“End The Fed” Protest in Washington DC on July 3, 2010

Just say NO!vember

Audit the Fed Update: It’s Over… For Now

Ron Paul’s attempt to audit the Federal Reserve, which had previously attracted 320 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, failed by a vote of 229-198.

All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. 114 co-sponsors of HR 1207, all Democrats, jumped ship and voted against Audit the Fed.

How They Voted

Watch Ron Paul’s Video Update

Audit the Fed Update: The Fed has won the battle but they will lose the war

Ron Paul discusses the latest in the efforts to get a full and complete audit of the Fed as well as the future of Fed transparency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IixLg4AtNI

Ron Paul’s attempt to audit the Federal Reserve, which was previously co-sponsored by 320 members of the House (HR 1207), failed by a vote of 229-198. All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. 114 co-sponsors of HR 1207, all Democrats, jumped ship and voted against Audit the Fed.

The GOP had offered the Fed audit as the minority’s last chance to alter the financial regulation bill. The bill does have an watered-down audit provision in the conference report, but it is limited to loans made by the Fed during the height of the economic crisis. Ron Paul’s bill would have allowed a total examination of the Fed’s books.

How they voted

KEY: Democrats, Republicans, HR 1207 Co-Sponsors

YEA! = Audit the Federal Reserve System (a private rockefeller/rothschild bank that started in 1913 that bankrupted the USA by 1933 & stole OUR gold, and which is paid INTEREST on this debt in the form of UN-Constitutional unapportioned federal INCOME TAXES on your WAGES that were traded even-up for LABOR)

NAY! Traitors:

Not Voting (cowards, but not traitors)

Bishop (UT)
Taylor
Wamp
Woolsey
Young (AK)

LEARN ABOUT THE FEDERAL RESERVE!

Rand Paul, son of Congressmen Ron Paul, has defeated the establishment candidate in the Kentucky Republican Senate Primary. This is great news for the Libertarian movement and the tea party activists all around the country. It is a single that politicians on both sides of the aisle are huge targets for their out of control spending and reliance on the establishment to get things done in D.C.

From the Politico:

Insurgent Senate candidate Rand Paul claimed the Republican nomination for the seat of retiring Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning Tuesday evening, easily besting establishment favorite Trey Grayson, the sitting secretary of State who won the endorsement of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

With nearly 50 percent of precincts reporting, Paul was drawing 59 percent of the vote to Grayson’s 35 percent – a yawning lead over a candidate once viewed as a sure bet for his party’s nomination.

On the Democratic side, state Attorney General Jack Conway had pulled into a double-digit lead over Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo, holding 48 percent of the vote to Mongiardo’s 39 percent and likely giving national Democrats their preferred nominee for the fall campaign.

The final hours of the primary race brought accusations of “voter intimidation” from Grayson’s campaign, as the establishment Republican’s campaign manager charged Paul’s supporters with “bullying” and called on Paul to “rein in his goon squad and follow the law.

Read more:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37414.html#ixzz0oKXsx8zF

It is now time to go out and claim the ultimate victory for Rand Paul and deliver him the United States Senate seat and bring a fresh new face to Washington D.C.

source: Conservative for Change (hmm link is busted)

DOCTOR Ron Paul Announces HR4995 Opt-Out of obamacare bill MANDATE! Dr. Ron Paul is a true champion of Liberty and defender of the U.S. Constitution. RP decided the easiest way (to start REPEALING the unconstitutional healthcare reform bill) is to announce a bill that allows people to opt-out of the unconstitutional healthcare MANDATE.

Ron Paul Announces HR4995 on Fox News, 04/12/10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuFJu-vwutU

Ron Paul: “I want to get rid of one item to concentrate on, because I think it’s the worst part. And that is the mandate saying that you don’t have a choice anymore. They’re driving everybody into the system. [...] I want to key in on the one issue, tolegalize freedom of choice, legalize the private option without taking on the whole mess that’s been created. [...] In a free society you have to at least allow people the freedom to opt out of a compulsory system that is imposed on you by government.”

join the HR4995 Facebook group:
End The Mandate – HR 4995 – Stop the Health Insurance Mandate!

Texas Representative Ron Paul garnered more than 80% of his state’s GOP primary election votes yesterday and will be heading back to Washington, easily defeating three different challengers.

Opponents Tim Graney, John Gay and Gerald Wall accused the doctor of becoming too entrenched into the ways and means of Washington D.C. and argued that Paul has abandoned the duties of his position in order to promote his book, among other things.

