So Rick Perry was a democrat in the 80’s?

And supported Al Gore?

Huh.

Am I the only one who didn’t know this?

latimes:

As last U.S. troops exit Iraq, they leave a troubled land behind:  With little understanding of each other, Iraq and the U.S. collided in a long, brutal war that exacted a terrible price from both. They separate with very different understandings of what happened.
Photo credits: Times staff and wire photos

latimes:

As last U.S. troops exit Iraq, they leave a troubled land behind: With little understanding of each other, Iraq and the U.S. collided in a long, brutal war that exacted a terrible price from both. They separate with very different understandings of what happened.

Photo credits: Times staff and wire photos

(Reblogged from latimes)

10 Reasons to Give Black People (and every other minority) to vote for Ron Paul

brittanysaysrelax:

After typing that title, I know that the tumblr social justice police will flood my ask box with accusations of racism, sexism, and every other -ism they can think of. However, I think this is an important topic for Ron Paul supporters to really think about. Ron Paul has a legitimate chance to win the republican nomination. But we have to think bigger than that, and we need to think about Ron Paul winning the presidency. 

In 2008, 96% of Black Americans voted for Barack Obama. However, many of those voters are disillusioned with Obama, but at the same time, cannot stomach a vote for a republican. I see this in my own family (full disclosure, I am a Black American),  my family isn’t exactly happy with Obama, but as lifelong democrats, they cannot see themselves voting across the aisle. 

There are a lot of reasons why systematically oppressed minorities need to vote for Ron Paul. The largest being that he advocates for individual rights above everything else. If every individual has the same, exact rights as every body else (rights to marriage, rights to enjoy all of the fruits of their labor, rights to their own body, rights to defend their property, rights to private property, etc), then systematic oppression goes away, voila! 

Over at RonPaulForums, a member named TheBlackPeterSchiff wrote out a list of 10 things that Ron Paul supporters should highlight when talking to black people, as they are issues that concern the majority of black people.

Now, I’m not a collectivist, and I don’t necessary agree that people need to be talked to as a part of a whole, because when it gets down to it, we’re all individuals. But, what I believe in doesn’t translate into what the entire country does. 

If Ron Paul is going to be the next President, he has to sway black voters away from Obama, and I believe he can do that. 

Here is TheBlackPeterSchiff’s forum post titled, 10 Reasons Black People Should Consider Voting for Ron Paul:

1. War on Drugs - No group of people has suffered more from the failed War on Drugs that those of dark complexions, specifically black (African-American) and brown (Mexican) people. It is widely understood that since the beginning of the federal government’s initiation of the prohibition of illegal substance, the enforcement of this policy has largely focused on poor neighborhoods, inner cities, and people who “fit” a certain description. First, we have to understand the nature of the war on drugs. Ron Paul believes, as do libertarians, that you own your own body. It is up to you to decide what you put in you body, and it is up to you to deal with the consequences of that decision. Ron Paul believes that the government should not be in the business of “deciding what is best for you.” He also understands, that once the govt. decides to ban, over-regulate, or over-tax a specific good that is demand, the govt. unintentionally creates an underground economy or “black market” so that product can be traded. Black markets are beds for criminal enterprise, organized crime, govt. corruption, violation of human rights, etc. How come everything else in the world gets sold without everyone killing each other? But, this is what happens once a product that is in demand is pushed into an underground economy. A lot of the crime and violence that black people experience in their own neighborhoods are the consequence to drug prohibition. Drugs like opium, heroin, cocaine, marijuana have existed for centuries, all without ghettos rife with crime and violence. Cocaine could be purchased in drug pharmacies. Marijuana could be grown and cultivated in one’s own garden without any interference. Also, the drug war has caused the large disproportion of imprisoned blacks, more specifically black males. Comprising 12.4% of the general population, blacks accounted for 38.2% of the prison population in 2009. Most for non-violent drug crimes. Federal, state, and local police flood and raid black neighborhoods not because drugs are prevalent there, but because they know poor people aren’t afforded equal rights in the eyes of this countries justice system. They know poor black’s rights can be abused without suffering the consequences of lawsuits and public protest. Ron Paul understands this, as evident in this video. Black people should support Ron Paul on this issue, as he is the only politician in either party willing to confront it head on and speak the truth. He understands the drug problem is a public health problem, not a criminal one. He also understands that the biggest beneficiaries of the drug laws are the illegal drug cartels, the mafia, the private prison industry, and the government. The government gets to employ hundreds of thousands of policemen, agents, lawyers, etc and waste tax payer money. The federal govt has spent over 300 billion on the War on Drugs since the 1970’s, and an incalculable amount of human suffering. 


