According to 2008 Libertarian VP nominee Wayne Root writing for Foxnews.com, Fed. Chairman or Treasury Sec. would be a smart choice for Mitt Romney to hand off to Ron Paul if Romney is the GOP nominee. In the event that Romney is the nominee – because of course even a so-called Libertarian such as Root cannot imagine that Ron Paul actually wants to do what he says: win.
Treasury Secretary is at least a remotely imaginable scenario.
But put the guy who wants to “end the Fed” in charge of it? The insider parasites would be hiding their stolen wheelbarrows of gold bullion while distracting Ron Paul giving him celebratory coffee mugs or nice shiny plaques for his office; they’d leave Ron Paul looking over dummy charts of rigged numbers while they headed off to suck the blood out of every producing economy, ensure all countries and organizations remain tied to heroin-like debt addiction and world reserve currency imbalance, and get more countries and factions to unwittingly fight Mossad’s wars by proxy.
How absurd to think that a non-insider put in charge of the problem would be given the ability to reform or truly manage it. Even more, how silly to think he would ever be given that position in the first place. Root either must not understand the depth of the Fed’s treachery or is pretending not too in order to even think Ron Paul would be offered such a position.
So I just realized the stuff I drink after workouts is packed with Sucralose and Acesulfame Potassium and unfortunately that means I wasted $20. Your body has increased need of various minerals and amino acids after a workout, so I often take this and have been doing so for a few months. I tried to buy something that didn’t have aspartame in it, but when I looked more closely today I saw that this has Sucralose and Acesulfame Potassium in it. I’m sure the company put it in there because they wanted to make sure it tastes good in a drink, not because it was forced on the distributor by the FDA-approved creeps that are poisoning our food supply with their weaponized GMO-rich food and fluoridated water. Despite the good ingredients, namely minerals, Omega 3, 6, 9 Essential Fatty Acids and healthy BCAAs (branched chain amino acids) the addition of sucralose makes the product a bad choice for long-term health.
Here’s a rather modest article on just some of the problems with artificial sweeteners, a more comprehensive list of health problems they trigger and/or cause, and a disturbing report on the rat excrement marketed as a sugar substitute known as Aspartame. When you let your food supply and the agencies that approve it be in the control of people who make money from you being sick you run into some of the problems we are seeing today.
Drudge Report readers felt so, anyway, handing Paul victory at 98, 813 votes with Romney in second at 91, 676 votes. With witty one-liners and thoughtful, concise responses, Paul looked very sharp onstage, and the other candidates seem to be stuck in an attitude of courting him for his followers. The words “I agree with Ron Paul…” in some form or other were not rare to be heard, which should be a sign to Paul’s supporters that people onstage are trying to see if they can nice talk him into selling out and/or scoop up some of his less-devoted independent and conservative base.
The internecine squabbling of two rich, arrogant men called Newton and Willard over blind trusts and who is a bigger hypocrite make Ron Paul’s non-entangling debate strategy look more and more intelligent even to neutral observers. Newt’s diatribes against Wolf for bringing up a question Newt had helped shape into an issue in the first place came across misplaced and control-freakish. “I’ll decide what is an issue and when it is an issue,” seems to be the former Speaker’s approach. But apparently, Newt can also blame Romney, who put him off his footing by being so deceptive in such a forum of truth as a US national political debate. Newt said today to the Washington Post“I think it’s the most blatantly dishonest performance by a presidential candidate I’ve ever seen” and claimed Romney’s team had disproportionately stacked the Jacksonville crowd with supporters. The evident friction and growing bitterness between the two RINOs threatens to eclipse the momentum Gingrich was riding in the wake of appearing to take on leftist and “mainstream” media bias (that in actuality has denigrated and dismissed Rick Santorum and Ron Paul far more than they have gone after him).
To bolster his case to all Americans Romney made sure to mention every Hispanic American ever involved in conservative politics when asked who he would include in his cabinet. And it seems to have worked in his favor with today’s endorsement of him from Puerto Rico governor Luis Fortuño. Although how Hispanic Americans will react to such disingenuous pandering remains to be seen.
At another moment, Mr. Santorum went determinedly after Willard (Mitt) on Romneycare, while Ron Paul just stood back and let them have at it. Paul focused on presenting responses, generally not involving moon bases (unless “some politicians” are being sent to them), for how America’s problems can best be addressed – with some (actual) “bold, commonsense solutions,” as Herman Cain would say.
Three of my favourite driving songs. James River Blues, Harley in the Ballroom and Big Sciota by Old Crow Medicine Show. Sometimes it feels like no matter how far you drive you never get anywhere, or at least never anywhere you can stay.
Writer and director Philipp Pamer has come out with the best historical epic since Braveheart in his depiction of the Tyrolian uprising of 1809 in Mountain Blood (Bergblut.) The film takes on the same topic as that of 1932′s Der Rebell.
A South Tyrolian, Pamer began working on Mountain Blood at age 21 while studying in Munich. This is now-25 year-old-Pamer’s graduation movie. To say it is impressive is to vastly understate the case.
