threaded | unthreaded | newest first

The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

topic posted Sun, January 6, 2008 - 12:10 PM by  Unsubscribed 		Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

By STEVEN ARGUE

For the most part the Iowa caucuses were business as usual for the Democrat and Republican Parties. Among the Democrats, “Anti-war” and “pro-single payer health care” Democrat Dennis Kucinich put his support behind pro-war anti--single payer health care, Barrack Obama. Yet on the far right, anti-war Libertarian and Republican Ron Paul gained a stunning 10% of the vote.

Seeing the failure of the Democrats to deliver a candidate worth supporting; some left leaning individuals have been suggesting support to Ron Paul. One is anti-war Vietnam veteran Stan Goff, who suggested in his January 4, 2008 article ”Monkey Wrenching the System, Ron Paul’s Revolution” that people vote in the primaries for Ron Paul, switching party registration right away if they live in a state where such a move is necessary to vote in the Republican primaries.

At the root of the Ron Paul "revolution" is the dismantling of Social Security and the Department of Education as well as other basic social programs, and the elimination of worker and environmental protections. Advances like single payer health care? No way. Ron Paul's message is that you need to take care of yourself, and that there shouldn't be such government programs, nor such interference with private profit. While he puts forward reasons for not supporting going to war abroad, his domestic policies would ignite civil war at home.

In addition to pretending he's against all government, he's for outlawing abortion and supports the continued ban on same-sex marriage. He was one of the original co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act".

He's also a religious extremist who thinks that creationism should be taught in the schools.

On race, Ron Paul was one of 33 Congress members to vote against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, an act that was first passed to give Blacks in the south the right to vote. On a similar note, he says the Civil Rights Act violates the Constitution and impedes on individual liberties. Speaking of Blacks in Washington DC he states in campaign literature, "95 percent of African Americans in are semi-criminal or entirely criminal".

No wonder the American Nazi Party has close relations with him (see letter from Nazi Commander Bill White below). In addition, Ron Paul has the support of other white supremacists such as David Duke, and has knowingly taken donations from former KKK Grand Wizard Don Black.

Hell would freeze over before I'd support Ron Paul. And being an atheist; that will be a long time.

There are plenty of candidates to the left of the Democrats worth considering supporting who oppose the war, would preserve public education and Social Security, who would provide single payer or socialized medicine, and who aren’t raving racist, homophobic, and sexist “Libertarian” fanatics. Why not look at them rather than someone from the loony right?

I discuss some of the campaigns that may be worth supporting in the following article:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
And the Struggle to Achieve It
By STEVEN ARGUE
www.indybay.org/newsitems/...8469739.php

Or here is a different version of the same article:
nyc.indymedia.org/en/2008/01/93820.html

*****************
American Nazi Party Chief says Ron Paul is one of us

Bill White, commander of the American National Socialist Worker’s Party, aka The American Nazi Party, wrote the following on the Nazi Vanguard News Network:

Comrades:

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous — and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party

*********
Poor Bill White. He’s having trouble with his brand of racism, anti-Semitism, mass extermination, and genocide not being "in fashion". But hey, you've got to thank the knuckleheaded Nazi for confirming our suspicions on Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan! -Steven Argue

Liberation News
lists.riseup.net/www/info/...ation_news
posted by:
Unsubscribed
join to post
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

    Mon, January 7, 2008 - 11:17 AM
    On another site,
    www.indybay.org/santacruz/

    this article has come under attack by Ron Paul supporters. Here is my response:


    I Stand By My Article

    A lot of false things have been posted made by the supporters of Ron Paul in their attempts to answer my article.

    Absurdities have been posted that deserve no reply, such as claims that “Argue” is not my real name and that I am really a Zionist in disguise.

    Blatantly racist crap has been posted such as, “Anti-racist means anti-white gentile”.

    Claims have also been made that Ron Paul is not a racist. Yet his voting record proves otherwise. Anyone who votes against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act is a racist. And you can spare me the Civil War era “states rights” rhetoric. Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army, including 200,000 Black soldiers, smashed the southern slavocracy, and this was a tremendous step forward. More recently the Voting Rights Act was passed, but if it were up to Ron Paul, it would be abolished.

    As for Ron Paul’s fellow racist travelers, Ron Paul has the support of other white supremacists such as David Duke, and has knowingly taken donations from former KKK Grand Wizard Don Black. Whether or not Nazi Commander Bill White is lying, I can’t say for sure, but his statements do fit the character of both individuals, and I have not seen anything that proves his statements false. In addition the New York Times has confirmed that he has eaten at the restaurant mentioned.

    Claims have been made that Ron Paul isn’t for the banning same-sex marriage, yet Ron Paul supporters fail to explain why Ron Paul was one of the original co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act".

    On abortion, Ron Paul supporters come up with the same “state rights” crap, claiming that Ron Paul wouldn’t ban abortions. Yet it took the national Roe v Wade decision to legalize abortion. Getting rid of national protections for a woman’s right to choose is one way to move towards the banning of abortions. Once again “state rights” are being used to defend Ron Paul’s racist and sexist positions.

    In addition, Ron Paul opposes any protections for women being sexually harassed on the job, saying they should just quit.

    In advocating the dismantling of the Department Education etc, Ron Paul supporters say that people need to take care of themselves. I disagree. I think that in a civilized society we need to take care of each other and the environment. Socialized medicine would be a major step forward in this direction, but Ron Paul not only opposes that, he wants to dismantle other important gains of the working class such as Social Security and environmental protections.

    The Ron Paul “revolution” is a dangerous proposal for unfettered capitalist profit, in the name of “individual liberty”, that would cause misery on a massive scale that will ignite civil war. On top of all of that, Ron Paul is a racist, sexist, homophobic, religious nut.

    No to Ron Paul!
    join to post
  • Jeff
    Jeff
    offline 219

    Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

    Mon, January 7, 2008 - 1:06 PM
    <<Among the Democrats, “Anti-war” and “pro-single payer health care” Democrat Dennis Kucinich put his support behind pro-war anti--single payer health care, Barrack Obama.

    Obama has been against the Iraq war from the get go.... So what war is this person actually speaking of?
    join to post
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

      Mon, January 7, 2008 - 2:48 PM
      Jeff says, "Obama has been against the Iraq war from the get go.... So what war is this person actually speaking of?"

      Not true.

      Both Edwards and Clinton voted for the war. Obama was not yet in the Senate. Yet Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have all voted for war appropriations. This puts them all in the position of having supported the war.

      The war has not gained the desired oil loot for U.S. corporations and has caused a number of growing problems for U.S. imperialism including internal dissent in the United States. And while Clinton and Obama finally voted against some of the war appropriations 2007 as they tried to change their image for the presidential elections, their pro-war Democrat Party garnered plenty of other votes to keep the imperialist war going.

      In his book, Barack Obama makes clear his support for the billions being squandered on lining the pockets of the military contractors stating, “given the depletion of our [military] forces after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will probably need a somewhat higher [Pentagon] budget in the immediate future just to restore readiness and replace equipment.” (Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p 307).

      Like Hillary Clinton, Obama has voted for the Patriot Act by voting to renew it in 2006. He also voted for the racist anti-immigrant wall as well as the “guest worker” program that denies immigrants rights, but allows them to come to this country to be exploited and under-paid. Obama also voted for the so-called “Class Action Fairness Act” that makes it harder for the people to sue corporations.

