The Obama economic record

Austrian Economics: Why It Matters

Tom Woods stops by "On Money" in Wheeling, West Virginia, before speaking to the West Liberty Economics Club at West Liberty University.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero

Ron Paul Will Beat Barrack Obama In 2012!

Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer is the author of The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. He is also the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, the executive director of the Skeptics Society, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, the host of the Skeptics Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech and an adjunct professor at Claremont Graduate University.

Michael has written 15 books, including Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time; How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God; The Mind of the Market: How Biology and Psychology Shape Our Economic Lives; and Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design..

Why Do We Need a Belief in God

Why are there so few atheists?

On Morals: Why Atheism Trumps Christianity
http://atheists.org/blog/2011/08/29/on-morals-why-atheism-trumps-christianity

Bill Maher vs. Bill O'Reilly on Religion





Do You Believe In God

Seven Elements of Propaganda

Based on a 2007 article from Indiana University School of Journalism:

Starting where the Institute for Propaganda Analysis left off in 1930, Indiana University professors Mike Conway and Maria Elizabeth used a system of coding speech that analyzes the use of propaganda in determining whether or not Bill O’Reilly uses propaganda instead of merely “providing facts,” as he claims.

The following are the seven elements of propaganda previously identified by the IPA:

• name calling
• glittering generalities
• transfer
• testimonial
• plain folks
• card stacking
• band wagon

Bill O’Reilly is guilty of using all seven elements and was found to have called people names 8.88 times per minute. It also showed a pattern of using references to Americans, the U.S. Military and the Bush Administration as victims.

Conway stated that the point of the study was to get past the partisan labeling, but he has still been branded as a liberal based on the results of the study.

A related study, according to Conway, shows that only 11% of surveyed journalists think of Bill O’Reilly as “very close” or “somewhat close” to a journalist.

Original Story

http://foxnewsboycott.com/bill-oreilly/study-bill-oreilly-uses-all-seven-elements-of-propaganda/

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren’t activated, you aren’t alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don’t think rationally. And when they can’t think rationally, they’ll believe anything.
2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person’s credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. “liberals,” “hippies,” “progressives” etc. This form of argument – if it can be called that – leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.
3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you’re using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It’s often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.
4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin’s mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they’ll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.
5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It’s technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.
6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I’d call a “meta-frame” (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like “show of strength” are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force – it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence – whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment – are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.
7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a “win.”
8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user’s claims veracity in the viewer’s mind.
9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of “the people” and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always “elitist” or a “bureaucrat” or a “government insider” or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused “elitists” are almost always liberals – a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.
10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and “real Americans” (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn’t love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It’s a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.
11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. “Saddam has WMD.” Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it’s true or if it even makes sense, e.g., “Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States.” If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox’s own slogan of “Fair and Balanced.”
12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.
13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here’s how it works: if your cousin’s college roommate’s uncle’s ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev’s niece’s ex-boyfriend’s sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.
14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they’ll talk about wanting to focus on “moving forward,” as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.

It’s an amazing, if not depressing, look at our society’s perception of news, politics and each other, manipulated by the marketing machine that is News Corp, parent company of Fox News. Many, if not all, of these techniques can be found employed by those working for any number of Rupert Murdoch’s properties around the world. Additionally, we’ve seen every one of these techniques used by Fox News fanboys defending Fox News, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. Now that this list is being shared, be sure to keep an eye out for these propaganda techniques and be ready to call the fanboys out.

Source

http://foxnewsboycott.com/featured/propaganda-techniques-used-by-fox-news/

Michele Bachmann: Hurricane Irene A Message from God

Michele Bachmann Says Hurricane Irene Should Be Viewed as Message from God

On the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is coming under criticism for saying Hurricane Irene should be viewed as a message from God. She made the comment on Sunday at a campaign event in Florida.