Paul, who ran for president for the second time in the 2008 presidential elections, was a hero among many believers in small government and the anti-war movement during the campaign. Paul believes in a substantially smaller government, fiscally sound policies and the destruction of our federal reserve system and fiat currency.

Ron Paul has served Texas’ 14th district for 14 years.

source: Small Gov Times

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

Source: Ron Paul

Kucinich Announces Introduction of Privileged Resolution to End Afghan War

(February 25, 2010) – On Thursday, March 4, 2010 Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will introduce his privileged resolution that will require House debate on continuing the war in Afghanistan. It is expected that the resolution will be taken up for consideration on the following Wednesday, March 10, 2010 and that the debate will be subject to a rule providing for three hours of debate. Source: Dennis Kucinich

Video: Ron Paul’s Speech at CPAC 2010

Representative Ron Paul spoke to conservative activists about U.S. foreign policy, the costs of overseas troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as federal spending priorities and monetary policy. He also spoke about limited government and individual rights, emphasizing personal responsibility over the regulatory power of government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh-m75YqmrA

Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney’s three-year run as conservatives’ favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual straw poll.

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Romney, former Massachusetts governor and a 2008 GOP candidate, has won the last three presidential straw polls at the annual conference.

The straw poll is not binding — and not necessarily a good forecaster, given that in 2008, John McCain went on to take the party’s nomination over Romney.

This is good news for the Liberty movement and everyone that has supported Ron Paul and his ideas for the conservative movement.

He represents what true conservatism stands for, and has shed is light across many in the movement to take back our country and return it to the ideas of the Constitution.

Source: Conservative for Change

CPAC 2010 Straw Poll RESULTS: Ron Paul Wins Big

Here are the official results:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul – 31 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney – 22 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin – 7 percent
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty – 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich – 4 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee – 4 percent
Indiana Rep. Mike Pence – 5 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune – 2 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels – 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum – 2 percent
Mississippi Gov. Hailey Barbour – 1 percent
Other – 5 percent
Undecided – 6 percent

In a strong reflection of just how strong his standing remains within the die-hard conservative community, Texas Republican and 2008 presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll on Saturday, earning nearly one-third (31 percent) of the entire vote. The crowd, however, booed heavily when the results were announced.

Paul was far and away the most widely anticipated speaker at the three-day conference, with his base of “Paulites” streaming into the main auditorium to hear him rail against government overreach and neoconservativism on Friday afternoon. In many respects, his win in the CPAC poll seemed pre-ordained — his band of followers having a well-earned reputation for flooding polls and forums like these.

What it portends for a possible 2012 presidential run is anyone’s guess. Paul had a similar cult-like following during the 2008 election, only to garner a relatively small chunk of the actual vote.

The other potential candidates who scored well and are more “mainstream” picks for the Republican nomination include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who earned 22 percent of the vote, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who came in third with seven percent. Romney had won the last three CPAC polls. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, another talked about 2012 aspirant, tied “undecided” for fourth place at six percent.

The results provide an interesting reflection as to where conservative hearts lie nearly three years before the next presidential elections take place. But with so much time before formal campaigning begins – and with no White House aspirant even officially announcing a bid- its best to resist the temptation to read too deeply into the numbers. For example, last year, disgraced South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford polled at four percent, while Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — no longer even on the straw poll — came in second at 14 percent.

Nevertheless, the CPAC poll can provide a nice boost (or, at the very least, attention) to prospective candidates. In 2007, Romney etched out a win over former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani by a margin of 21 percent to 17 percent. Sen. John McCain, who wound up winning the nomination, came in fifth with 12 percent of the vote.

Several of the candidates polled attended CPAC in the days, and even hours, ahead of the results being released. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was a keynote speaker on Saturday, preceded by former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (Penn.). Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty spoke on Friday followed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Paul. Romney addressed the audience on Thursday. All others were not in attendance during the three-day affair.

Source: Huffington Post

Thank God for Helen Thomas, the only person to show any courage at the White House press briefing after President Barack Obama gave a flaccid account of the intelligence screw-up that almost downed an airliner on Christmas Day.

After Obama briefly addressed L’Affaire Abdulmutallab and wrote “must do better” on the report cards of the national security schoolboys responsible for the near catastrophe, the President turned the stage over to counter-terrorism guru John Brennan and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

It took 89-year old veteran correspondent Helen Thomas to break through the vapid remarks about rechanneling “intelligence streams,” fixing “no-fly” lists, deploying “behavior detection officers,” and buying more body-imaging scanners.

