  reduce the federal government’s budget by $1 trillion in the first year, abolish all corporate subsidies, reduce the federal labor force by 10 percent and permanently close the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. For most of the remaining departments, their budget outlays would be frozen.  The federal budget would be balanced in three years in fiscal year 2015.

Paul would also shut down the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), currently part of the Department of Homeland Security, both of which were created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The airlines would have the responsibility for security and screening passengers that are boarding their aircraft.

In the tax policy area, Paul would extend the Bush tax rate cuts, eliminate estate taxes, allow U.S.companies operating abroad to repatriate their capital without additional taxation and reduce the highest corporate tax rate in the world from 35 percent to a more competitive 15 percent. Paul wants to reform the existing income tax code by going to a much simpler and fairer tax system. He would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

In the past, Paul has indicated his support for the FairTax. This tax reform proposal would eliminate the IRS and replace all federal income taxes including the corporate, personal, payroll (Social Security and Medicare), capital gains, alternative minimum, gift and estate taxes with one broad-based national retail sales consumption tax on the sale of all new goods and services. The FairTax has a progressive tax refund feature called a prebate. Every month, each American citizen including children would receive from the federal government a prebate to pay for the upcoming month’s sales tax on life’s necessities such as food and clothing.

If the personal income tax is eliminated, how does Paul’s plan pay for the federal government? A 15 percent corporate income tax and payroll taxes would simply not bring in enough revenues to pay for an even down-sized federal government.

Recently, Paul indicated that he is against Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax reform plan, particularly the proposed new national sales tax. Under Cain’s plan, the existing income and payroll taxes would be eliminated and replaced with a flat 9 percent business income tax, a flat 9 percent personal income tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax. Cain argues that his proposal is a bridge to the eventual passage of the FairTax.

Is Paul still in favor of the FairTax? If the answer is no, then how would Paul’s plan pay for government spending or outlays exceeding corporate income and payroll tax revenue or receipts? Paul’s plan does not answer this question. I hope Paul again reiterates his support of the FairTax. Paul could come out with a modified FairTax proposal, call it FairTax Less, where the actual FairTax tax rate declines each year as government becomes smaller and the budget is balanced.

Those already receiving Social Security, Medicare and veteran entitlements or approaching qualification for these programs will not be affected.The plan honors the promises the federal government has made to seniors and veterans. However, Paul provides those younger than 25 with the option to leave these programs. This is a very popular option with the young, as well as many Americans that would also like this option.

Paul calls for a full audit of the Federal Reserve System, the U.S. central bank. However, his proposal does not call for ending the Fed. The proposal does support legislation that would permit competing currencies to stabilize inflation and strengthen the purchasing power of the dollar.

Like most of the other Republican candidates for president, Paul would immediately repeal both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obama Care, and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which would add several more regulatory agencies and hundreds of regulatory rules.

Small and medium-size businesses and community banks have pointed to these two new laws as creating massive business uncertainty and higher business costs that will be paid for by the consumer. Businesses are not growing and creating enough jobs each month to reduce the unemployment rate below 9 percent. Today, more than 25 million Americans are searching for a full-time job.

Paul would also repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was passed in 2002. The law is considered by many as a very costly intrusion into corporate management. Sarbanes-Oxley has not prevented fraud but has dramatically reduced the number of new public companies created and putU.S.companies at a competitive cost disadvantage with foreign companies.

The Plan to Restore America does differentiate Paul from the other Republican presidential candidates for having a very specific plan to cut government spending and balance the budget. The Republican Party establishment candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, will be hard pressed to come up with a comparable plan.

Instead, they and their cheerleaders in the party establishment and media will first ignore the economic plan, and then attack it. Yet, the fiscal year 2012 Republican House Budget has an estimated deficit of about $1 trillion and will not balance until the late 2030s. Both the Republican Party and Obama’s Democratic Party proposed budgets for fiscal year 2012 which are fiscally irresponsible, with estimated deficits of $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.

The Tea Party will cheer Paul’s plan and most likely vote for him. Many Democrats, Republicans and independents who are searching for a job and a fiscally responsible president will vote for him. Paul now needs to break into the national polls with the same impressive numbers he has received in many straw polls he has won across the nation. Once this happens, he will be the front-runner.

Paul has money, organization, message, momentum, and ambition or MOMMA. The only open question is, does he have enough of each to win the nomination. I think he does. By mid-March the only candidates in serious contention for the presidential nomination will be the Republican establishment candidate, Mitt Romney and the Republican constitutional candidate, Ron Paul.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul– The Video Romney, Perry and Obama Do Not Want You To See–Peace & Prosperity Putting Faith, Family, Friends, Freedom First–Videos

Posted on September 24, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

The video Ron Paul and the OTHER candidates DON’T want you to see!

Ron Paul Conviction Ad

“Banned” US/China Commercial – media bias – Why Ron Paul?

