1. “Election 2012: Ron Paul’s Revenge!
It’s 8:13 pm PST, and the President has been reelected. Once again, the neocons have dragged the GOP down to defeat. Netanyahu placed his bet on the wrong horse. In spite of soaring unemployment, a collapsing economy, and widespread disenchantment with the incumbent, the Republicans still managed to lose.
Conservatives will claim it’s because Romney stood for nothing — and that’s true in terms of domestic policy. He reversed himself on every major domestic issue, from health care to abortion and tax policy. But on foreign policy he did stand for something: a huge increase in the military budget in spite of our looming bankruptcy, unconditional support for Israel on each and every issue, and war with Iran. This was the main dividing line between the Ron Paulians and the Romneyites, and the main reason why no endorsement from Paul (the elder) was forthcoming. Given the closeness of the election in several key states, particularly Ohio — the state that put the President over the top — support from Paul’s voters would have made the difference. Ron got over 113,000 votes there in the GOP primary.
And that made all the difference.”
2. “The FDA Doesn’t Even TEST the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods
GMO Food Producers “Voluntarily Consult”, But There Is NO Real Safety Testing
Foods are presumed to be safe unless the FDA has evidence to the contrary, Jaffe says. The FDA “has to show that there may be a problem with the food, as opposed to the company needing to prove it’s safe to FDA’s satisfaction before it can get on the market,” he says.
Given that genetically engineered foods have been linked to obesity, cancer, liver failure, infertility and all sorts of other diseases (brief videos here and here), the burden should be on the Monsanto and the other gmo producers to prove it’s safe.”
3. “They Aren’t “Third Parties” … They Are SECOND Parties, Since the GOP and Dems Act as ONE Party On The Core Issues
Tony Blizzard hits the nail on the head, writing:
For the next elections quit referring to third parties. Call them – properly so – second parties, explaining that the two top parties are in reality one. Owned by the same money with tweedle dee, tweedle dumb candidates prostituted to that money.
The reason neither of them campaigns on [real] issues is that both back the same agendas of their owners, the money interests. THEY ARE ONE. TREAT THEM SO IN PRINT.”
4. “Ponder how great it would be if one could vote for the imaginary/fantasy Obama which, alas, sadly exists only in the paranoid imagination of those who populate the fever-swamps of the right-wing: the Kenyan anti-colonialist on the angry warpath against American militarism and oligarchy, engineering Apology Tours for America’s past sins and vengeance-based retribution for thieving Wall Street tycoons. Here, for instance, is the person who National Review’s Michael Walsh genuinely seems to think is president:
“In retrospect, of course, William Jefferson Blythe III was Pericles of Athens compared to Barack Obama, who far more than Clinton has revealed the true face of contemporary American left-liberalism in all its coercive ugliness: a blizzard of executive orders; the deployment of the regulatory agencies that have (in the words of the Declaration of Independence) ‘sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance’; and the naked Marxist appeals to race and class envy. The most anti-American of American presidents has run the most un-American of campaigns.
“And that, by rights, should be it. That it’s not explains the alarm of conservatives whose view of patriotism is that they love their country as it is, not as they wish it might someday be. From Day One of the Obama administration, real conservatives understood the explicit threat of ‘fundamental change’, whose meaning can now be clearly discerned in Obama’s “revenge’ remark; for the Left, ‘revenge’ is precisely what this election is all about. For them and their voting-bloc constituents, it’s payback time: payback for slavery and segregation; payback for poverty; payback for foreign wars; payback for restrictive immigration laws.
“They’ve long used the goals of the civil-rights movement — which after all was directed precisely agains’t Democrats – and the Vietnam-era ‘anti-war’ movement — which arose in opposition to the foreign policy of the Democrats — as wedges with which to crack the larger social structure and now, so close to realizing the ultimate expression of ‘critical theory’ — that everything about America stinks — they and their media allies are doing their best to swing one last election for Obama.”
Why didn’t someone tell me that Obama was seeking “fundamental change”, applies “critical theory” to conclude that American does much evil in the world, and is all about getting “payback for poverty [and] payback for foreign wars”? If you see that person on the ballot, please let me know. I’d like to go canvass for him. Or, as Brad Reed put it: “Kenyan anti-colonial socialism looks a lot like American imperial neoliberalism these days . . . .”