Thomas recognized the John & Janet filibuster for what it was, as her catatonic press colleagues took their customary dictation and asked their predictable questions. Instead, Thomas posed an adult query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and more intrusions on the liberties and privacy of the traveling public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pURIukrjw

She asked why Abdulmutallab did what he did.

Thomas: “And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why.”

Brennan: “Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents… They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he’s (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.”

Thomas: “And you’re saying it’s because of religion?”

Brennan: “I’m saying it’s because of an al Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.”

Thomas: “Why?”

Brennan: “I think this is a — long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.”

Thomas: “But you haven’t explained why.”

Neither did President Obama, nor anyone else in the U.S. political/media hierarchy. All the American public gets is the boilerplate about how al-Qaeda evildoers are perverting a religion and exploiting impressionable young men.

There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks.

Obama’s Non-Answer

I had been hoping Obama would say something intelligent about what drove Abdulmutallab to do what he did, but the President uttered a few vacuous comments before sending in the clowns. This is what he said before he walked away from the podium:

“It is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations … to do their bidding. … And that’s why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death … while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress. … That’s the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists.”

But why it is so hard for Muslims to “get” that message? Why can’t they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Gaza long enough to reflect on how we are only trying to save them from terrorists while simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to “justice and progress”?

Does a smart fellow like Obama expect us to believe that all we need to do is “communicate clearly to Muslims” that it is al Qaeda, not the U.S. and its allies, that brings “misery and death”? Does any informed person not know that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4.5 million from their homes? How is that for “misery and death”?

Rather than a failure to communicate, U.S. officials are trying to rewrite recent history, which seems to be much easier to accomplish with the Washington press corps and large segments of the American population than with the Muslim world.

But why isn’t there a frank discussion by America’s leaders and media about the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United States? Why was Helen Thomas the only journalist to raise the touchy but central question of motive?

Peeking Behind the Screen

We witnessed a similar phenomenon when the 9/11 Commission Report tiptoed into a cautious discussion of possible motives behind the 9/11 attacks. To their credit, the drafters of that report apparently went as far as their masters would allow, in gingerly introducing a major elephant into the room:

“America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world.” (p. 376)

When asked later about the flabby way that last sentence ended, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, explained that there had been a Donnybrook over whether that paragraph could be included at all.

The drafters also squeezed in the reason given by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as to why he “masterminded” the attacks on 9/11:

“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed … from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

Would you believe that former Vice President Dick Cheney has also pointed to U.S. support for Israel as one of the “true sources of resentment”? This unique piece of honesty crept into his speech to the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009.

Sure, he also trotted out the bromide that the terrorists hate “all the things that make us a force for good in the world.” But the Israel factor slipped into the speech, perhaps an inadvertent acknowledgement of the Israeli albatross adorning the neck of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Very few pundits and academicians are willing to allude to this reality, presumably out of fear for their future career prospects.

Former senior CIA officer Paul Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown University, is one of the few willing to refer, in his typically understated way, to “all the other things … including policies and practices that affect the likelihood that people … will be radicalized, and will try to act out the anger against us.” One has to fill in the blanks regarding what those “other things” are.

But no worries. Secretary Napolitano has a fix for this unmentionable conundrum. It’s called “counter-radicalization,” which she describes thusly:

“How do we identify someone before they become radicalized to the point where they’re ready to blow themselves up with others on a plane? And how do we communicate better American values and so forth … around the globe?”

Better communication. That’s the ticket.

Hypocrisy and Double Talk

But Napolitano doesn’t acknowledge the underlying problem, which is that many Muslims have watched Washington’s behavior closely for many years and view U.S. declarations about peace, justice, democracy and human rights as infuriating examples of hypocrisy and double talk.

So, Washington’s sanitized discussion about motives for terrorism seems more intended for the U.S. domestic audience than the Muslim world.

After all, people in the Middle East already know how Palestinians have been mistreated for decades; how Washington has propped up Arab dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked away at Guantanamo without charges; how the U.S. military has killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S. mercenaries have escaped punishment for slaughtering innocents.

The purpose of U.S. “public diplomacy” appears more designed to shield Americans from this unpleasant reality, offering instead feel-good palliatives about the beneficence of U.S. actions. Most American journalists and politicians go along with the charade out of fear that otherwise they would be accused of lacking patriotism or sympathizing with “the enemy.”