Ron Paul – Rick Perry – Al Gore – NO ADS – Official Campaign Video – Ron Paul 2012

Ron Paul’s OFFICIAL 2nd Ad of The Campaign – THE ONE

Background Articles and Videos

Republican Presidential Debate pt.2

Ron Paul Florida Speech – He’s Now Top Tier

Ron Paul at LSU Part 1 of 5 – 9/23/2011

Ron Paul’s Speech at LSU – Promote Peace & Prosperity (23-Sept-11)(POLITICS IN ACTION series)

Ron Paul’s Greatest Interview – Gold & Silver With Mike Maloney

Ron Paul 81%, Rick Perry 19%

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ron Paul–Republican Debate-September 22, 2011–Fox News And Google–Videos

Republican Debate–September 22, 2011–Fox News and Google–Videos

Republican Debate September 12, 2011–Tea Party–CNN–Videos

Ron Paul–Videos

Ron Paul Responds To Barack Obama’s Jobs Speech–Videos

Ron Paul Highlights in 9/7/2011 Presidential Debate–Videos

Ron Paul Attack Ad On Rick Perry Hits the Bull’s Eye–Rick Perry A Cheerleader for Al Gore–Videos

Ron Paul The Constitutionalist Candidate vs. Mitt Romney The Establishment Candidate–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Ron Paul Gaining Momentum–Videos

Beyond Top Tier–First In The Hearts and Minds Of The American People and Founding Fathers–The One–Ron Paul–Restoring Liberty, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Ron Paul On The Federal Reserve Board’s Decision To Keep Interest Rates Low For Next Two Years Resulting In The Devaluing And Destruction Of The U.S. Dollar!–Videos

Ron Paul Defender of Freedom–The Youth and Professional Soldiers Choice For President Of The United States–The Peace and Prosperity Candidate–Campaign for Liberty–Videos

Real Hope–Real Change–Ron Paul–The Peace and Prosperity Constitutional Candidate For President of The United States in 2012

Ron Paul won’t seek re election for Congress–Why? Can You Say–President Ron Paul–Vote For A Committed and Principled Constitutionalist–The Peace and Prosperity Candidate For President–Ron Paul–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

Posted on September 19, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Security, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

“It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”

~George Washington

Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect

Ron Paul: The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets.  The unwritten agreement by the two super powers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.

I well remember the Cuban missile crises of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time.  Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period.  This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.

It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991.  This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig Von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism.  Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the Weapons of War.

Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend.  Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted.  There was to be no “beating their swords into plowshares,” even though history shows that without weapons and war there’s more food and prosperity for the people.  Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.

Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole super power.  It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goal of “making the world safe for democracy” by pursuing a war to end all wars.

The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force.  US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy.  There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.

In many ways America had been “exceptional” but in an opposite manner from the neo-con driven foreign policy of the last 20 years.  If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes and war.

Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.

Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations.  This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.

To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us — that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.

Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks.  We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we’re spreading freedom and America’s goodness around the world.  We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution.  That is not believable.  This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.

The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.

The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned—if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.

My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect.  This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.

This requires simply tolerance of others cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources.   Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world’s great religions:  the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace.  Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

  • Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.
  • Offering friendship with all who seek it.
  • Participating in trade with all who are willing.
  • Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation.

Seeking  an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage.  Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations.  This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.

Ron Paul: Mainstream America Supports My Foreign Policy

Ron Paul Ad – He Served

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

Noam Chomsky Agrees with Ron Paul … on Foreign Policy

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy and Immigration

Shultz on Nukes — Then & Now

“…George Shultz, writing with Henry Kissinger and others in the Wall Street Journal late last year, asserted that nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War. But reliance on nuclear weapons for [the purpose of deterrence] is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective,The world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. What made nuclear weapons acceptable then, and so unacceptable today? In answering these questions Shultz addresses the difficult challenges the United States faces as it seeks to curb the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, and the threat represented by non-nation state actors: the nightmare scenario of a nuclear suitcase bomb detonating in a major American city. …”


The Original American Foreign Policy

By Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Russell Kirk–The Traditional Conservative That Predicted 9/11–Videos

Chalmers Johnson–Blowback-The Sorrows of Empire–Nemesis–Dismantling the Empire–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Conservative vs. Neoconservative–Videos

Neo-Conned!–Congressman Ron Paul–Videos

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Is Ron Paul An Isolationist?–No–He Is For Free Trade and A Nonterventionist Foreign Policy–Are The NeoCons Warmongers?–Yes–Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy–Empire or Nation Building!–Videos

Marco Rubio Is A Neoconservative–For That Reason Alone The American People Will Never Elect Him President–Rush Is Wrong–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Mark Levin’s Nemesis–Jack Hunter–The Southern Avenger–Ron Paul–Libertarians vs. Neoconservatives–Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

C. Bradley Thompson–Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea–Videos

Is Bill Bennett A Classical Liberal, a.k.a. A Libertarian or A Neoconservative? His Listeners Would Like To Know.

The John Birch Society-Overview of America-Videos

Robert Welch, The John Birch Society And Ron Paul –Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Revolution Super PAC–No Dollar Limits–Spread The Word–Ron Paul For A Peace and Prosperity Economy Putting Faith, Family, Freedom First–Videos

Posted on September 16, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Energy, Enivornment, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Science, Security, Talk Radio, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , |

Tom Woods How to Make History for Ron Paul

Ron Paul – Romney & Perry?