Michele Bachmann, Republican presidential candidate: “And I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake. We’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people, because the American people are roaring right now, because they know what needs to be done. They know the government is on a morbid obesity diet. It’s got to rein in the spending. This is not a difficult problem to solve.”

On Monday, Bachmann attempted to back away from her comment. A campaign spokesperson said Bachmann made the comment in jest.

No. She wasn’t joking. It is just how she sees the world. It does play into the stereotype that’s out there. Fear mongering is one technique in mind control. It is an effective tool. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don’t think rationally. And when they can’t think rationally, they’ll believe anything.

ABC News: Michele Bachmann: Hurricane Irene Is God’s Warning To Washington; Campaign Says She Was Joking

Blog TruthDig: Bachmann Blames Deadly Natural Disasters on God’s Wrath.

Isolationism vs. Interventionism

Score One for Interventionism
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/30iht-edcohen30.html?_r=1

BEHIND THE CURTAIN
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/09/05/110905taco_talk_remnick

Ron Paul: Why We Don’t Need FEMA

Ron Paul on Fox News Sunday

“You read the reports that came out of New Orleans and all of the wonderful things they did �“ giving checks to people who didn’t live there, sending in hundreds of millions of trailers they had to junk because they didn’t meet FEMA standards,” Paul said. “No, it is a system of bureaucratic central economic planning which is a policy that is deeply flawed. So no, you don’t get rid of something like that in one day. As a matter of fact, I have had the position for a long time and the people keep reelecting me and I have a coastal district. But I also suggested that there is different way to finance this too because FEMA is in big trouble financially. Their flood program is about $20 billion in debt.”

Paul told Wallace he would be against voting for any sort of bailout for the financially beleaguered entity unless Obama would consider cutting $2 billion from the military actions in Libya.

“Well, where does the money come from?” Paul said. “Go hat in hand to China and borrow the money? But, I would consider what I just said because I have precise beliefs in what we should do and transition out of the dependency on the federal government. But I would say, ‘Yes, Obama you want a billion dollars? Cut $2 billion and quit the war in Libya that is undeclared and unconstitutional �“ bring the troops home, save a billion dollars and put that billion against the deficit and tide our people over.”

Paul added that FEMA is one example of how government has created a culture of dependency and encourages ill-advised behavior in the private sector.

“We conditioned people that FEMA will take care of us and everything will be OK. But, you try to make the programs work the best you can, but you can’t just keep saying, ‘Oh, they need money,’” he said. “Well, we are out of money. This country is bankrupt. This idea that the bleeding heart say we have to take care of them. The whole idea of FEMA is a gross distortion of insurance. FEMA creates many of the problems because they sell insurance because you can’t buy it from a private company which means there is a lot of danger. And we pay people to build on beaches and then you have to go rescue them. So it is so far removed in the market and understanding of what insurance should be about. Insurance should major risk and not a bailout program and encourage people to make mistakes which are what we do in flood prone areas.”

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-blasts-fema-dependency-created-193829671.html

Ron Paul: Abolish FEMA! Why Should Someone Else Rebuild My House?

Ron Paul on Healthcare

Having practiced medicine for over 30 years, Congressman Paul gives his perspective on the past and future of medicine in this country, and the effects of government and special interests on quality, costs and access.

Ron Paul Responds To Michael Moore

Ron Paul: Isolationism vs Non-Interventionism

The recent GOP debates have been a learning process for many of the Neo-Conservatives. First Rudy got a little education and now McCain can get some good information he can use from the good Dr. Paul about the difference between Isolationism and Non-Interventionism.. I also got a plug in here for the Austin Ron Paul Revolution. ronpaul.meetup.com
http://ronpaul.vixzur.com/?p=1109



Ron Paul: I'm a Non-Interventionist, Free Trader. Isolationist is usually a Protectionist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Scsu679_c

Ron Paul teaches Mccain on Nonintervention



Do you back eliminating the federal income tax in favor of a national sales tax or "fair tax"?