Commentators who are neither naïve nor afraid are simply shut out of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM). Salon.com’s Glen Greenwald, for example, has complained loudly about “how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions fuels terrorism directed at the U.S.,” and how it is taboo to point this out.

Greenwald recently called attention to a little-noticed Associated Press report on the possible motives of the 23-year-old Nigerian Abdulmutallab. The report quoted his Yemeni friends to the effect that the he was “not overtly extremist.” But they noted that he was open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over Israel’s actions in Gaza. (emphasis added)

Former CIA specialist on al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer, has been still more outspoken on what he sees as Israel’s tying down the American Gulliver in the Middle East. Speaking Monday on C-SPAN, he complained bitterly that any debate on the issue of American support for Israel and its effects is normally squelched.

Scheuer added that the Israel Lobby had just succeeded in getting him removed from his job at the Jamestown Foundation think tank for saying that Obama was “doing what I call the Tel Aviv Two Step.”

More to the point, Scheuer asserted:

“For anyone to say that our support for Israel doesn’t hurt us in the Muslim world … is to just defy reality.”

Beyond loss of work, those who speak out can expect ugly accusations. The Israeli media network Arutz Sheva, which is considered the voice of the settler movement, weighed in strongly, citing Scheuer’s C-SPAN remarks and branding them “blatantly anti-Semitic.”

Media Squelching

As for media squelching, I continue to be amazed at how otherwise informed folks express total surprise when I refer them to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s statement about his motivation for attacking the United States, as cited on page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

And one can understand how even those following such things closely can get confused. Five years after the 9/11 Commission Report, on Aug. 30, 2009, readers of the neoconservative Washington Post were given a diametrically different view, based on what the Post called “an intelligence summary:”

“KSM’s limited and negative experience in the United States — which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills — almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist … He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country.”

Apparently, the Post found this revisionist version politically more convenient, in that it obscured Mohammed’s other explanation implicating “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” It’s much more comforting to view KSM as a disgruntled visitor who nursed his personal grievances into justification for mass murder.

An unusually candid view of the dangers accruing from the U.S. identification with Israel’s policies appeared five years ago in an unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board on Sept. 23, 2004. Contradicting President George W. Bush, the board stated:

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.

“Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”

Abdulmutallab’s Attack

Getting back to Abdulmutallab and his motive in trying to blow up the airliner, how was this individual without prior terrorist affiliations suddenly transformed into an international terrorist ready to die while killing innocents?

If, as John Brennan seems to suggest, al Qaeda terrorists are hard-wired for terrorism at birth for the “wanton slaughter of innocents,” how are they able to jump-start a privileged 23-year old Nigerian, inculcate in him with the acquired characteristics of a terrorist, and persuade him to do the bidding of al Qaeda/Persian Gulf?

As indicated above, the young Nigerian seems to have had particular trouble with Israel’s wanton slaughter of more than a thousand civilians in Gaza a year ago, a brutal campaign that was defended in Washington as justifiable self-defense.

Moreover, it appears that Abdulmuttallab is not the only anti-American “terrorist” so motivated. When the Saudi and Yemeni branches of al Qaeda announced that they were uniting into “al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula,” their combined rhetoric railed against the Israeli attack on Gaza.

And on Dec. 30, Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a 32-year-old Jordanian physician from a family of Palestinian origin, killed seven American CIA operatives and one Jordanian intelligence officer near Khost, Afghanistan, when he detonated a suicide bomb.

Though most U.S. media stories treated al-Balawi as a fanatical double-agent driven by irrational hatreds, other motivations could be gleaned by carefully reading articles about his personal history.

Al-Balawi’s mother told Agence France-Presse that her son had never been an “extremist.” Al-Balawi’s widow, Defne Bayrak, made a similar statement to Newsweek. In a New York Times article, al-Balawi’s brother was quoted as describing him as a “very good brother” and a “brilliant doctor.”

So what led al-Balawi to take his own life in order to kill U.S. and Jordanian intelligence operatives?

Al-Balawi’s widow said her husband “started to change” after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. His brother said al-Balawi “changed” during last year’s three-week-long Israeli offensive in Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians.

When al-Balawi volunteered with a medical organization to treat injured Palestinians in Gaza, he was arrested by Jordanian authorities, his brother said.