Ron Paul  – “The one who can beat Obama”

Ron Paul: The One Who Stood with Reagan (New TV Ad)

RON PAUL IS EXPLODING!

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ron Paul The Constitutionalist Candidate vs. Mitt Romney The Establishment Candidate–Videos

Russell Kirk–The Traditional Conservative That Predicted 9/11–Videos

Chalmers Johnson–Blowback-The Sorrows of Empire–Nemesis–Dismantling the Empire–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Conservative vs. Neoconservative–Videos

Neo-Conned!–Congressman Ron Paul–Videos

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Is Ron Paul An Isolationist?–No–He Is For Free Trade and A Nonterventionist Foreign Policy–Are The NeoCons Warmongers?–Yes–Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy–Empire or Nation Building!–Videos

Marco Rubio Is A Neoconservative–For That Reason Alone The American People Will Never Elect Him President–Rush Is Wrong–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Mark Levin’s Nemesis–Jack Hunter–The Southern Avenger–Ron Paul–Libertarians vs. Neoconservatives–Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy–Videos

C. Bradley Thompson–Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea–Videos

Is Bill Bennett A Classical Liberal, a.k.a. A Libertarian or A Neoconservative? His Listeners Would Like To Know.

The John Birch Society-Overview of America-Videos

Robert Welch, The John Birch Society And Ron Paul –Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Beyond Top Tier–First In The Hearts and Minds Of The American People and Founding Fathers–The One–Ron Paul–Restoring Liberty, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Posted on August 16, 2011. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Farming, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Microeconomics, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Jon Stewart: Why Is the Media Ignoring Ron Paul?

http://gawker.com/5831167/

Corporate Media Attempts to Marginalize Ron Paul by Ignoring Him

Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto: From Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Great Interview!

Iowa Straw Poll results – Ron Paul 2012 off to great start!

Ron Paul Ad – THE ONE.

Ron Paul to Congress: If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It?

Kristine Frazao from Ames, Iowa

Official: Ron Paul is choice of troops

Glenn Beck Unofficially Endorses Ron Paul For President In 2012

Ron Paul: A New Hope

Don’t tread on me

Ron Paul: I Can Win in 2012

Ron Paul : Were NOT Threatened Militarily By ANY Country AT ALL! (Part 1/2)

Ron Paul : Were NOT Threatened Militarily By ANY Country AT ALL! (Part 2/2)

More and more American are noticing that the so-called mainstream media are intentionally ignoring Ron Paul.

The political establishment of both parties are running scared of Ron Paul and the word has gone out to either ignore or marginalize Ron Paul.

How scared?

Rush Limbaugh stated today on his radio show that Ron Paul is not a Republican.

Really?

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – End All Foreign Aid

Next Rush will be telling us Barry Goldwater was not a Republican and Bill Buckley was a Progressive.

Rush is losing it.

Seems that Rush, Mark and Sean are closet neoconservatives when it comes to Israel and go nuts when either Ron Paul or Rand Paul propose doing away with all foreign aid including that going to Israel.

Both Rush and Levin are disappointing me.

The United States can no longer spend 2 percent of the Federal Budget on foreign aid including foreign aid to Israel.

The majority of the American people want to eliminate all foreign aid and withdraw from the United Nations.

The majority of the American people want to bring all the troops home.

The majority of the American people want defense spending to be cut.

Live with it.

Background Articles and Videos

The Amazingly Accurate Predictions of Ron Paul

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Is Ron Paul An Isolationist?–No–He Is For Free Trade and A Nonterventionist Foreign Policy–Are The NeoCons Warmongers?–Yes–Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy–Empire or Nation Building!–Videos

Posted on June 23, 2011. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Computers, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 34:June 29, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 33:June 22, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 32:June 15, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 31:June 8, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 30:June 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

“In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”

~James Madison

Is Ron Paul an Isolationist?

Isolationist: GOP’s dirty word?

SA@TAC – Is America Becoming ‘Isolationist?’

SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?

Ron Paul – Misguided Policy of Nation Building in Iraq

American Isolationism in the 30s

Charles Lindbergh’s – September 11, 1941 Des Moines Speech

SA Radio – World War 2 and American Intervention

SA@Takimag – Why Mark Levin Hates Glenn Beck

SA@Takimag – John McCain’s Boogeyman

SA@TAC – What is Sarah Palin?

SA@Takimag – The War Party

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – Wither the Neocons?

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 1 of 11

Speech given by Congressman Ron Paul on the House floor on July 10, 2003

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 2 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 3 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 4 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 5 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 6 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 7 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 8 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 9 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 10 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 11 of 11

Ron Paul “Republicans Want A NeoCon Influence In The Tea Party Movement

Background Articles and Videos

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt1/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt2/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt3/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt4/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt5/5

Isolationism

“…Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements. In other words, it asserts both of the following:

  1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense).
  2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

“Isolationism” has always been a debated political topic. Whether or not a country should be or should not be isolationist affects both living standards and the ability of political rulers to benefit favored firms and industries.

The policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one’s economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.[1]

All the First World countries (the UK, United States, etc.) trade in a world economy, and experienced an expansion of the division of labor, which generally raised living standards. However, some characterize this as “a wage race to the bottom” in the manufacturing industries that should be curtailed by protectionism. Some argue that isolating a country from a global division of labor—i.e. employing protectionist trading policies—could be potentially helpful. The consensus amongst most economists is that such a policy is detrimental, and point to the mercantilism of the pre-industrial era as the classic example. Others argue that as the world’s biggest consumer, with its own natural resources, the U.S. can wisely dictate what conditions can apply to goods and services imported for U.S. consumption, misunderstanding the nature of prices and their emergent, non-centrally planned, nature. Countries and regions generally enjoy a comparative advantage over others in some area. Free trade between countries allows each country to do what it does best, and benefit from the products and services that others do best. But “best” too often means monetary, excluding human and ecological costs, due to firms externalizing costs as a result of inadequately defined property rights. Protectionism allegedly interferes in the market process, making people poorer than they would be otherwise. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

Nonintervention

“…Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is “strategic independence”.[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

United States Non-interventionism

“…Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. It is a form of “realism”.

Non-interventionism on the part of the United States over the course of its foreign policy, is more of a want to aggressively protect the United States’ interests than a want to shun the rest of the world.

Non-intervention is similar to isolationism. While isolationism includes views on immigration and trade, non-interventionism refers exclusively to military alliances and policies.

Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.

George Washington’s farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

John Adams followed George Washington’s ideas about non-interventionism by avoiding a very realistic possibility of war with France. Many Americans were clamoring for war and Adams refusal and persistence in seeking negotiation would lead his political rival Thomas Jefferson to take the presidency in the next election.[citation needed]

No entangling alliances (19th century)

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington’s ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Jefferson’s phrase “entangling alliances” is, incidentally, sometimes incorrectly attributed to Washington.[1]

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.”

After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to “join in a protest to the Tsar.”[2] Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, “defending ‘our policy of non-intervention — straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'” and insisted that “[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.”[2]

The United States’ policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines.

20th century non-intervention

Theodore Roosevelt’s administration is credited with inciting the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia in order to secure construction rights for the Panama Canal (begun in 1904).

United States President Woodrow Wilson, after winning reelection with the slogan “He kept us out of war,” promptly, but reluctantly, intervened in World War I. Yet non-interventionist sentiment remained; the U.S. Congress refused to endorse the Treaty of Versailles or the League of Nations.

Protest march to prevent American involvement in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Isolationism Between the Two World Wars

In the wake of the First World War, the isolationist tendencies of US foreign policy were in full force. First, the United States Congress rejected president Woodrow Wilson’s most cherished condition of the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations. Many Americans felt that they did not need the rest of the world, and that they were fine making decisions concerning peace on their own.[3] Even though ‘anti-League’ was the policy of the nation, private citizens and lower diplomats either supported or observed the League.[4] This quasi-isolationism shows that the US was interested in foreign affairs, but was afraid that by pledging full support for the League, the United States would lose the ability to act on foreign policy as it pleased.

Although the United States was unwilling to commit to the League of Nations, they were willing to engage in foreign affairs on their own terms. In August 1928, fifteen nations signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand.[5] This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws.[6] For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it.[7] The Kellogg-Briand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.

Isolationism took a new turn after the Crash of 1929. With the economic hysteria, the US began to focus solely on fixing its economy within its borders and ignored the outside world. As the world’s democratic powers were busy fixing their economies within their borders, the fascist powers of Europe and Asia silently moved their armies into a position to start World War II. With military victory came the spoils of war – a very draconian pummeling of Germany into submission, via the Treaty of Versailles. This near-total humiliation of Germany in the wake of World War I – as the treaty placed sole blame for the war on the nation – laid the groundwork for a pride-hungry German people to embrace Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

Isolationism Just Before WWII

As Europe moved closer and closer to war in the late 1930s, the United States Congress was doing everything it could to prevent it. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of the pro-Britain President Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts. These Acts did everything they could to delay U.S. entry into a European war. These Acts were not aimed at keeping America out of a modern world war, but the previous one.[8] For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations, potential causes for U.S. entry into war.

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland; Britain and France subsequently declared war on Germany, marking the start of World War II. In an address to the American People two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war.[9] However, his words showed his true goals. “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger,” Roosevelt said.[10] Even though he was intent on neutrality as the official policy of the United States, he still echoed the dangers of staying out of this war. He also cautioned the American people to not let their wish to avoid war at all costs supersede the security of the nation.[11]

The war in Europe split the American people into two distinct groups: isolationists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America’s involvement in this Second World War. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. By the summer of 1940, France had fallen to the Germans, and Britain was the only democratic stronghold between Germany and the United States.[12] Interventionists feared that if Britain fell, their security as a nation would shrink immediately.[13] They were also afraid of a world after this war, a world where they would have to coexist with the fascist power of Europe. In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, “Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force.”[14]

Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the United States and the goals of the fascist powers is what made the core of the interventionist argument. “How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?”[15] writer Archibald MacLeish questioned. The reason why interventionists said we could not coexist with the fascist powers was not due to economic pressures or deficiencies in our armed forces but rather because it was the goal of fascist leaders to destroy the American ideology of democracy. In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, “…the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government.”[16] It is not that the interventionists are war mongering and power hungry, it is that they are fearful for the preservation of the American way of life, after these years of war.