On Foreign Aid

Sen. Graham: U.S. should spend more on foreign aid
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/23/121656/sc-sen-graham-us-should-spend.html


Sen. Lindsey Graham Discusses Why Isolationism Isn't A Viable Strategy



Ron Paul: How Foreign Aid Creates Instability and Isolates America



The events in Egypt of late have captured the attention of the world as many thousands of Egyptians take to the streets both in opposition to and favor of the current regime. We watch from a distance hoping that events do not spiral further into violence which will destroy lives and threaten the livelihoods of average Egyptians caught up in the political turmoil. I hope that Egyptians are able to work toward a more free and just society. Unfortunately, much of the blame for the unrest in Egypt and the resulting instability in the region rests with U.S. foreign policy over the past several decades. The U.S. government has sent more than $60 billion to the Egyptian regime since the Camp David accords in 1978 to purchase stability, including more security for the state of Israel.

We see now the folly of our interventionist foreign policy. Not only has that stability fallen to pieces, with the current unrest, but the years of propping up the corrupt regime in Egypt has led the people to increase their resentment of both America and Israel. We are both worse off for the decades of the intervention in Egypt's internal affairs. I wish I could say that we have learned our lesson and will no longer attempt to purchase or rent friends in the Middle East, but I am afraid that is being too optimistic. Already we see evidence that while the U.S. historically propped up the Egyptian regime, we also provided assistance to groups opposed to the regime. So we have lost the credibility to claim today that we support the self-determination of the Egyptian people. Our double dealing has not endeared us to the Egyptians who now seek to reclaim their independence and national dignity.

Diplomacy via foreign aid transfer payments only makes us less safe at home and less trusted overseas, but the overriding reality is that we simply cannot afford to continue a policy of buying friends. We face an ongoing and potentially deepening recession at home, so how can we justify to the underemployed and unemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire? Moral arguments aside, we must stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments when our own economy is in shambles.

American media and talking heads repeatedly pose the same loaded questions. Should the administration encourage the Egyptian president to remain or to resign? Should the U.S. ensure Mohamed ElBaradei or current Vice President Omar Suleiman succeed current president Mubarak? The best answer to these questions is that we should just do nothing, as Eisenhower did in 1956. We should leave Egypt for Egyptians to figure out.

Some may claim that this is isolationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. We should enthusiastically engage in trade, allow travel between countries, but we should stay out of their internal affairs. We are in fact more isolated from Egypt now than ever because the regime we propped up appears to be falling. We have isolated ourselves from the Egyptian people by propping up their government as we isolate ourselves from the Tunisians, Israelis, and other recipients of foreign aid. Their resentment of our interventionist foreign policy makes us less safe because we lose our authority to conduct meaningful diplomacy when unpopular regimes fall overseas. We also radicalize those who resented our support for past regimes.

Let us hope for a more prosperous and peaceful era for the Egyptians and let us learn the lessons of our 30 year Egyptian mistake.

--

Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, a return to sound monetary policies, and a sensible foreign policy that puts America first.

For more information visit the following websites:

http://www.RonPaul.com
http://www.RonPaulNews.com
http://www.CampaignForLiberty.com
http://www.house.gov/paul
http://www.DailyPaul.com
http://www.RonPaulForums.com
http://www.RonPaul2012podcast.com

Romney's jobs ad FAIL

Mitt Romney is on the offensive about jobs, which makes a lot of political sense, given the ongoing unemployment crisis.

But, according to the Wall Street Journal, one of his web ads on this issue features a Republican activist who has a job.

The headline of the WSJ post by Jonathan Weisman is "A Baloney Sandwich From Romney Campaign?"