      One might think that Obama, as a black man in racist America, might have something to offer on issues dealing with the suffering caused by the racist police state, mass incarceration of the poor, lack of healthcare, and dramatic drop in the standard of living of the multi-racial working class and poor. Instead Barack Obama opposes single payer health care and plays into racist stereotypes, blaming the victims of racist America rather than the corporate criminals, stating:

      "Such wisdom might help us move beyond ideological bickering and serve as the basis of a renewed effort to tackle the problem of inner-city poverty. We could begin by acknowledging that perhaps the single biggest thing we could do to reduce such poverty is to encourage teenage girls to finish high school and avoid having children out of wedlock. . ." Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, pps. 255-256

      The inner cities of America have, by and large, been abandoned by the same capitalists that got rich off of the jobs they have now exported, just as the victims of hurricane Katrina were left to die by this same racist system. Yet the best thing to do according to Barack Obama is for black girls to stop having children out of wedlock.

      In his book, Obama not only lets this racist system off the hook, but he praises one of the worst anti-working class reforms of the Clinton administration stating, "we should also acknowledge that conservatives-and Bill Clinton-were right about welfare as it was previously structured." Bill Clinton’s welfare reform has caused homelessness, hunger, and less access to other basic necessities for the poor in America, but Barack Obama says Bill Clinton and the conservatives were right.
      join to post
      • Jeff
        Jeff
        offline 219

        Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

        Mon, January 7, 2008 - 4:27 PM
        <<Not true.

        Absolutely true, Obama flat out states in this pre Iraq war interview that he would have voted no on the Iraq war resolution. He also spoke about the dangers of preemptive wars and the possibility of splintering factions in Iraq. AND He said it 6 months before the war started.

        www.youtube.com/watch

        <<This puts them all in the position of having supported the war.

        His votes where he did appropriate funds does not necessarily make a person PRO-WAR in my eyes, although I would have preferred a stronger stance and I am dissappointed with those votes. Some hold the position that those votes are ensuring that the troops had the best resources they needed to get home in one piece.... ie body armor etc. As much as I dislike his votes, in a general election Obama can't be Swiftboated by the Republicans causing harm to our nations sons and daughters as I am sure their Rovian Tactics would have painted it.
        join to post
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

          Mon, January 7, 2008 - 9:24 PM
          Jeff says, "His votes where he did appropriate funds does not necessarily make a person PRO-WAR in my eyes"

          We differ then. Over a million Iraqis are dead due to the U.S. invasion and occupation, and billions of dollars have been squandered. Obama, by helping pay for the war has his hands in it.

          In addition, his congressional bill last year didn't call for full nor immediate withdrawal:

          "The Obama plan, called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, would begin a troop withdrawal no later than May 1, 2007, but it includes several caveats that could forestall a clean break:

          "It would leave a limited number of troops in place to conduct counterterrorism activities and train Iraqi forces. And the withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration. That list includes a reduction in sectarian violence; the equitable distribution of oil revenue; government reforms; and democratic, Iraqi-driven reconstruction and economic development efforts."

          www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...86.html

          These are the kinds of excuses I foresee him using as president to leave troops in Iraq.

          For full immediate withdrawal!

          Stop war funding!

          U.S. Troops Out Now!
          join to post
          • Jeff
            Jeff
            offline 219

            Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

            Tue, January 8, 2008 - 11:16 AM
            Regardless, I think it is disengenuous to indicate that he is PRO-WAR. Trying to find a way out that does the least amount of damage in the process is not necessarily a bad thing. I understand the arguments for both an immediate and complete withrawing of US troops, and I understand the arguments for a slower phase out.......and frankly there are good arguments on both sides. I think it simply comes down to we are fucked if we do and fucked if we don't because of the position GW has put us in with this preemptive war of choice.
            join to post
            • Brian
              Brian
              offline 18

              Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

              Tue, January 8, 2008 - 11:38 AM
              There are a lot of powerful people in the REP party that would not like to see a Ron Paul out of the picture. That enough to make me not believe in all the negative press. Ron Paul believes in Common Law, one aspect of him that I admire. Being associated to fascist white Aryan groups is a handy way of eliminating such a person. How many REP. have jumped ship, changed there tone and are trying to separate themselves from this present administration. Yet the press says nothing. There are over 25,000 media outlets in the US from tv to papers to radio, all owned by 7 corporations. I don't really believe in the press no more.

              Wasn't Garfield and Mackinly in power before the Fed. Reserve went to private bankers.in1913. I am not sure can someone clairfy that for me.
              join to post
            • Brian
              Brian
              offline 18

              Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

              Tue, January 8, 2008 - 12:09 PM
              Ron Paul believes in Common Law, in Common Law you cannot be taxed for wages, they are not corporate gains, which is taxable. Under common law you cannot be victimized by statue laws for victimless crimes or crimes against yourself (statue laws). In the west we live under common law, such as the Commonwealth of Texas or New hampshire. Its the basis of all law in a free society. "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you, just do not create a conflict.", I heard Ron Paul state that on a CD I got. That is how our countries in the west started out as. Unfortunately money and power changed things. There is no active law on the books in the US that says you MUST pay income tax. Its voluntary, and if you do not pay a federal tax, then you are not liable to pay a state income tax.

              Garfield, James
              1881
              McKinley, William
              1897-1901

              Wilson, Woodrow
              1913-21
              Garfield and McKinley where not around when Wilson sign the bill giving Walburg, Rockerfeller and JP Morgan the US Federal reserve. Passing it over to private bankers. What Paul is saying is that the US should start to create there own money without bankers who rip off the population. It was Regan who commissioned a group of business people together to find out where the income taxes are being spent. They discovered that not one penny of income taxes goes to government services, that all income tax is paid as interest and profit to the international bankers who control the US Federal reserve. That was under Regan. All services are paid for by property taxes such as education, police and so on. Extra taxes such as drivers licenses and so on are paid for by those who drive or need that service. All corporate taxes in the US goes to the military establishment.

              If you want to discredit a politician than you simply need to associate him/her to some radical group or misinterprets with a little slight of hand to convince the masses. For instance Tom Cruise and Scientology or Britney Spears, the media takes pleasure in selling papers and headlines in destroying peoples images. I do not believe in mainstay media or anything any Government tells me.
              join to post
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

              Tue, January 8, 2008 - 3:10 PM
              Jeff, I think it is disingenuous to indicate that Obama is ANTI-WAR.

              If Obama was, "Trying to find a way out that does the least amount of damage"

              That would be by air, sea, and land as quickly as possible. This is not what Obama calls for. Obama's program is one that will almost certainly keep the troops in Iraq for the four years he is in office.

              In the Senate he funds the war, and proposed a resolution that would have allowed Bush to keep the troops in Iraq. All the rest is political posturing.
              join to post
              • Jeff
                Jeff
                offline 219

                Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                Tue, January 8, 2008 - 4:05 PM
                <<I think it is disingenuous to indicate that Obama is ANTI-WAR.

                I think not being that he stated he was anti-Iraq war before it started AND predicted the problems with the Shia Sunni Split.
                <<If Obama was, "Trying to find a way out that does the least amount of damage"
                That would be by air, sea, and land as quickly as possible.

                But you see Steven, that is opinion and not fact. You have to recognize that at least in the short term sectarian violence is going to increase if the US pulls out instantly, the Sunni and Shia are going to be at each others throats and many people are going to die as a result. On the other side of the argument is the idea that leaving is going to remove some of the legitimacy of the fight and the common enemy of the Sunni/Al Qaeda alliance. Regardless, the Sunni/Shia rift is 100s of years old and the US simply leaving is not going to keep them from violently fighting each other for power in the country. Leaving a handfull of troops behind is a pittance compared to the huge occupation that is fueling the insurgency now.

                We should have never went in the first place. But the question now is how do we get out with the least amount of deaths? That is a reasonable question that deserves careful analysis.
                join to post
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                  Tue, January 8, 2008 - 4:08 PM
                  Jeff asks, "But the question now is how do we get out with the least amount of deaths?"

                  Immediately.