However, there were still many who held on to the age-old tenets of isolationism. Although a minority, they were well organized, and had a powerful presence in Congress.[17] Isolationists rooted a significant portion of their arguments in historical precedent, citing events such as Washington’s farewell address and the failure of World War I.[18] Ultimately, it came down to the moral and physical separation of the United States from the rest of the world. “If we have strong defenses and understand and believe in what we are defending, we need fear nobody in this world,” Robert Hutschins, President of the University of Chicago, wrote in a 1940 essay.[19] Isolationists believed that our safety as a nation was more important than any foreign war.[20] The interesting thing is that the arguments the isolationists used in 1940 echoed the themes of Washington and Jefferson. Charles Lindbergh’s words in a 1940 speech, “…those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must … organize for strength,”[21] are not that different from Washington’s pleas for international isolation.

As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the United States was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the United States to trade arms with belligerent nations, as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms, and pay for them in cash.[17] This policy was quickly dubbed, ‘Cash and Carry.’[22] The second phase was the Lend-Lease Act of early 1941. This act allowed the President, “…to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any ‘defense article’ or any ‘defense information’ to ‘the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.’”[23] He used these two programs to side economically with the British and the French in their fight against the Nazis. In doing so, he made the American economy dependent upon an allied victory. In terms of policy, the United States was on a path to war but the American people still wished to avoid it at all costs, a wish that would come untrue.

Overt Military intervention since 1945

Both Republican and Democratic presidents who, since the 1950s, have often considered used military intervention as a tactic of foreign policy, including in major cases: (in some cases the policies were continued by subsequent presidents.)[24]

  • President Harry S. Truman’s 1947 decision to NOT intervene militarily in the Chinese Civil War.
  • President Harry S. Truman’s 1950 intervention in Korea to stop the Communist invasion of South Korea, at UN direction
  • President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1954 decision to NOT intervene to support the French in Vietnam.
  • President Lyndon B. Johnson’s intervention in Dominican Republic
  • President Lyndon B. Johnson’s intervention in Vietnam
  • President John F. Kennedy’s intervention in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion.
  • President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 intervention in Grenada
  • President George H. W. Bush’s 1989 intervention in Panama to arrest General Manuel Noriega
  • President George H. W. Bush’s 1991 intervention in Kuwait to liberate it from Iraqi occupiers, at UN direction
  • President George H. W. Bush’s 1992 intervention in Somalia for humanitarian reasons, as directed by the UN Security Council
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1994 decision NOT to intervene in the Rwanda genocide
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1995 intervention in Bosnia, via NATO to prevent ethnic cleansing
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo and attacks on Serbia with NATO involvement
  • President George W. Bush’s 2001 intervention in Afghanistan against the Taliban following the September 11 attacks.
  • President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein
  • President Barack Obama’s involvement in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul Is Running For President of The United States In 2012!–The Third Time Is The Charm–A Man Of Integrity–A Candidate For Peace and Prosperity–Neither A Big Government Warfare Republican Nor A Massive Government Welfare Democrat–A Man Of And For The American People–A Tea Party Patriot–Ron Paul–Videos

Posted on April 26, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 28:May 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 27:May 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 26:May 5, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-28

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.”

~George Washington

 

Four Years Ago

Ron Paul Releases Presidential Exploratory Committee

Barry Goldwater, Jr. Endorses Ron Paul

 

Now

Ron Paul Why I Want To Be President

 

Ron Paul for President

 

Ron Paul 2012: “Freedom Is Popular” – 6 Year Old Homeschooler Knows What Liberty Means

 

Ron Paul To Form Presidential Exploratory Committee

 

Ron Paul interviewed by Stephen Colbert 4/25/2011


Ron Paul to Announce 2012 Bid

 

Ron Paul on The View 04/25/11

 

American’s Takeoff To Peace And Prosperity vs. America’s Road To Serfdom

Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama for President – Rasmussen Poll 1% Difference

CNN Downplays Ron Paul’s Electability… This Is So 2008

Thomas Woods interviews Ron Paul on Peter Schiff Show 4/20/11

My political philosophy is classical liberalism.

In America a classical liberal is commonly identified as a libertarian and occasionally a conservative.

Classical liberals or libertarians favor a government that is limited in both size and scope and takes the form of a constitutional republic.

I became a classical liberal when Senator Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 when I read his book, the Conscience of A Conservative.

Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater

 

Barry Goldwater, A True Conservative

The Conscience Of A Conservative

Freedom is the Only Solution

Ever since I have considered myself a member of the conservative movement and a traditional libertarian.

Today I am an independent and support the tea party movement and their candidates for public office. 

Senator Barry Goldwater lost to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 for the office of President of The United States.

President Johnson was largely responsible for America’s war in Vietnam, the war on poverty and socialized medicine, namely Medicare.