Ryan King's tale of woe in Midland, MI, clearly implies that he is unemployed:

Anything that I’m qualified for, you know, that people are looking for, they also want experience. And I mean because of the economy and the way it is, there are so many people that are looking for jobs, at the same time my hands are tied, how can I get experience if no one is going to hire me?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988485/-Romneys-jobs-ad-FAIL

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/08/mitt-romney-cant-find-someone-unemployed/

http://www.addictinginfo.org/category/questions/

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

Citizens United. This is the 2010 Supreme Court case that shocked America, influenced an election, and reversed over 100 years of campaign finance laws. In this case, corporations were declared as people and as such declared to have the same rights as people do. It also opened the doors for corporations to pour unprecedented amounts of campaign donations into elections, and what’s more, these donations can be totally secret. Corporations can now literally and legally buy elections and shape the government like never before in our nation’s history.

The economic world we live in today is dominated by corporations. Huge corporations that boast massive profits and span continents. But corporations also wield political power and are lobbying heavily to be free from any and all government regulations that would make them responsible and liable. Republicans have been defending corporations since the late 1800′s and have literally gone on a history revising crusade to show that even the founding fathers supported corporations. But is this the case? What did the founders really think about corporations?

The origin of modern corporations can be traced all the way back to 17th century England when Queen Elizabeth I created the East India Trading Company. At first, corporations were small, quasi government institutions that were chartered by the crown for a specific purpose. If corporations stepped out of line, the crown did not hesitate to revoke their charters. Corporations generated so much revenue that they even began taking on increased political power. Corporations were also organized to finance large projects such as exploration, which leads us to the American colonies.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/04/what-the-founding-fathers-thought-about-corporations/

LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Today, 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement on the situation in Libya. See comments below.
“The current situation in Libya may be a short term victory for Empire, but it is a loss for our American Republic. And, I fear it may be devastating to the Libyan people.


Ron Paul takes to the House floor, August 22, 2011.

“There is no doubt that Moammar Gadhafi is a bad guy, and that he has brought harm and misery to his country. However, our involvement in another country’s civil war is costly and unconstitutional.

“We have spent over $1 billion on a war that this administration has fought not with the consent of Congress but under a NATO flag and authorization from the United Nations.

“It is a serious thing for a President to engage us in a war. He is bound by our Constitution to seek authority from the People, through our Congress, prior to engaging in any military action unless that action is to address an imminent threat to our safety and security. The situation in Libya is a civil war contained within that country’s sovereign borders, and it presented no imminent threat to the United States.

“And so, our government continues to spend trillions of dollars in overseas foreign wars while we face unsustainable debt, a looming dollar crisis, and our Constitution seems to lose any meaning. These actions will sink our country if we do not reverse course.

“Meanwhile, we must beware of any ‘Mission Accomplished’ euphoria. The conflict in Libya is far from over, and there could very well be war in Libya for a long time to come.

“While I hope and pray that the hostility draws to a close and the people there find peace, I fear this is only wishful thinking. We face a situation where a rebel element we have been assisting may very well be radical jihadists, bent on our destruction, and placed in positions of power in a new government.

“Worse still, Gadhafi’s successor is likely to be just as bad, or worse, than Gadhafi himself. Alternately, Libya may descend into anarchy like Somalia after the overthrow of dictator Siad Barre. Much like when we removed Saddam Hussein, another thug in Iraq, the likelihood of either a new brutal dictatorship or tribal violence and a protracted insurgency are much more likely than the peaceful transition to democracy we are all hoping for.

“With all these problems and the predictable chaos that will likely ensue, we must ask why this administration was so eager to embark on this Libyan operation in the name of ‘humanitarianism.’ Governments in Bahrain and Yemen have this year used military force to put down democratic protestors. The Saudi regime, which practices Sharia Law, has also been repressive, yet we have not intervened there. These countries continue to sell us oil, while Libya had begun to turn their exports toward Russia, China, India, and Brazil. Could this war largely be about protecting our oil interests at the expense of our Constitution?

“This episode is all too familiar. We were already involved in two wars that have dragged on years longer than the people who led us into them initially predicted. We can no longer afford to police the world, in terms of both dollars and American lives. We will destroy ourselves if we do not stop, build a strong national defense at home, and focus on trade and commerce with the world instead of Empire.”