                  The U.S. troops and bombers aren't the good guys. They are propping up a death squad Islamic government and they are directly killing many of the people.
                  join to post
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Jeff
                    Jeff
                    offline 219

                    Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                    Tue, January 8, 2008 - 4:19 PM
                    <<Jeff asks, "But the question now is how do we get out with the least amount of deaths?"

                    Immediately. >>

                    And you base that analysis on what exactly? Regardless of the US supporting the current govt., regardless of what is currently happing in regards to numbers of deaths, it is but a pittance compared to the blood bath that could possibly ensue with Sunni/Shia violence without the common enemy of the US standing between them. I am not saying that the US troops are necessary, but that being careful about how we step out of the way is a necessity. Why are you ignoring this very real possibility if the bloodbath between Sunni and Shia in the wake of US leaving instantly Steven?

                    <<They are propping up a death squad Islamic government

                    Iraq's US supported govt. is not an Islamic state, this is common knowledge.
                    join to post
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                      Tue, January 8, 2008 - 4:36 PM
                      Jeff says, "Iraq's US supported govt. is not an Islamic state, this is common knowledge."

                      It is common knowledge that the government the U.S. is propping up is Islamic, and is in favor of Sharia Law, and while that has not yet been implemented, there have been massive erosions of women's rights.

                      And U.S. guns and bombers are the cause of a large numbers of deaths, they are not just caused by the civil war the U.S. ignited, nor just by the death squad government the U.S. put in power.
                      join to post
                      • Jeff
                        Jeff
                        offline 219

                        Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                        Tue, January 8, 2008 - 4:52 PM
                        <<It is common knowledge that the government the U.S. is propping up is Islamic, and is in favor of Sharia Law, and while that has not yet been implemented, there have been massive erosions of women's rights.

                        If Sharia Law has not been implemented, then it is not an Islamic State. I do understand the issue of the erosion of women's rights, but that is a problem throughout the Islamic world, secular and Islamic states alike. Women won 31 percent of the 275 seats in the country's legislative elections for the National Assembly, and the constitution set a 25-percent benchmark for female representation in Iraq's National Assembly. This does not happen in an Islamic state that is subject to Sharia law. That is not to say that women's rights is not an issue because it is. But it is a stretch to say the Govt. is currently an Islamic State.

                        <<And U.S. guns and bombers are the cause of a large numbers of deaths, they are not just caused by the civil war the U.S. ignited

                        I understand that, but we are talking about scope and scale here. What we are seeing is currently a low level civil war, the US leaving could allow it to expand in to a full out balls to the wall civil war complete with ethnic cleansing. This would also give the Shia that are in power free reign to really implement Sharia law and marginalize the Sunni minority in a massive wave of repression. You think you are seeing death squads now? Just imagine given free reign the violence that could occur between these two groups. There is a very real possibility that this could increase the total number of deaths if the US were to immediately withdraw.
                        join to post
                • ~lor...
                  ~lorenzo!
                  offline 131

                  Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                  Tue, January 8, 2008 - 4:11 PM
                  i think it is a mistake to confuse people who are generally "liberal minded" and against the iraq war with the left. . .there are very few leftists who support rippy, if any. . .however, there may be some populists that do. . .
                  join to post
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                    Tue, January 8, 2008 - 4:15 PM
                    By definition, there is nobody on the left that supports Ron Paul.

                    Yet, somewhat surprisingly, there are a large number of liberal minded anti-war people who are urging a vote for Ron Paul.

                    They are liberal "support the lesser viable evil" types that see Ron Paul as more viable than any anti-war democrat (arguably Kucinich and Gravel).

                    Additional questions are if Ron Paul is really viable, or if he really is really a lesser evil, but for me there are always more important questions than if a candidate is viable or a "lesser evil". I think that building a long-term movement for real change is much more important than backing a candidate of any degree of evil.

                    For me that includes deflating illusions, getting out information on socialist and Green candidates (the real anti-war and anti-corporate candidates), and urging further actions such as protests, strikes etc.
                    join to post
                    • Lana
                      Lana
                      offline 228

                      Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                      Tue, January 8, 2008 - 6:16 PM
                      Well actually I know a lot of what people you term as "lefties" who support Ron. But upon further research, thanks to your link, I am now a wee bit skeptical of Ron Paul.

                      So what I understand from your links are these:

                      ~~~ Ron Paul supports people to carry concealed firearms. My self I am opposed to fire arms, but I know many people who feel that they want to be able to keep their firearms, especially in defense of any martial or military rule. It is all silly to me, weapons of any kind, but when I think of it Hitler disarmed the country yes, in order to have complete power with out retaliation?

                      ~~~ I don't believe that Ron Paul "hates" immigrants. He doesn't believe in rewarding Amnesty by allowing foreigners to attain welfare, free medical etc... at the expense of USA. (The dictionary defines "amnesty" as a general pardon for offenders by a government)

                      He says, "A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked,"

                      ~~~ Paul wants to abolish the U.N. (UNITED NATIONS) and other diplomatic efforts. Ok well, recently I have been researching the United Nations and you would be surprised what influences the U.N. Have you ever heard of Lucis Trust and the The Aquarian Age Community (AAC - also known as AQUAAC)? You are worried about religion??? Lucis Trust and the AAC FULLY believe that Christ's disciples are already here (in various parts of the world) waiting for the right time when a being, who is Christ supreme that will make himself know soon to rule the world under One Nation, One World and One God. Alice Ann Bailey, a leading disciple of the Russian theosophist Madame Helena Blavatsky, formed the Lucifer Publising Company in 1920, changing the name to Lucis Trust in 1922. Lucis Trust worships an "Externalized Hierarchy" of "Ascended Masters," who carry out the "master plan" for the establishment of a permanent "Age of Aquarius" ruled by one "Sanat Kumara", or "Lord of the World." They truly believe that there is one appointed master who will come to rule the world professing this person will be Christ.

                      Lucis Trust is run through an international board of trustees whose membership is said to have included: John D. Rockefeller; Norman Cousins; Robert S. McNamara; Thomas Watson, Jr. (IBM, former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow); Henry Clauson Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, 33rd Degree, Southern District Scottish Rite and Henry Kissinger. This would then tie Bailey's influential occult organization into the international array of elitists, including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergs, and the Trilateral Commission.

                      Lucis Trust is the Publishing House which prints and disseminates United Nations material. Do you understand what their beliefs are? www.lucistrust.org/ Lucis Trust has been fifty years at the United Nations plaza. Currently located on Wall Street in New York. Lucis Trust provides worldwide financial support for the Arcane School, World Goodwill, Triangles, Lucis Publishing, Lucis Productions, Lucis Trust Libraries, and the New Group of World Servers. Maintains the UN meditation room.

                      ACC: www.aquaac.org/ <<<<

                      ~~~ Paul opposes the separation of Church and State. Ok so he opposes it. He says there is a war on religion, and that "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist and secular left have managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view." Do you really think that there is a SEPARATION BETWEEN RELION AND STATE NOW??? Not. Does it matter what religion you are, as long as you are not pushing War and Terror? Paul is not saying he is going to DELETE the first amendment. He is merely stating his view of how he sees court over-riding religious belief, yet they atone to the secular world of the U.N. and Big Bankers, all the while spouting their own personal faith to the Church. So he is Christian. He doesn't seem the type to PUSH his beliefs on anyone.

                      He states here: "Intelligent design may have its place in church, on the street or at home, but in terms of science, it doesn't propose any hypotheses which can be tested through experiment; it's simply not science. Teachers should certainly not be forced to teach right-wing conservative Christian ideals about God in any classroom. When I take a biology course, I go to learn about accepted theory. When I want to hear about God, I'll go to church."