It was after that arrest that the Jordanian intelligence service apparently coerced or “recruited” al-Balawi to become a spy who would penetrate al Qaeda’s hierarchy and provide actionable intelligence to the CIA.

“If you catch a cat and put it in a corner, she will jump on you,” the brother said in explaining why al-Balawi would turn to a suicide attack.

“My husband was anti-American; so am I,” his widow said, adding that her two little girls would grow up fatherless but that she had no regrets.

Answering Helen

Are we starting to get the picture of what the United States is up against in the Muslim world?

Does Helen Thomas deserve an adult answer to her question about motive? Has President Obama been able to assimilate all this?

Or is the U.S. political/media establishment incapable of confronting this reality and/or taking meaningful action to alleviate the underlying causes of the violence?

Is the reported reaction of a CIA official to al-Balawi’s attack the appropriate one: “Last week’s attack will be avenged. Some very bad people will eventually have a very bad day.”

Revenge has not always turned out very well in the past.

Does anyone remember the brutal killing of four Blackwater contractors on March 31, 2004, when they took a wrong turn and ended up in the Iraqi city of Fallujah — and how U.S. forces virtually leveled that large city in retribution after George W. Bush won his second term the following November?

If you read only the Fawning Corporate Media, you would blissfully think that the killing of the four Blackwater operatives was the work of fanatical animals who got – along with their neighbors – what they deserved. You wouldn’t know that the killings represented the second turn in that specific cycle of violence.

On March 22, 2004, Israeli forces assassinated the then-spiritual leader of Hamas in Gaza, Sheikh Yassin — a withering old man, blind and confined to a wheelchair.

That murder, plus sloppy navigation by the Blackwater men, set the stage for the next set of brutalities. The Blackwater operatives were killed by a group that described itself as the “Sheikh Yassin Revenge Brigade.”

Pamphlets and posters were all over the scene of the attack; one of the trucks that pulled around body parts of the mercenaries had a poster of Yassin in its window, as did store fronts all over Fallujah.

We can wish Janet Napolitano luck with her “counter-radicalization” project and President Obama with his effort to “communicate clearly to Muslims,” but there will be no diminution in the endless cycles of violence unless legitimate grievances are addressed on all sides.

It might also help if the American people were finally let in on the root causes for what otherwise get dismissed as irrational actions by Muslims.

Source: Ray McGovern (my #1 best source on foreign policy & intel)
Original: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/010810b.html

Ray McGovern now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During a 27-year career at CIA, he served under nine CIA directors and in all four of CIA’s main directorates, including operations. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

The grassroots movement to vote out corruption in our Congress is working! We should stop criticizing Senator Dodd – and praise him for stepping down. It must be terribly difficult being a corporate stooge – if we praise him for stepping down it might encourage other career politicians (who know they have committed treason against the people of the United States by putting corporate interests in front of the public interest) to step down as well.

I see two important factors influencing Senator Dodd’s decision.

#1. Dennis Kucinich just announced he will be investigating the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac bailouts. http://www.kucinich.us/

#2. Liberty candidate and economist Peter Schiff is crushing Dodd in polls with his recently announced bid to take Dodd’s seat in the U.S. Senate.

Peter Schiff for Senate 2010

http://schiffforsenate.com/ (Official Website)

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd won’t seek reelection, will retire at end of term

By Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Embattled Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek reelection, sources familiar with his plans said Tuesday night.

Fox News: Sen. Chris Dodd Will Not Seek Re-election

Poll: Peter Schiff, Republicans beating Chris Dodd in Connecticut

President of Euro Pacific Capital and Republican Senatorial candidate for Connecticut, Peter Schiff, is defeating incumbent Democratic Senator Chris Dodd in a latest Rasmussen poll.

Peter Schiff, author of “Crash Proof 2.0” and “The Little Book of Bull Moves in a Bear Market,” is vying for the Republican nomination for the state of Connecticut as a Senator and even though he is behind among his fellow Republican contenders such as Rob Simmons and Linda McMahon, he is defeating incumbent 30-year Senator Chris Dodd, according to Rasmussen.

Dodd is losing to every remaining Republican in the race. Simmons, the frontrunner among all the Republicans, is up 48% to Dodd’s 35%, while McMahon, who has been running ads on all mediums for more than a year, leads 44% to 38%. Schiff is is beating Dodd by one percentage point with 40% to 39%, reports the Hartford Courant.