The Democrats lost both the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty.

Socialized medicine in the form of Medicare while still popular is running massive deficits that will only become larger as the baby boom generation turn age 65 and becomes eligible for Medicare starting in 2011.

Today Medicare is actually costing more than ten times the estimated cost when it was originally passed in 1965.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid must be reformed and controlled and owned by the individual and not by the Federal Government.

Otherwise Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will become insolvent and the promises made to the American people broken.

I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Social Security+Medicare Projections

The Real Fiscal Cancer that will Bankrupt the United States

 

I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: A $53 Trillion Federal Financial Hole

 

Baby boomers and Medicare spell rationing


 

Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan opposed socialized medicine and warned of its cost in 1964.

 

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

The Very Best of Ronald Reagan

The only Presidential candidate that I trust to do the right thing in addressing the above issues is Ron Paul.

The only Presidential candidate that has consistently supported a constitutional republic is Ron Paul.

The only Presidential candidate that has consistently voted for limited government in both size and scope is Ron Paul.

The only Presidential candidate that has consistently opposed government interventionism in the economy at home and nation building abroad is Ron Paul.

If you want to return the United States of America to a peace and prosperity economy with a constitutional republic, support and vote for Ron Paul.

If you want the continuation of the United States of America’s warfare and welfare economy with a collectivist tyrannical state, you will have many choices from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

I plan to support and vote for Ron Paul in 2012.

I hope and pray he gets the Republican nomination as their candidate for President of the United States of America.

I hope and pray that Ron Paul and the Republican Party choose Michele Backmann as his running mate for Vice-President of the United States.

Ron Paul / Michele Bachmann Student Town Hall @ UofMN – Sponsored by YAL – 2 of 9

The third time is the charm.

Obama and Congress to Murder More American Soldiers and Tax You for the Wars

Message for Democrats and Republicans from the Late Senator Barry Goldwater

Government is Oppression

Barry Goldwater Jr. Introduces Ron Paul

Join the second American Revolution and campaign for liberty.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon”

~George Washington

 

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 1/6)

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 2/6)

 

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 3/6)

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 4/6)

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 5/6)

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 6/6)

 

Ron Paul Will Rock You

Money Bomb May 5, 2011

 

Ron Paul Launches Presidential Campaign

“…Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he’s going to try a third time.

Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaign’s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.

Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his “money bomb” fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.

Paul took 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 8 percent in New Hampshire’s primary. He finished second, with 14 percent of the vote, in the Nevada caucuses, and eventually finished fourth in the Republican nominating process with 5.6 percent of the total vote. Paul’s campaign book, The Revolution: A Manifesto also reached No. 1 on The New York Times best-seller list in 2008. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHqqfkcreFA

2012 Presidential bid: Third time could be the charm for Ron Paul

“…Republican Congressman Ron Paul is expected to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee on Tuesday, a key step in any bid for the White House and a third attempt for the White House from the congressman.

They say the third time is the charm, and one likely does not need to tell that to Republican congressman Ron Paul. However, on Tuesday Mr. Paul intends to announce the formation of his presidential exploratory committee, according to a National Journalreport.

Congressman Paul, active in his twelfth term as a House legislator and known for his decidedly Libertarian views, will make a third run for the White House in what appears to be shaping up to be a considerably crowded Republican presidential contest.

“Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote,” Cameron Joseph reported for the National Journal. “After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his ‘money bomb’ fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.”

Mr. Paul has been an influential voice for a new generation of Republicans in Congress, and many of his positions have been attributed to Tea Party sentiments that have managed to make their way into mainstream Republican discourse and have posed a considerable challenge to the Obama administration and the remaining Democratic majority in the Senate following the 2010 mid-term elections this past November.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305997#ixzz1KdjFuwyy

Medicare

“…Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. Medicare operates similarly to a single-payer health care system.[1]

The program also funds residency training programs for the vast majority of physicians in the United States.

The Social Security Act of 1965 was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to existing Social Security legislation. At the bill-signing ceremony, Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card, and Truman’s wife Bess, the second.[2] …”

“…Costs and funding challenges

The costs of Medicare doubled every four years between 1966 and 1980.[47] According to the 2004 “Green Book” of the House Ways and Means Committee, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Beneficiary premiums are highly subsidized, and net outlays for the program, accounting for the premiums paid by subscribers, were $230.9 billion.

Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007 or 16% of all federal spending and grew to $599 billion in 2008 which was 20% of federal spending.[48] The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense. Given the current pattern of spending growth, maintaining Medicare’s financing over the long-term may well require significant changes.[49]

According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019.[49][50][51][52] Shortly after the release of the report, the Chief Actuary testified that the insolvency of the system could be pushed back by 18 months if Medicare Advantage plans that provide more health care services than traditional Medicare and pass savings onto beneficiaries were paid at the same rate as the traditional fee-for-service program. He also testified that the 10-year cost of Medicare drug benefit is 37% lower than originally projected in 2003, and 17% percent lower than last year’s projections.[53] The New York Times wrote in January 2009 that Social Security and Medicare “have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run.”[54]

Spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow dramatically in coming decades. While the same demographic trends that affect Social Security also affect Medicare, rapidly rising medical prices appear a more important cause of projected spending increases. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that: “Future growth in spending per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid—the federal government’s major health care programs—will be the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs—which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices—is ultimately the nation’s central long-term challenge in setting federal fiscal policy.” Further, the CBO also projects that “total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population.”[55]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

The Conscience of a Conservative

“…The Conscience of a Conservative is a book published under the name of Arizona Senator and 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1960. The book reignited the American conservative movement and made Barry Goldwater a political star. The book has influenced countless conservatives in the United States, helping to lay the foundation for the Reagan Revolution in 1980.[1]

The book was ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell Jr., brother-in-law of William F. Buckley.[1] Bozell and Buckley had been members of Yale’s debate team. They had co-authored the controversial book, McCarthy and His Enemies, in 1955. Bozell had been Goldwater’s speechwriter in the 1950s, and was familiar with many of his ideals. The first edition, 1960, is 123 pages in length and was published in the United States. The book covers such topics as education, labor unions and policies, civil rights, agricultural policy and farm subsidies, social welfare programs, and income taxation. The book is considered to be a significant statement of politically and economically American conservative ideas which were to gain influence during the following decades.[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_a_Conservative

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos

Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann And Rand Paul–Stop Spending Money You Don’t Have!–Balance The Budget–Tea Party Budget Gets It Right–Videos

Ron Paul Tells The Truth–The Political Elites Are Not Serious About Cutting The Budget–The Coming Collapse Of The Dollar And Inflation–Videos

The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos

Prescient Congressman Ron Paul On Government Interventionism–July 10, 2003 On Floor Of The House of Representatives–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Ron Paul Is Running For President of The United States In 2012!–The Third Time Is The Charm–A Man Of Integrity–A Candidate For Peace and Prosperity–Neither A Big Government Warfare Republican Nor A Massive Government Welfare Democrat–A Man Of And For The American People–A Tea Party Patriot–Ron Paul–Videos )

An American Tune–An American Dream–What Good Is Dreaming It If You Don’t Actually Do It?–I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference–Living Within Ones Means–Videos

Posted on April 21, 2011. Filed under: Art, Blogroll, Books, Business, Comedy, Communications, Cult, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.”

~Edgar Allan Poe

 

 Paul Simon – American Tune (1975)

Many’s, the time I’v been mistaken
And many times confused
Yes, and often felt forsaken
And certainly misused
But I’m all right, I’m all right
I’m just weary to my bones
Still, you don’t expect to be
Bright and bon vivant
So far away from home, so far away Irom home

And I don’t know a soul who’s not been battered
I don’t have a friend who feels at ease
I don’t know a dream that’s not been shattered
or driven to its knees
But it’s all right, it’s all right
We’ve lived so well so long
Still, when I think of the road
we’re traveling on
I wonder what went wrong
I can’t help it, I wonder what went wrong

And I dreamed I was dying
And I dreamed that my soul rose unexpectedly
And looking back down at me
Smiled reassunngly
And I dreamed I was flying
And high up above my eyes could clearly see
The Statue of Liberty
Sailing away to sea
And I dreamed I was flying

We come on the ship they call the Mayflower
We come on the ship that sailed the moon
We come in the age’s most uncertain hour
and sing an American tune
But it’s all right, it’s all right
You can’t be forever blessed
Still, tomorrow’s going to be another working day
And I’m trying to get some rest
That’s all I’m trying to get some rest

 ~Paul Simon

 

Simon and Garfunkel – American Tune

 President Barack Obama’s Plan For America

 

 

Congressman Paul  Ryan’s Pathway To Prosperity

 

Citizen Raymond Pronk’s  Takeoff To Peace and Prosperity

 

Eva Cassidy – Somewhere Over the Rainbow

  

 

Which Budgets Are Balanced And Are Living Within Ones Means?

 Obama’s Plan For America

Democratic Party Budget Proposals 

S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,819 2,174 -1,645 10,856
2012 3,729 2,627 -1,101 11,881
2013 3,771 3,003 -768 12,784
2014 3,977 3,333 -646 13,562
2015 4,190 3,583 -607 14,301
2016 4,468 3,819 -649 15,064
2017 4,669 4,042 -627 15,795
2018 4,876 4,257 -619 16,513
2019 5,154 4,473 -681 17,284
2020 5,442 4,686 -735 18,103
2021 5,697 4,923 -774 18,967
2012-2021 45,952 38,747 -7,205 n.a.

 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

Ryan’s Pathway To Properity

Republican Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,618 2,230 -1,388 10,351
2012 3,529 2,533 -995 11,418
2013 3,559 2,860 -699 12,217
2014 3,586 3,094 -492 12,801
2015 3,671 3,237 -434 13,326
2016 3,858 3,377 -481 13,886
2017 3,998 3,589 -408 14,363
2018 4,123 3,745 -379 14,800
2019 4,352 3,939 -414 15,254
2020 4,544 4,142 -402 15,681
2021 4,739 4,354 -385 16,071
2012-2021 39,958 34,870 -5,088 n.a.

 http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

 

Pronk’s  Takeoff To Peace and Prosperity

Tea Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Surpluses Debt Held By Public
2012 2,500 2,500 0 10,900
2013 2,800 2,800 0 10,900
2014 3,000 3,000 0 10,900
2015 3,200 3,200 0 10,900
2016 3,300 3,300 0 10,900
2017 3,400 3,500 100 10,800
2018 3,500 3,700 200 10,600
2019 3,600 3,900 300 10,300
2020 3,700 4,000 300 10,000
2021 3,800 4,300 500 9,500
2012-2021 32,800 34,200 1,400 n.a.