                      ~~~ On abortion. Paul seems to be pretty pro-life. This is where I do not agree with Paul. I think women should be able to choose what they want to do with thier own bodies. He does say, "That he thinks States should decide the matter" not him.

                      ~~~ When it comes to same-sex marriage, Paul says that federal government should play no role in the matter and that anyone can get married and call their relationship whatever they want. He obviously is against same-sex marriage. I am not. Passed in the House in 2004, the Paul supported a bill which sought to preclude federal courts from transferring the recognition of same-sex marriage across state lines.

                      ~~~ Ron Paul says that the Civil Rights Act was a violation of the Constitution and that it reduced individual liberties. Ok this is interesting. Paul is against affirmative action because, he says, no one should be punished or privileged for belonging to a group, and everyone should be treated as an individual. He detests calls for diversity, and adds that those of us who base our identities on race are "inherently racist".

                      Ok thats interesting but,1200 individuals were polled and asked if they preferred Ron Paul to Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 33 percent of Black voters chose Congressman Paul over Senator Clinton and 31 percent over Senator Obama. Rasmussen Reports polled voters on their preference for the other GOP contenders over Clinton and Obama, and all polled lower than Congressman Paul. John McCain was preferred over Clinton and Obama by 24 and 16 percent, and Mitt Romney by 20 and 27 percent, respectively. Rudy Giuliani was only preferred to Clinton by 15 percent, and to Obama by 17 percent.
                      THIS is what crawls under my skin:

                      Ron Pauls quote here is very racist: "Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." But wasn't Paul "citing statistics" from a study that year produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives? They were not his OWN words.

                      Yet in his OWN words he says: "The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence-not skin color, gender, or ethnicity." It doesn't sound so bad.

                      So well it seems like such a facade to me..... the whole political front. Geez..... how can one believe the tabloids, even ZNet, FULLY? Really.... But I certainly did not jive fully with what I read, if in fact Ron Paul is racist.

                      I definitely do NOT support raciscim. I support gay rights, women's rights and helping the poor. Sooo.... I will keep a closer eye and ear open to what Ron Paul has to say for sure, with prudence though, knowing that great gains are at stake with the Feds (which Ron Paul want's to eliminate) and some will do anything to slander another if they are threatened. Very convincingly too at that.



                      join to post
  • Lana
    Lana
    offline 228

    Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

    Wed, January 9, 2008 - 6:37 AM
    Yea.... I'm seriously humbled to the floor, dam. I didn't really look past the fact that he was ready to challenge the Federal Reserve/International Bankers. The Federal Reserve has no business being involved with US.

    I really thought that he held the same values as JFK and LINCOLN, but I was SOoooo wrong... shit.

    RON PAUL IS A RACIST MAN - His own news letters reveal his personality.

    www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf
    www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf
    www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf
    www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf
    www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf


    He is right about this though: >>>>>>> www.tnr.com/downloads/fr...April1978.pdf

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Where are the honest good guys in politics these days???? Are there really ANY?

    I'm so sorry that I had energetically supported this man.
    I am humbled.
    Lesson's in spontaneity... jumping in the water too fast without looking at how deep the bottom is....


    (shaking my head.....)

    jEEEEEEZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz








    join to post
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

      Wed, January 9, 2008 - 8:39 AM
      <<Yea.... I'm seriously humbled to the floor, dam. I didn't really look past the fact that he was ready to challenge the Federal Reserve/International Bankers. The Federal Reserve has no business being involved with US.>>

      ...the Federal Reserve was created by the US.

      And when you say "International Bankers," you mean Jews. It's obvious when Ron Paul says it and I am starting to believe anyone who says shit like that is either an anti-semite or a naive anti-capitalist.

      <<Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.">>

      1) Jews Did It.
      2) I'm not racist, I have a Jewish friend.

      Fuck Ron Paul and fuck anyone who supports him or his nazi "platform."
      join to post
      • Brent
        Brent
        offline 175

        Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

        Wed, January 9, 2008 - 11:57 AM
        yes, I always wonder about people's sanity when they rail on about the Federal Reserve/International Bankers.

        It's sort of code language, a little wink wink nudge nudge to fellow bigots.
        join to post
        • Loki...
          Lokifreign
          offline 425

          Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

          Mon, January 28, 2008 - 8:17 PM
          >>It's sort of code language, a little wink wink nudge nudge to fellow bigots <<

          Weird - so, if I don't like reserve banking / fed banking / multinational banking, I'm a bigot?

          And if I don't like capitalism, I'm "naive" and also a bigot?



          INNA - at what point do I get a legal pass to go ahead and tell these dimwitted platitude-buying bullshit-braying chumps that their opinions are myopic, stupid, and nose-led? Surely soon.
          join to post
      • Lana
        Lana
        offline 228

        Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

        Wed, January 9, 2008 - 12:44 PM
        NO, I am not saying it is just the "Jews" that run the Big Banks, at all. f-----uck that.
        Why do you try and twist and turn that it into racisim??? That's Bull Dung.

        There are British and European members on the International board as well.
        The Federal Reserve was created by Big InterNATIONAL Bankers pushing their agendas in the USA. Many presidents have expressed their dismay at being DUPED by these gangsters.

        Don't try and read something in my post that is NOT THERE. I am sick of all the twisted lies and conjured up images that Politicians try to feed us. Ok?

        I was wrong about Ron. So I had to express that. You do not know me - so to insinuate that I am racist is pretty shallow on your part. I felt that Ron was just as strong as JFK & Lincoln for having the courage to stand up to the Big Bankers. When I first received an email about Ron Paul, that was the main issue. I did not read that he was against women's rights, etc.....

        (sigh)

        I don't see any real "honest" politicians to vote for.

        It seems like such a farce, this whole Presidential Campaine. Where are the healthy (in body, mind & soul) politicians? Tell me..... I would love to know.

        Ron Paul seemed too good to be true, because he is prepared to stand up against the Federal Reserve and International Bankers (both are the same). But I am NON-Racist and Pro-choice. I support women's issues, gay rights and I certainly support illegal immigrants. I don't support war of any kind. I think it is childish and immoral. Our world leaders are still in grade school. Sooo.....

        I was/am disillusioned. The world and it's political powers do not feel righteous to me. This world is pretty much messed up economically, psychologically and is humanely off track because the "lime-light" of success is always about MONEY - POWER - GREED... instead of embracing True honest principles, real human values and non-violent communication.

        I vote for Earth. I vote for the Universe. I vote for Peace. I vote for Love. I vote for freedom and creative expression. I vote for Time as Art - NOT >>> Time is Money. I vote for true Communal-ism. I vote that we all become a good example for the future generations and start cleaning up the filth and the mess that we have gotten this world and Planet in by adopting healthy, loving, conscious and caring attitudes.

        xo
        Lana

        ps:

        Money Masters: www.youtube.com/watch
        Federal Reserve: www.youtube.com/watch

        Can you deny this with a truly convincing reason why I should trust the Feds and Big Bankers?
        I would like some one to enlighten me, (WITHOUT SARCASM) as to why we should fully trust the guys with the gold.

        Do you think they really care about YOU? Your liberty?








        join to post
        • Brent
          Brent
          offline 175

          Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

          Wed, January 9, 2008 - 12:54 PM
          The Fed Reserve was created in the US.
          join to post
          • Lana
            Lana
            offline 228

            Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

            Wed, January 9, 2008 - 1:01 PM
            www.youtube.com/watch
            join to post
            • Brent
              Brent
              offline 175

              Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

              Wed, January 9, 2008 - 1:03 PM
              a conspiracy youtube video doesn't cut it

              www.geocities.com/CapitolHi...Facts.html

              Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories (and other financial myths)

              BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.

              Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

              Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

              Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

              Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

              Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.

              Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

              Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?

              Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

              Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.

              BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.


              Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.


              Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, so the Act is null and void.