Set in the 1800s when Napoleon’s French ruled Europe, the masterpiece follows young Austrian carpenter Franz and his Bavarian wife, Katharina as an unforeseen event forces them to flee from Augsburg, Bavaria for Franz’s family home in Tyrol, Austria. Tyrolian sentiment is rising strongly against Napoleon and trouble is stirring. In no time it sweeps up Franz and his brothers along with the whole town.
Unfortunately Katharina’s Bavarian background brings animosity from her new family and the villagers, as she represents to the locals the conflict with Bavaria that existed before the occupation of the French, as well as the current Bavarian collaboration with Napoleon. Inga Birkenfeld as Katharina brings the kind of power and depth necessary for her character in a standout performance.
Historical rebel Andreas Hofer (Claus Gurschler) comes alive onscreen as he leads the Tiroler Volksaufstand or Tyrolian rebellion against Napoleon. (Links may contain movie spoilers as they reveal historical outcomes). The wardrobe and manner of characters is realistic throughout the film. Even small details of historical female hairstyles and natural medicines of the area are adhered to accurately.
Franz's family home high in the mountains.
“Mountain Blood” is shot on original locations with engaging performances that inhabit the atmosphere of an older time and culture. The film perhaps belongs in the realm of the Heimatfilm (homeland film) genre, a German film style of the postwar late 1940s-1970s that usually takes place in idyllic settings and extols the virtues of rural life and moral goodness. Family, friendship and true love are almost always the main subject, with clearly-defined good and bad roles contesting each other for the eventual triumph of the good. Of course when the messiness of historical reality meets the idealism of a simpler way of life, hearts can break, answers can be muddled and beauty can be overwhelming. Part of the genius of Pamer and “Mountain Blood” is the way it takes such a complex, gritty, historical narrative and lets its varied hues shine through the characteristic framing of emotional imagery and moral ethos of the Heimatfilm ideal.
Ron Paul’s fourth place finish in South Carolina last night matters little to the campaign and its long-term strategy. Nonetheless, the media, both “mainstream” and supposedly independent, lost no time gloating over the fourth-place result. All night CNN left Ron Paul off their homepage in showing the Primary Results, displaying only the top three. Official policy, I’m sure. In offices and behind laptops, corporate media pundits rolled the word “last” around in their mouth with relish (likely not with actual physical relish unless they also happened to be eating a hot dog with relish while writing) and thought of ways to snidely inject their opinions into purportedly-objective reports of the South Carolina primary results.
As Senator Tom Davis of South Carolina, whose key endorsement of Ron Paul disappointed other hopefuls like Rick Santorum, tweeted yesterday, “Ron Paul got almost 80,000 votes in today’s SC primary — 5 times what he got 4 years ago. Liberty message is surging” – an apt observation indeed. Even Ron Paul’s staunchest critics are mute to deny that his campaign is picking up major traction and has the potential to upset business-as-usual for the GOP nomination process.
Paul was nearly overlooked twice during the CNN debate on Thursday and even that primarily Newt-friendly audience booed CNN for overlooking him. He was also largely excluded from protracted debates. In another glaring example of bias, Ron Paul’s immense online success was explicitly downplayed by John Roberts of FOX News in a report of Twitter polling before Roberts was interrupted by anchor Harris Faulkner. CNN’s most recent article on Paul returns to the newsletters and how they have been “dogging” him in a clearly masterful flourish of political commentary. ABC made sure to lead it’s headline on the result with “Ron Paul Finishes Last..” AP articles such as this one refer to Paul “brushing off his poor last place finish” and continuing that the “weak fourth place finish was still a blow to Paul.” The AP article also shows that it is to be taken seriously by misquoting Paul’s statement that “this is the beginning of a long, hard slog” as “this is the beginning of a long, hard job.”
In another pitch-perfect example of media bias the Christian Science Monitor shows just what all the “Paulbots” are complaining about in terms of media treatment. The article’s headline reads “What now for Ron Paul after finishing last in South Carolina?” Among other gems, the writer Brad Knickerbocker states that Paul’s “aim is to steadily gain delegates, building a movement and perhaps getting recognition at his party’s nominating convention.”
Recognition?
What did you say back there? He wants to win? Absurd.
I encourage you to watch #PresidentPaul’s rousing speech from South Carolina the night of the primary below. You would never know Ron Paul got fourth place in such a supposedly crucial primary (correctly-predicted every nominee since 1980) by the level of applause and energy. The upbeat speech made the other campaign speeches in South Carolina by Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum look like awkward high school dances with a bad DJ and no date.
According to 2008 Libertarian VP nominee Wayne Root writing for Foxnews.com, Fed. Chairman or Treasury Sec. would be a smart choice for Mitt Romney to hand off to Ron Paul if Romney is the GOP nominee. In the event that Romney is the nominee – because of course even a so-called Libertarian such as Root cannot imagine that Ron Paul actually wants to do what he says: win.