2. Education - Ron Paul advocates getting the federal government out of the education industry. Abolishing the Department of Education, and freeing up the resources spent on building a large federal bureaucracy that’s only existence is to perpetuate government’s power and entanglement in our daily lives. The thing people often ask is, “Why abolish the Department of Education?” or “Is Ron Paul anti-education?” Of course not, it’s the opposite; Ron Paul is a huge advocate for education. But, he understands that the federal government is not effective at education, nor is it constitutional for it to be involved in education. The word “school” or “education” is no where in the constitution. Ron Paul is an advocate for the RE-introducing the free market back into education. Education has existed long before government run schools. A lot of schools were started by companies that provided grants to open schools to create a more educated working base.

In a free market, you would have genuine competition, companies, businesses, actually competing to teach your child. Some might offer a free ipad, some free lunches, some might offer free pick up and drop offs, some might just offer a stellar education, but you would get ultimate quality over time, as the schools that fail children will go out of business and the schools that produce smart and successful children will prosper. You’d also have more choices, you would have schools for bad kids or mentally ill, schools genius kids, small schools, large schools, technology schools, agricultural schools, schools focused on the arts, cheap online schools for home training, etc. In all honesty, the educational system would be much much much better.

Of course, the first question is going to be “what about the poor?” The very fact that most people ask the question should tell you that most people are generous and caring, and will do what is possible to get education offered to lower income people. It doesn’t take 1 million dollars to teach a child. It just takes a person that cares about teaching kids to make it happen. I often tell people about Marva Collins . She was a black teacher in inner city Chicago, who taught at a public school that was failing the kids. She became disillusioned with government schools…she quit her job, turned her house into a school, and approached all the parents of the kids that the public schools have deemed “unteachable” and offered to teach them for a small fee. She worked with the poor parents who couldn’t afford much, and did what she could. Those kids she taught wound up having better test scores than the government school children. Of course the government hated this, and tried to shut her down with stupid zoning laws and regulations, but she eventually opened up her own large school that produced hundreds of educated kids that come from poor communities. She didn’t have money to do this, but using simple free market economic philosophies, she was able to make it happen. Now imagine if this happened on a larger scale, without all the taxes, without all the government red tape and bureaucracy? It would be unbelievable. Education would also be cheaper simply due to competition and less overhead to support a bloated bureaucracy of administrators, teachers unions, and stupid laws. 

Ron Paul advocates turning the educational powers back to the people and the states. The Department of Education was not formed until 1979. Didn’t we education people before then? America was the leader in education before the federal government was involved, not it’s lagging behind countries like Sweden, who, although socialist, have instituted a free market approach to education. Allowing for-profit companies and individuals to build their own schools, and teach children using the voucher system. We must have free market competition and shrink the bloated bureaucracy in education so parents have the freedom to choose how to best educate their children. 

3. Police Brutality - Ron Paul is a staunch defender of individual rights, due process, and he is believer in non-violence and non-aggression. Ron Paul believes that the 4th Amendment should be obeyed by the government. If you live in a lower-income black neighborhood, or just happen to travel through the area, you will be subject to police profiling, harassment, unwarranted search and seizures and in some cases violent attacks. Most politicians take the side of the government, saying “Police are just doing their job” or “Police are just acting aggressively because their lives or on the line.” This is bull. Ron Paul knows Policemen a first duty is to the constitution. Unwarranted search and seizures are illegal. Ron Paul is also and advocate for the surveillance of govt officials and policemen. How many images have we seen on YouTube or the news, of police over stepping their bounds and actually violently attacking people, and in some cases killing them without warrant or being in danger? As in the brutal murder of Oscar Grant, a young black male who was detained for an unknown reason by Oakland Bay Area Rapid Transit authorities, and shot while face down in submissive position. This was seen on video from a cell phone camera. Some governments are passing laws to outlaw private individuals from video taping policemen on duty. Ron Paul is against this as he feels government should always be watched. Or what about the 7 year old, Aiyana Jones who was killed by a Detroit SWAT officer who was engaged in a man hunt. These policemen entered this house unjustly and opened fire. What about the thousands of stories that goes unreported, that happen in the darkness of the night? This must be stopped and Ron Paul is the only politician who will stand against it. 