              Myth# 3: The Federal Reserve Act and paper money are unconstitutional


              Myth# 4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank


              Myth #5: The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners.


              Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited.


              Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.


              Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.


              Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it
              join to post
              • Sean
                Sean
                offline 92

                Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                Thu, January 10, 2008 - 1:04 AM
                Brent, lol.

                Ok, so this dunce is saying that we PAY INTEREST on our debt, so that it can be REBATED right back to us? Brilliant. Does not happen in the way that you want it to happen to make your theories work.

                Every dollar is printed at interest. Period. For the government to borrow money, it has to come from a pool of money that somebody else is paying interest on.

                The direct ownership of bonds that result in interest rebates is a hat trick. Pure illusion. The total rebates are around 35 billion for the entire year. Interest realized from the direct creation of money thru debt (accruing interest at the federal reserve prime rate) is around 2.25 trillion dollars per year.

                If the theory you propose is true, the US would have a perpetually balanced budget. Such is not the case. The money we spend comes from taxation, NOT interest gains.
                join to post
                • James
                  James
                  offline 554

                  Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                  Thu, January 10, 2008 - 4:29 AM
                  I agree with you regarding the issue of the Fractional reserve system of Banking, Sean. However, I can't really fault others for not believing it , since I scoffed at the idea and didn't believe it either. It wasn't until I started asking people about the national debt and what it was, and getting a hundred different answers from a hundred different people that I decided to do some serious research into the matter. Then I read 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' and it became a lot clearer to me. At least this answer was a consistent one that made sense. There is nothing about 'Jews' or the 'Zionist conspiracy' in this book, or the many books like it. There is a connection between Anti-Semitism and the Fractional reserve banking system. This is one of the oldest and most perpetual Anti-Semitic myths.
                  www.adl.org/special_repo...fed_intro.asp

                  However, many if not most of the Bankers not only supported and benefited from the Fractional reserve system, but they were also Anti-Semites who financed the Nazi party, such as J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller for example. These men not only helped transfer the money and assets from the accounts of their jewish victims into the accounts of the Nazi elite, but a lot of the artwork which the Nazis seized and stored is on display right now at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which is owned by the Rockefellers. G.W. Bush's father, George Bush, was a Rockefeller puppet, according to Ronald Reagan, and had numerous former Nazis involved in his presidential campaign. G.W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, managed Wall Street front companies that raised money for Hitler and shipped supplies to the Nazis.

                  hubpages.com/hub/Declass...Nazi_Germany

                  alexconstantine.blogspot.com/200...html

                  If the above is not true, then there are some 'loose threads' regarding the holocaust which are difficult to answer. For example. During a time or war it is imperative to cut off your enemy's supply lines by bombing all the roads, ports, and railroads leading into and out of their occupied territories. This was done by fighter pilots in the Second world war, bombing all the railways leading to and from industries such as munitions factories, farms, etc. Yet the victims of the holocaust always traveled BY RAILWAY. How was this possible? The high command of every Allied country gave explicit instructions for their Air forces NOT to bomb these specific railways. Every railway in Germany and the occupied territories were bombed, EXCEPT for the ones leading to the concentration camps. Was this accidental or deliberate?

                  This is not the only 'loose thread'. There is also the matter of the American technicians working for IBM who implemented the five-digit Hollerith number was part of a custom punch card system devised by IBM to track prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, including the slave labor at Auschwitz.

                  www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/arti....html

                  But back to the topic of the Fractional reserve system. It isn't as complicated or strange as many people think it is. Banks create money in the same way that we can create money ourselves. Every time we write a check for a certain amount, we have just 'created' that much money and can use that check to buy something. If we don't have the money in our accounts to cover the check, then the check bounces and gets marked as 'Non sufficient funds' by the bank. The only difference with the banks is that they are writing checks against all the other people's money sitting in the BANK. Also, even if all the other people's money wasn't enough to cover the check, the bank won't bounce it's own checks.

                  However, I disagree with you about Ron Paul. I think that the issue of Fractional reserve banking is beginning to raise a lot of questions in a lot of people's minds, so it has become the popular 'boogeyman' that Ron Paul promises to slaughter. Promises, Promises. Politicians are famous for making them. Wasn't George W. Bush elected on campaign promises which he broke soon after getting elected?

                  This is Noam Chomsky's opinion of Ron Paul. Keep in mind that Noam Chomsky also considers himself to be a Libertarian.

                  Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul
                  Sunday, December 02, 2007 (06:21:21)

                  Posted by personman

                  * Update: I E-mailed Prof. Chomsky for confirmation. Z magazine is an official source, but some Ron Paul supporters are calling the forum comments a hoax or a fake. View Prof. Chomsky's response here.

                  From the znet sustainers forum:

                  Questioner: Hello Mr. Chomsky. I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions. Here my summary of Mr. Paul’s positions:
                  - He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).

                  Noam Chomsky: Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

                  - He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)

                  Noam Chomsky: “Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

                  - He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

                  Noam Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.

                  There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power — itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

                  - He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

                  Noam Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

                  I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.

                  Noam Chomsky: There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

                  So I have these questions:

                  1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of “Libertarianism”?

                  Noam Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

                  2) Can you please tell me what role “private property” and “ownership” have in your school of “Libertarianism”?

                  Noam Chomsky: That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

                  3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

                  Noam Chomsky: No.
                  join to post
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

          Wed, January 9, 2008 - 10:46 PM
          <<NO, I am not saying it is just the "Jews" that run the Big Banks, at all. f-----uck that.
          Why do you try and twist and turn that it into racisim??? That's Bull Dung. >>

          Well OK, but you see, Ron Paul means the Jews. And to me it's all part of the same conspiracy, the theory that an elite cabal of evil bankers/media overlords controls everything. And wants to kill the white man.

          <<There are British and European members on the International board as well.>>

          Heh yes, and also Ron Paul has a Jewish friend.

          <<The Federal Reserve was created by Big InterNATIONAL Bankers pushing their agendas in the USA.>>

          The concept of a national central bank is hardly new, alarming, scary, or insidious.

          << Many presidents have expressed their dismay at being DUPED by these gangsters.>>

          ...many presidents have also been paranoid anti-semites. Nixon for example. Their testimony is not enough, nor are mere allusions to "gangsters" and "international bankers" enough to make me concerned.

          <<Don't try and read something in my post that is NOT THERE. I am sick of all the twisted lies and conjured up images that Politicians try to feed us. Ok?>>

          I am too... it just so happens that most of this Ron Paul-esque fears of Big International Banking Gangster Jews is one such twisted lie and image.

          <<I was wrong about Ron. So I had to express that. You do not know me - so to insinuate that I am racist is pretty shallow on your part.>>

          True, but I feel obligated to do that. :P
          Even in situations where the issue doesn't come up. I dunno, I just like to put out feelers for how racist people might be. It's amazing at parties for example, how easy it is to get some people to get on the Jew hating bandwagon, especially when they don't know that I'm One Of Them, so my goal is just to get everyone's feelings out in the open. That's why I'm glad Ron Paul helpfully made his newsletters, so we get the honest picture BEFORE the campaign lies get going.

          << I felt that Ron was just as strong as JFK & Lincoln for having the courage to stand up to the Big Bankers. When I first received an email about Ron Paul, that was the main issue. I did not read that he was against women's rights, etc..... >>

          Which is evidence that the "standing up to big bankers" thing was nothing but empty rhetoric designed to appeal to a certain fear, in this case the fear of the elite cabal.

          <<I don't see any real "honest" politicians to vote for. >>

          Mike Gravel. That guy is time-tested and Nixon-disapproved. He tells it like it is, which is why he doesn't have many political friends and gets excluded from debates. He would rip the other candidates a new one (and he has, regardless!). I suggest you at least look him up, see what he's about.