 

Eva Cassidy – Chain Of Fools

 

What Good Is Dreaming It If You Don’t Actually Do It?

 

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

 

The FairTax: It’s Time

 

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I–
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference

~Robert Frost

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

“Extreme Spending”

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending 

 

 

Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues (Receipts) Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980 590,941 517,112 -73,830
1981 678,241 599,272 -78,968
1982 745,743 617,766 127,977
1983 808,364 600,562 -207,802
1984 851,805 666,488 -185,367
1985 946,344 734,037 -212,308
1986 990,382 769,155 -221,277
1987 1,004,017 854,288 -149,730
1988 1,064,417 854,288 -155,178
1989 1,143,744 991,105 -152,639
1990 1,252,994 1,031,958 -221,036
1991 1,324,226 1,054,988 -269,238
1992 1,381,529 1,091,208 -290,321
1993 1,409,386 1,154,335 -255,051
1994 1,461,753 1,258,566 203,186
1995 1,515,742 1,351,790 -163,392
1996 1,560,484 1,453,053 -107,431
1997 1,601,116 1,579,232 -21,884
1998 1,652,458 1,721,728 69,270
1999 1,701,842 1,827,452 125,610
2000 1,788,950 2,025,191 236,241
2001 1,862,846 1,991,082 128,236
2002 2,010,894 1,853,136 157,758
2003 2,159,899 1,782,314 -377,585
2004 2,292,841 1,880,114 -412,727
2005 2,471,957 2,153,611 -318,346
2006 2,655,050 2,406,869 -248,181
2007 2,728,686 2,567,985 -160,701
2008 2,982,544 2,523,991 -458,553
2009 3,517,677 2,104,989 -1,412,688
2010 3,456,213 2,162,724 -1,293,489

 

Year Gross Debt in Billions undeflated[11] as % of GDP Debt Held By Public ($Billions) as % of GDP
1910 2.6 unk. 2.6 unk.
1920 25.9 unk. 25.9 unk.
1928 18.5[12] unk. 18.5 unk.
1930 16.2 unk. 16.2 unk.
1940 50.6 52.4 42.8 44.2
1950 256.8 94.0 219.0 80.2
1960 290.5 56.0 236.8 45.6
1970 380.9 37.6 283.2 28.0
1980 909.0 33.4 711.9 26.1
1990 3,206.3 55.9 2,411.6 42.0
2000 5,628.7 58.0 3,409.8 35.1
2001 5,769.9 57.4 3,319.6 33.0
2002 6,198.4 59.7 3,540.4 34.1
2003 6,760.0 62.6 3,913.4 35.1
2004 7,354.7 63.9 4,295.5 37.3
2005 7,905.3 64.6 4,592.2 37.5
2006 8,451.4 65.0 4,829.0 37.1
2007 8,950.7 65.6 5,035.1 36.9
2008 9,985.8 70.2 5,802.7 40.8
2009 12,311.4 86.1 7,811.1 54.6
2010 (31 Dec) 14,025.2 95.2 (3rd Q) 9,390.5 63.7 (3rd Q)

Eva Cassidy – Time After Time

 

Tennessee Waltz by Eva Cassidy

 

 

Eva Cassidy – Nightbird

 

 

 

Eva Marie Cassidy

“…Eva Marie Cassidy (February 2, 1963 – November 2, 1996) was an American vocalist known for her interpretations of jazz, blues, folk, gospel, country and pop classics. In 1992 she released her first album, The Other Side, a set of duets with go-go musician Chuck Brown, followed by a live solo album, Live at Blues Alley in 1996. Although she had been honored by the Washington Area Music Association, she was virtually unknown outside her native Washington, D.C. when she died of melanoma in 1996.

Four years later, Cassidy’s music was brought to the attention of British audiences when her version of “Over the Rainbow” was played by Terry Wogan on BBC Radio 2. Following the overwhelming response, a camcorder recording of “Over the Rainbow”, taken at the Blues Alley, was shown on BBC Two’s Top of the Pops 2. Shortly afterwards, the compilation album Songbird climbed to the top of the UK Albums Charts, almost three years after its initial release. The chart success in the United Kingdom and Ireland led to increased recognition worldwide; her posthumously released recordings, including three UK #1s, have sold more than ten million copies.[1] Her music has also charted top 10 positions in Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland.[2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Cassidy

Eva Cassidy – Autumn Leaves

  

 

Eva Cassidy-Songbird

Eva Cassidy – What a Wonderful World

 

 

“Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears.”

~Edgar Allan Poe

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...