However, the undecided voters could be a major factor for all candidates as between 9% and 14% are unsure of who they would support.

The Republican American notes that this will concern many Democrats in Washington but they still believe Dodd will win the race.

In an e-mail to Digital Journal, the Schiff for Senate campaign said they are excited about the latest poll numbers because they haven’t even started campaigning yet but will once their campaign headquarters officially opens up next week. They’re especially enthusiastic because Dodd is a five-term Senator and most Connecticut voters do not know what Schiff stands for nor of his private sector record.

They concluded in the e-mail, “One final note: there is a lot of talk out of Washington about the need for “a million-dollar advertising campaign” like the one we are seeing from one of Peter’s opponents. If these poll numbers prove one thing, it’s that: Throwing money at a problem won’t move your poll numbers any more than it will solve the financial crisis.”

Election 2010 – Connecticut Senate Race – Rasmussen Reports™

Pollster.com: 2010 Connecticut Senate General Election – Peter Schiff (R) vs Sen. Chris Dodd (D)

Video: Peter Schiff Vs. Chris Dodd – Fannie & Freddie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A18zTHSxGHY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnin4zjTMUU

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

Chris Dodd quits. Is Peter Schiff happy or not? – Liberty Maven

January 6th, 2010 1:10 am  |  by Marc Gallagher |  Published in Commentary, Election, Peter Schiff, Politics |  7 Comments

Politico is reporting that Senator Chris Dodd will announce today that he won’t seek re-election this year after all.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) plans to announce Wednesday that he will retire from the Senate at the end of the year, capping a 30-year career where he rose to be one of the most influential members and held some of the most powerful positions in the upper chamber, several Democratic sources told POLITICO Tuesday night.

Dodd’s decision to forgo a bid for a sixth term paves the way for a more popular Democrat to run, most likely the state’s Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who has his eye on a Senate seat. And that is good news for Democrats who were hit with the stunning announcement Tuesday that Sen. Byron Dorgan would not run for reelection in North Dakota, likely giving the GOP an advantage for his seat.

So the political winds have forced Dodd to quit. Does this give Peter Schiff more or less of a chance to replace Dodd as Connecticut’s next Senator? I would guess Dodd quitting removes an entire line of attack for any would-be GOP challengers. Peter Schiff is probably unhappy about this move.

To me this just seems like Dodd is playing the part of a child who can’t take it anymore and picks up all his toys and runs home to mommy. Of course, the real reason is that he knows if he stays in the race he’s red meat for Schiff and the other attack dog Republicans.

AP sources: Conn. Sen. Chris Dodd to retire

WASHINGTON – Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, a five-term Democrat whose political stock began falling after the financial meltdown and his failed 2008 presidential bid, has decided not to seek re-election in November, Democratic officials told The Associated Press early Wednesday.

Dodd was expected to make an announcement Wednesday. The officials who disclosed his plans would speak only on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement. The Washington Post first reported Dodd’s decision.

Word of his retirement comes hours after North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan announced he will not seek re-election.

Dodd, 66, is chairman of Senate Banking Committee, which was at the center of efforts to deal with the economic meltdown. And he has played a prominent role in the debate over overhauling health care, taking over for his friend Ted Kennedy during his illness and then after his death.

Given Dodd’s bad poll standing, other Democrats have gone out of their way to give him the spotlight in hopes he could recover before November.

*props to the trumpet-sounding Patriot who sent me the AP sourced news article from yahoo regarding this incredibly important 2010 campaign news.

Official Facebook Page: Peter Schiff for Senate 2010

More Information about the 2010 Liberty Candidates

I just received word that the President of the 2009 Continental Congress and 2004 Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, Michael Badnarik had a Heart Attack this morning and in an unconscious state. His condition is serious.

His Mother, Elaine, reported to me that Michael was in Madison, Wisconsin attending a hearing regarding a raw milk case.  After the hearing he got in a car to go to lunch with friends, He then slumped over. His friends attempted CPR and contacted the paramedics. They attempted to revive him 3 times with no success. Upon the 4th attempt his heart was revived yet with erratic behavior.

He was taken by helicopter to Gunderson Lutheran Hospital CCU in Lacrosse, WI. Please do no call or visit the hospital, only family is allowed.

He has been fitted with a temporary pacemaker and a balloon pump to ease stress on his heart.

I have no further details at this time.

Michael is a true asset and leader in our movement who works tirelessly and selflessly for freedom. Please pray for Michael at this time.