          Word is he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. Good enough for me to vote for him. I do NOT subscribe to "vote for the most electable," because that's like "buying the most buyable" of goods. "Well, this poisonous Tijuana burrito is bad for me... but it's cheap and the most likely thing I can buy, so YUM YUM!"
          join to post
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

            Wed, January 9, 2008 - 11:10 PM

            "<<I was wrong about Ron. So I had to express that. You do not know me - so to insinuate that I am racist is pretty shallow on your part.>>

            True, but I feel obligated to do that. :P"



            dude, that is just pure flaming.

            this is completely uncalled for.
            join to post
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

              Wed, January 9, 2008 - 11:24 PM
              If that's a flame, then I am a demonic entity. Frankly, I would have thought the :P emoticon was a clue as to the facetious nature of the "insinuation" by that post, and in the earlier post the insinuation was not flaming, it wasn't name-calling, and in fact it's a reasonable enough thing to insinuate.

              Suggesting that someone who shares/d Ron Paul's political views and supports/ed Ron Paul has similar sociopolitical views to Ron Paul is, in fact, a reasonable thing to insinuate. I mean look Inna, if you're going to warn me for flaming, just wait until I actually make one. They really aren't hard to spot... when they are there.
              join to post
          • Sean
            Sean
            offline 92

            Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

            Thu, January 10, 2008 - 12:35 AM
            You guys are such easy dupes.

            The letters youre "so happy" to see arent even written by him.

            And central banks that create fiat money at interest *are insidious*, as the system is mathematically unsustainable, and facilitates the transfer and concentration of our productive labors into a very small set of hands.

            video.google.com/videoplay

            As for you dupes who are so quick to jump on this bandwagon, please show us the *proof* in the form of either 1) a victim or 2) these types of rants reproduced in a different source such as books Ron Paul has written or the voluminous congressional records he has produced.

            You cant even demonstrate stylistic similarities in these ghost written newsletters and other accredited sources.

            The real problem here is that you WANT to believe this stuff. You need to examine your own hearts and ask yourself why you feel the need to slander an honest, decent public servant such as Ron Paul.
            join to post
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

              Thu, January 10, 2008 - 9:43 AM
              <<ou guys are such easy dupes.

              The letters youre "so happy" to see arent even written by him. >>

              Oh reallllly. So who did it? The Jews? Yeah maybe they maliciously wrote newsletters in Ron Paul's name.

              <<And central banks that create fiat money at interest *are insidious*, as the system is mathematically unsustainable, and facilitates the transfer and concentration of our productive labors into a very small set of hands. >>

              I see. So, you believe in the labor theory of value and think everything should be distributed completely equally?

              <<As for you dupes who are so quick to jump on this bandwagon, please show us the *proof* in the form of either 1) a victim or 2) these types of rants reproduced in a different source such as books Ron Paul has written or the voluminous congressional records he has produced. >>

              Proof? So the Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report - not good enough? No. You're the dupe here, for deliberately ignoring clear and unequivocal evidence of Ron Paul's racism, bigotry, paranoia and ignorance. You would prefer we ignore this evidence based purely on the assumption - the paranoid, baseless assumption - that apparently there's some sort of alter-ego Ron Paul who is not responsible.

              <<You cant even demonstrate stylistic similarities in these ghost written newsletters and other accredited sources. >>

              WTF are you on about? What, now you want a handwriting analysis? How paranoid are you that you think these newsletters were just invented to smear good ole Ronnie?

              <<The real problem here is that you WANT to believe this stuff. You need to examine your own hearts and ask yourself why you feel the need to slander an honest, decent public servant such as Ron Paul>>

              No, the real problem is that you WANT to believe that Ron Paul is an honest, decent public servant. So much that you'll plug your ears, hum real loudly, and demand MORE proof. Proof you would obviously just ignore in favor of your clear bias. You are beyond reason and evidence, and are indicative of the mentality of Ron Paul supporters in general.
              join to post
              • Sean
                Sean
                offline 92

                Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                Thu, January 10, 2008 - 10:10 AM
                FSM, just admit it-- you're a dupe.

                The letters were NOT written by Ron Paul. They were ghostwritten. This is something that has been proven and constantly rehashed by his political opponents since it happened.

                Theres no conspiracy. It was a mistake on his part to outsource the composition of anything that was directly attributed to him.

                Again I re-iterate that you're not paying attention because you enjoy the products of the delusion, and if thats not the case, its because you bear malice. Wouldnt be the first time.

                <<labor theory of value; everything should be distributed completely>>

                Again you prove yourself willfully lazy, if not completely ignorant.
                join to post
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                  Sat, January 12, 2008 - 9:42 AM
                  <<FSM, just admit it-- you're a dupe.>>

                  Oh, yeah, that's convincing.

                  <<The letters were NOT written by Ron Paul. They were ghostwritten. This is something that has been proven and constantly rehashed by his political opponents since it happened.>>

                  It's "been proven," oh really? To whom? You. Even if it was true, they are published in his name and he's not said jack shit about how evilly he is being misrepresented by the jewish, excuse me, "black pinko" ghostwriters.

                  <<Theres no conspiracy. It was a mistake on his part to outsource the composition of anything that was directly attributed to him.>>

                  "Outsource?" LOL

                  If you think an allusion to the economically ignorant association of "outsourcing = evil" is sufficient argument here you are quite mistaken.

                  <<Again I re-iterate that you're not paying attention because you enjoy the products of the delusion, and if thats not the case, its because you bear malice. Wouldnt be the first time.>>

                  Not paying attention to WHAT? You calling everyone a dupe for not swallowing whole your absurd claims? I'm paying attention to the irony right now.

                  <<Again you prove yourself willfully lazy, if not completely ignorant.>>

                  I guess I DO prove "myself," since YOU are proving absolutely NOTHING.
                  join to post
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Sean
                    Sean
                    offline 92

                    Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                    Sat, January 12, 2008 - 10:00 AM
                    FSM there you go making shit up again.

                    Dondero is most likely responsible for the letters.

                    You're imagining a conspiracy of fictional charecters, and you're all alone making these claims. That makes you either delusional, or really crappy at being self-interested.

                    And I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you fail to grasp the concept of a gold standard in ways I never even assumed possible. So, yea, either lazy or ignorant.

                    FSM, you've constructed a nifty little challenge for yourself. Your first goal is to stop being ignorant about economics. Your second goal is to delegate authority within a large organization AND NEVER BE WRONG about anyone you delegate authority to. You are to oversee all operations non-stop, and NEVER allow ANYTHING to happen that might reflect badly on your operation. This is the challenge you have chosen for yourself because its exactly what you expect of Ron Paul.

                    You got your work cut out for ya.
                    join to post
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                      Sat, January 12, 2008 - 10:20 AM
                      <<FSM there you go making shit up again.

                      Dondero is most likely responsible for the letters.
                      >>

                      What did I make up, again?

                      <<You're imagining a conspiracy of fictional charecters, and you're all alone making these claims. That makes you either delusional, or really crappy at being self-interested. >>

                      No, actually if you read the thread, you're the one who's alone in defending a bigoted, racist son of a bitch. Remember? You said "You're all a bunch of dupes," not, "FSM420, the only dupe here."

                      Even if I was alone, having an unpopular view does not make it wrong, nor the holder of the view "delusional." The fact that you try to appeal to some popularity is one fallacy, the fact that you feel the need to throw insults is another fallacy.

                      <<And I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you fail to grasp the concept of a gold standard in ways I never even assumed possible. So, yea, either lazy or ignorant. >>

                      Another ad hominem. You might as well be saying "LOL, U R POOP HEAD" for all the relevancy your opinion of my "ignorance" is. Gold standard? Another thread, another subject, and you haven't proved anything there EITHER.