4. Foreign Policy - There has been no one is Congress who has valiantly and consistently stood up for the U.S. Constitution and against the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, than Congressman Ron Paul. The U.S. government has been involved in “preventive” wars, propaganda, regime manipulation, foreign interventionism, and nation building for over 50 years now. The wars in the Middle East are nothing new, we’ve been having involvement there for decades, starting with the installation of the Shah of Iran and coming to a head this past decade with our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the spreading of military bases in over 150 countries around the world. So called terrorism is nothing more than a byproduct of blow-back, from all the interventions in foreign issues. Ron Paul believes we should not be the world’s policeman, and we should not be putting American lives at risk in order to build an American Empire. African-Americans are 12 percent of the general population but make up 21 percent of military personnel and 30 percent of Army enlistees. Most black Americans enter the military to take advantage of the GI Bill, good benefits, or to get training to later look for stable unemployment. Many come from broken homes or poor neighborhoods. How many lives must be lost before we realize that these wars are futile and pointless? Ron Paul believes Americans will be safer if we stay out of other nations’ business, and set a good example by having a strong economy, free trade, strong individual liberties, and having healthy diplomatic dialogue with our international partners. Ron Paul’s record reflects his stance. Why do we have bases in countries like Korea, Japan, and Germany? These countries are wealthy and more than capable of defending themselves. Ron Paul is also against torture and the imprisonment of so called “enemy combatants” without due process of the law. He is a strong believer that we should have a strong military for national defense, but not for aggressive wars and he is also against the Public-private partnership that has grown from the increasing size of the Military Industrial Complex. Companies like Halliburton, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc make BILLIONS of dollars off the tax payer through having partnerships with politicians who back these wars. Oh yes, Ron Paul is the Neo-conservative’s worst nightmare. 

 

Read More

I think this is fascinating. I’m neither Black, nor technically any other sort of minority (being Jewish doesn’t truly count in this context), but I still find this post relevant because Ron Paul is such an under-appreciated and misunderstood politician. 

I feel like a lot of people have gotten to the point where they don’t vote based on real issues anymore, that it only matters if a candidate seems “likeable” or is vocal about one particular hot-button issue. More people need to read things like this post. 

(Reblogged from brittanysaysrelax-deactivated20)

yopatrick:

I finally updated my comic!

(Reblogged from yopatrick)

randomactsofchaos:

Clay Bennett/Chattanooga Times Free Press (12/17/2011)

(Reblogged from political-cartoons)
burpees4water:


EVERY RE-BLOG GENERATED 5 CENT OF DONATION TO CHARITY: WATER
TUMBLR COMMUNITY - I NEED YOUR HELP AGAIN
MORE REBLOGS = MORE DONATIONS = MORE LIVES SAVED
CLICK HERE TO DONATE  - $20 = 1 Child Clean Water For 20 Years100% of donations directly fund water projects for communities in need, and we prove each one using photos and GPS coordinates on Google Maps. 
So far I have achieved:80,000 Tumblr Reblogs  -   800 New Followers  -  $1,300 in DonationsYou, the tumblr community have provided 65 People With Clean Water For 20 years
Thank you, Richard.

burpees4water:

EVERY RE-BLOG GENERATED 5 CENT OF DONATION TO CHARITY: WATER

TUMBLR COMMUNITY - I NEED YOUR HELP AGAIN

MORE REBLOGS = MORE DONATIONS = MORE LIVES SAVED

CLICK HERE TO DONATE  - $20 = 1 Child Clean Water For 20 Years

100% of donations directly fund water projects for communities in need, and we prove each one using photos and GPS coordinates on Google Maps. 

So far I have achieved:
80,000 Tumblr Reblogs  -   800 New Followers  -  $1,300 in Donations
You, the tumblr community have provided 65 People With Clean Water For 20 years


Thank you, Richard.

(Source: charitywaterproject)

(Reblogged from thelonehuman)

lrndrd:


A North Korean man (right) on a bus waves his hand as a South Korean man weeps after a luncheon meeting during inter-Korean temporary family reunions at Mount Kumgang resort October 31, 2010. Four hundred and thirty-six South Koreans were visiting North Korea to meet their 97 North Korean relatives, whom they have been separated from since the 1950-53 war, for three days.

(REUTERS/Kim Ho-Young)

(Reblogged from letterstomycountry)

laliberty:

anticapitalist:

laliberty:

Obama recently claimed: “Nearly a decade of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires led to little more than sluggish growth [and] a shrinking middle class. Your paychecks flatlined. Wages and incomes did not go up. Even when the economy was growing, it wasn’t growing for you.”

Reality illustrates otherwise:  ”In the seven years from 2001-2007 (inclusive), not only did the middle class get at least its fair share of overall income growth, the income gap between the rich and the middle class actually got smaller.”

The Myth of Middle-Class Stagnation

 This is complete and utter bullshit.

Firstly, measuring growth in terms of total income/FTE has been debunked. You are presenting the data in a misleading way. The reason this is a problem is because middle class families do not have access to overtime hours because of the recession. Businesses are not hiring people for as long periods/for the same length of work. This is a basic economic concept. You do not measure income in terms of total income/FTE. (for those who don’t know, FTE = full time equivalent, and is used to compare people who work different number of hours)

Also:

shows that income inequality is rising.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that your claim is true, and that the income inequality is shrinking. During that period, the government increased it’s involvement in economic matters (funding 2 wars greatly impacts the economy). Thus, according to your logic, big government isn’t too bad after all, because the income gap did decrease when the government impacted the economy. At least if I follow though on your logic, that is what you are saying.