                      <<FSM, you've constructed a nifty little challenge for yourself. Your first goal is to stop being ignorant about economics.>>

                      Actually, my first goal is to ignore you, since your idea of discussion is throwing stupid, baseless insults when your stupid, baseless arguments fail to convince anyone.

                      << Your second goal is to delegate authority within a large organization AND NEVER BE WRONG about anyone you delegate authority to. You are to oversee all operations non-stop, and NEVER allow ANYTHING to happen that might reflect badly on your operation. This is the challenge you have chosen for yourself because its exactly what you expect of Ron Paul. >>

                      What a lovely little strawman. Tell you what, if I ever have a "FSM 420 Newsletter," in several incarnations, with a large reading audience, I will indeed make sure that no one is writing hate-filled garbage in my name. "Oversee all operations non stop" will not be necessary, since all I have to do is READ the thing ONCE in order to realize "Gee, someone is writing anti-semitic filth in my newsletter" and to stop it.

                      Apparently, what you expect is for me to be totally ignorant of it... article after article, written in my name. I guess Ron Paul can't be arsed to read, in much the same way you can't be arsed to make a coherent, supported, rational argument.

                      So yeah, come at me again with "LOL U R STUPID!" It's funny to observe someone who doesn't know they're being schooled.
                      join to post
                      • Sean
                        Sean
                        offline 92

                        Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                        Sat, January 12, 2008 - 10:24 AM
                        Dont ever serve on a jury.

                        I can publish crap with your name on it-- in such a case, I'm sure you'd ask everyone to carefully consider your defense rather than just throw you to the wolves and assume youre a terrible person.
                        join to post
                        • Unsu...
                           

                          Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                          Sat, January 12, 2008 - 12:55 PM
                          <<Dont ever serve on a jury.

                          I can publish crap with your name on it>>

                          Oh, so now the ghostwriters didn't even have Ron Paul's permission, to write for the Ron Paul Newsletter?

                          And how long was the Ron Paul Newsletter being published, during which time Ron Paul never read it, never even HEARD of it?

                          <<-- in such a case, I'm sure you'd ask everyone to carefully consider your defense rather than just throw you to the wolves and assume youre a terrible person. >>

                          Yes, in such a case. Ron Paul Newsletter is not such a case. Your argument is so absurd that it's not even that fun ripping it apart anymore.
                          join to post

                          • Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                            Sat, January 12, 2008 - 5:09 PM
                            <Oh, so now the ghostwriters didn't even have Ron Paul's permission, to write for the Ron Paul Newsletter? And how long was the Ron Paul Newsletter being published, during which time Ron Paul never read it, never even HEARD of it? >

                            Exactly. The first time - OK. Fine. But the second and third and .......

                            Bullshit.
                            join to post
                            • ande...
                              anderson
                              offline 8

                              Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                              Sat, January 12, 2008 - 11:38 PM
                              static1.firedoglake.com/1/file...cks.jpg

                              Don Black in the middle. Also a RP contributor. Why is RP taking money and posing w/ white supremacists Sean?
                              join to post
                              • Sean
                                Sean
                                offline 92

                                Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                Sat, January 12, 2008 - 11:55 PM
                                Anybody can get a picture with him.

                                He doesnt screen like the other candidates.

                                Its akin to getting a book signed. Hardly an endorsement of you and your personal politics if you get a book signed by a famous author.
                                join to post
                                • ande...
                                  anderson
                                  offline 8

                                  Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                  Sun, January 13, 2008 - 9:13 AM
                                  Oh sure sure, he just HAPPENS to have the guy who wrote the racist nonsense still on his payroll, and just so happens to be taking pictures with and receiving donations from white supremacists (and has yet - to my knowledge - returned the money), and has been busy voting against acts you people would have strung up G-Dub and any other "good ol' boys" for voting against. . .

                                  Yea, just a CRAZY coincidence.

                                  Hell, that can be the GOP's defense from here on out - "Well gee, I didn't know he had plans to gas and torture and assassinate his enemies - we were just there to help him out w/ his fight against the Shah!"
                                  join to post
                                  • Sean
                                    Sean
                                    offline 92

                                    Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                    Sun, January 13, 2008 - 10:24 AM
                                    You have officially driven off the cliff in the short bus.

                                    The guy that wrote the racist stuff was fired when it was discovered 2 decades ago.

                                    Did you pay attention to Paul's rationale for not giving money back? Its the same reason I wouldnt return a donation that came from you-- youre a terrible person, and its better than you dont have money to pursue your small-minded ideals.
                                    join to post
                                    • ande...
                                      anderson
                                      offline 8

                                      Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                      Sun, January 13, 2008 - 1:01 PM
                                      >>The guy that wrote the racist stuff was fired when it was discovered 2 decades ago. <<

                                      My bad. The folks involved in production and publication of the racist nonsense are still on Ron Pauls payroll.

                                      >>Did you pay attention to Paul's rationale for not giving money back?<<

                                      Sad that in this day and age we need to start rationalizing the acceptance of monetary support (and thus support of any RP victory) from out-and-out overt fucking bigots.

                                      Ron Paul: The candidate who's not afraid to let a lil' racial bigotry get in the way of reforming Washington!
                                      join to post
                                      • Lana
                                        Lana
                                        offline 228

                                        Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                        Tue, January 15, 2008 - 7:57 AM
                                        Anderson: "The folks involved in production and publication of the racist nonsense are still on Ron Pauls payroll."

                                        That IS interesting for sure. I wonder how many more people would have campained for Kucinich if it hadn't of been for Ron Paul winning support by saying he was going to "do away with the Feds"? hmmmm....

                                        The whole political facade is such a game. Think tanks. What are they for again? I knew that when Obama won in Ohio that Hilary would win in New Hampshire. It's like guessing a movie..... sheesh. Hilary is in for the long haul. How long can these political lies live on? How many wars are we going to fight to conquer before we GROW UP? When are we going to get serious and clean up our SHIT?

                                        Perhaps it would be better if NOBODY VOTED, then we could call for a Reformation of the whole system and get some REAL people - True & JUST - running the country. I am sure good people like Kucinich are getting tired of the shams. Good for him for calling a re-count. The N.H. polls did not quite add up for sure.

                                        WHY VOTE? When we vote we consent to this corrupt and non-sustaining system of governance. Maybe it's time to revisit why the Iroquois Confederacy was so appealing to the Forefathers when they were drafting out the constitution.

                                        Hehe.... maybe it's time for a REAL Revolution! STOP voting - STOP paying taxes. They are both frauds - Period.

                                        :-)

                                        Sound good?




                                        join to post
                                        • Unsu...
                                           

                                          Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                          Tue, January 15, 2008 - 9:55 AM
                                          I think it'd be better if EVERYONE rather than NO ONE voted. I'd rather a tyranny by majority than a tyranny of the 1/3rd of the voters who can get up off their fat asses and vote.

                                          As for not paying taxes... well, they put you in prison for that. They want you not to vote, but they care about getting their slice of your pie.
                                          join to post
                                          • Lana
                                            Lana
                                            offline 228

                                            Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                            Wed, January 16, 2008 - 1:28 PM
                                            "....voting is implicitly a coercive act because it lends support to a compulsory state; voting reinforces the legitimacy of the state; and existing nonpolitical, voluntarist alternatives better serve society." - members.aol.com/vlntryst/dissenting.html

                                            "...voting is an act of submission: When you no longer resist tyranny, but agree to submit to the threat or use of force and do as you are told, when you no longer question the higher authority because you are allowed to choose your supervisor. In the process you condemn your offspring and future generations to be subjects of this authority establishing an institution of tyranny that eventually is accepted unquestioningly, perhaps even celebrated." - Mark Davis.