First, because Obama was discussing a “decade of tax breaks” and “even when the economy was growing,” this is data from before the recession during the time of a growing economy, so your initial technical objection does not apply. Of course things are bad during a recession. This is not obvious? (Though, as more than one link below illustrates, it seems that the recession itself seemed to narrow income inequality.)

Now, your point about FTE may be a fair one since it is true that depending on which data you look at and how it is parsed, inequality may seem to be expanding. In fact, much of the rising inequality that is charted by macroeconomists comes from the distorting effects of changing demographics, namely the expanding number of divorces and singles have diluted what used to be a multiple-earner “household” income (which is the most common way inequality data is presented). And, indeed, the growth of the number of “households” has exceeded population growth. Also, a crucial factor to understand when looking at income brackets is the mobility between brackets - the actual individuals who compose a certain quintile rarely remain in that quintile. Further, Gini coefficients, an oft-used metric for noting gaps in income, overstates inequality by ignoring taxes, welfare, and other transfer payments in its calculations. Also, average or median income can be seen to stagnate or fall even if everyone’s income rises. But given your objection about misleading data, to then use a chart of real dollars and no labels or legends confuses things for the same reason that looking at, for example, tax cuts by income bracket using real dollars is misleading

Here are a few pieces on income inequality I believe are worth reading:

I’m sure you’ll find ideological reasons to disagree, but I would hope you’d acknowledge they are still earnest, thoughtful assessments not so easily dismissed.

Of course, I see “income inequality” as, at most, a secondary concern. Affording all individuals their birthright of self-ownership - allowing all consensual interactions and being free from agressive force - should be the primary object. There is nothing just about engineering false equality of outcomes if individual autonomy (liberty) is compromised. Furthermore, the free and mutually beneficial exchange of individuals tends to lead to a much more fair and productive redistribution of wealth (also, here).

As to your final contention: if the only variable in contributing to economic growth was government, you’d have a point. That state impediments on economic activity can be somewhat mitigated does not prove anything. 

So I don’t totally understand most of what anyone is saying (partly because it’s finals week and my brain is fried, and partly because, well, I’m still learning, thus the whole point of my blog). I think both arguments are really interesting and compelling. I’m going to look more into this. I don’t know how I feel about the point about income inequality being a secondary concern.  On some level, I agree. But I think that the starting gap between the highest earning and the lowest earning, and the benefits that come along with that wealth, can make it harder for lower income people to compete with higher earners. If that makes sense. (It probably doesn’t. It’s late and I’m tired and not horribly well versed in this yet.)

(Reblogged from laliberty)
dustin-august:

Herman Cain’s immortalized words.

dustin-august:

Herman Cain’s immortalized words.

(Reblogged from dustin-august)

shortformblog:

Jon Huntsman sought to calm everybody down a little on illegal immigration, stating that we currently have the lowest rate of illegal immigration in the last forty years. He also urged everybody to consider that legal immigration drives innovation, citing one-half of current Fortune 500 companies being founded by immigrants as an example.

Jon Huntsman is probably my favorite Republican contender.  Er, contender is probably the wrong word since his chance of getting the nomination is basically nonexistent. 

(Reblogged from shortformblog)
Okay. So what better place to start than my political compass results? Right? Right.
I always come out so much more “liberal” (in the modern sense of the word) than I feel.  I mean, I’m kind of a member of my college’s Republican club. (That’s a long story for some other time.) I’m really not a Republican.  At all.  But then again, I don’t identify totally as a Democrat either. But I digress.
Anyways. I mean, I’m pro-marriage equality and believe in public funding for the arts and education.  But I have mixed feelings on other issues.  I’m not 100% pro-choice, and I’m against the legalization of prostitution and marijuana, I think.  
That’s the thing.  I don’t know what my own opinions are, if that makes sense.  I go back and forth daily.   I guess that’s the point of this blog.  To help me better understand, not just politics and current events as a whole, but to better understand my context within the fabric of these issues.
Here’s the link if you want to take it yourself: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Okay. So what better place to start than my political compass results? Right? Right.

I always come out so much more “liberal” (in the modern sense of the word) than I feel.  I mean, I’m kind of a member of my college’s Republican club. (That’s a long story for some other time.) I’m really not a Republican.  At all.  But then again, I don’t identify totally as a Democrat either. But I digress.

Anyways. I mean, I’m pro-marriage equality and believe in public funding for the arts and education.  But I have mixed feelings on other issues.  I’m not 100% pro-choice, and I’m against the legalization of prostitution and marijuana, I think.  

That’s the thing.  I don’t know what my own opinions are, if that makes sense.  I go back and forth daily.   I guess that’s the point of this blog.  To help me better understand, not just politics and current events as a whole, but to better understand my context within the fabric of these issues.

Here’s the link if you want to take it yourself: http://www.politicalcompass.org/