                                            FSM - I do not have any faith in this system anymore..... sorry. I imagine if everyone stopped voting there would be a serious movement toward change. This system is false and filled with corruption. Why endorse that?

                                            As for paying taxes.... well, yea they put you in jail, but does not the constitution clearly specify that we don't really have to pay taxes?
                                            join to post
                                            • Dragon
                                              Dragon
                                              offline 53

                                              Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                              Wed, January 16, 2008 - 2:21 PM
                                              "FSM - I do not have any faith in this system anymore..... sorry. I imagine if everyone stopped voting there would be a serious movement toward change. This system is false and filled with corruption. Why endorse that?"

                                              The system can still be fixed. Really all we can do is fix the system or trade it for a government that doesnt need to listen to its people at all. I mean think about it. The people in this country who are best able to wrest control from the government are White supremists militias, and well trained religious extremists like blackwater. I can assure you that the government after the federal one we have will be anything but people friendly.
                                              join to post
                                            • Unsu...
                                               

                                              Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                              Wed, January 16, 2008 - 3:22 PM
                                              <<
                                              FSM - I do not have any faith in this system anymore..... sorry. I imagine if everyone stopped voting there would be a serious movement toward change.>>

                                              Change? Well let's see. A political system in which leaders rise to power COMPLETELY irrespective of what the people want. Dictatorship might be change but it's not one I'd want to experience.

                                              << This system is false and filled with corruption. Why endorse that?>>

                                              It's the only one we have, and the only good way we'd have of changing it is from within. The alternative is violence.

                                              <<As for paying taxes.... well, yea they put you in jail, but does not the constitution clearly specify that we don't really have to pay taxes? >>

                                              Perhaps it does, but de facto it doesn't work that way. You wouldn't be able to use the defense in a court of law any more than Al Capone could.
                                              join to post
                                        • Dragon
                                          Dragon
                                          offline 53

                                          Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

                                          Tue, January 15, 2008 - 10:08 AM
                                          Perhaps it would be better if NOBODY VOTED, then we could call for a Reformation of the whole system and get some REAL people - True & JUST - running the country. ----------WHY VOTE? When we vote we consent to this corrupt and non-sustaining system of governance. Maybe it's time to revisit why the Iroquois Confederacy was so appealing to the Forefathers when they were drafting out the constitution.

                                          Hehe.... maybe it's time for a REAL Revolution! STOP voting - STOP paying taxes. They are both frauds - Period.

                                          :-)

                                          Sound good?

                                          Not really Lana,
                                          You forget that revolution brought us to this point in history. Revolutions tend to create flawed societies. The real problem is that human beings are lazy, want instant gratification and wont do the work needed to actually create a stable working society. America seems to be as close to a good system as people are willing to work for without destroying their own lives in the process. Even so, the system could be retooled and better ran. However no one is willing to do it. Calling for revolution is just a form of lazyness. Or just plain scary.
                                          join to post
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

    Wed, January 9, 2008 - 3:43 PM
    Final Nails in Racist Ron Paul’s Campaign Coffin

    By STEVEN ARGUE

    Since I wrote the article:

    The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat
    www.indybay.org/newsitems/...8470186.php

    New information has surfaced regarding Ron Paul’s pro-fascist agenda.

    That information is discussed in the following January 7, 2008 MSNBC interview conducted by Tucker Carlson with the New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick. In it he gives an inside look into his controversial piece on presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, due to hit newsstands on Friday.

    antironpaul.com/

    The following are newly released copies of Ron Paul’s extreme right newsletter to which Jamie Kirchick refers:

    www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf
    www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf
    www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf
    www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf
    www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf

    In addition to these revelations, in New Hampshire Ron Paul also failed to repeat anything close to the 10% vote he achieved in Iowa.

    Somewhat surprisingly, there are a large number of liberal minded anti-war people who have urged a vote for Ron Paul.

    They are liberal "support the lesser viable evil" types that see Ron Paul as more viable than any anti-war Democrat (arguably Kucinich and Gravel).

    Additional questions have always existed if Ron Paul really was viable, or if he really was a lesser evil. New Hampshire and the latest revelations ought to put both questions to rest.

    But for me there are always more important questions than if a candidate is viable or a "lesser evil". I think that building a long-term movement for real change is much more important than backing a candidate of any degree of evil. For me that includes deflating illusions in the corporate politicians of the Democrat and Republican Parties, getting out information on candidates to the left of the Democrats (the real anti-war and anti-corporate candidates), and urging further actions such as protests, strikes etc.

    Simply put, there is nobody worth supporting in the racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-poor, and capitalist Republican Party. Never has been, never will be. Get over it. In fact, there is nobody in the corporate Democrat and Republican Parties that are worth supporting. I discuss some of the candidates that may be worth supporting in the following article:

    The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
    And the Struggle to Achieve It
    By STEVEN ARGUE
    www.indybay.org/newsitems/...8469739.php

    And just for fun, here's the Ron Paul Time Machine!
    www.youtube.com/watch
    join to post
    • Cliff
      Cliff
      offline 82

      Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

      Wed, January 9, 2008 - 4:46 PM
      Why don't the Paulie Girls ever want to address any of this?
      join to post
      • ~lor...
        ~lorenzo!
        offline 131

        Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

        Wed, January 9, 2008 - 4:59 PM
        they are too busy fomenting the rippie revolution. . .
        bunch 'a rippies!
        join to post
        • Brian
          Brian
          offline 18

          Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

          Thu, January 10, 2008 - 7:31 AM
          Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
          Fact, the bankers and there co=horts who they got elected in the first place were constantly trying to instigate private ownership of the national economy. This goes back to the early 1800s and including right after the American revolution. The constitution of the US is a document relating to how a nation will pay its debts to the international bankers and the Kings or queens they borrowed the money from. A King is a bank. The US did not have a bank in the beginning and borrowed there economy from King George of England, the very king they rebelled against. King George himself financed the immigration to the Colonies including Canada, he wanted his money back after the revolution, The best way to do that is to create a debt with the country. Thats a fact. So right after the revolution America and Canada were both in debt to international bankers, and that includes the Kings and Queens. Queen Eliz 2 is the largest owner of the largest insurnace companies on the planet, Insurance companies are as powerful as the banks, Actually a secondary bank.


          Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, so the Act is null and void.
          The bill was passed during a christmas break when many of the representatives where away, it was never ratified. Its was a scam, there is no active law in the US that states that a person who earns a wage is liable to pay income tax (common law), its a voluntary tax. There constitution only permits a tax if its levied in a manner that it is equal to all tax payers, from rich to poor they would have to pay the same amount and not based on wages or corporate earnings. The only legal tax in the US is Corporate Earnings. This is also the same in Canada, but our and your governments force us thru misinformation to apply for a SS or SIN number, that creates the strawman, and image of a human being a corporate entity. Without a brain.


          Myth# 3: The Federal Reserve Act and paper money are unconstitutional
          Since 1913 it is unconstitutional, its up to the Government to print and produce money. Before 1913 a US dollar stated "Redeemable in Gold". Check out the US Dollar to day. It fiat money and has only about 2 cents of real value back by a commodity such as Gold.


          Myth# 4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank
          The reserve is privately own, but not by a one particular owner. After the Rockerfeller and the boys gained control, International bankers got involved on a higher level. Now there is a rather large cartel of bankers including the Saudis. They got a king too!!. After the first and second WW all of Europe, Britian, Japan, and so on had there industry totally destroyed. It was America that refinaced and retooled the rest of the world. America did not get bombed. Canada became the country that large business interest got involved with due to the government in the US forbidding trade with enemey countries. Therefore industry was set up in Canada so that the large banks and corporations could do business with those countries. In banking, they continually look for ways to do business, what government your under matters not.


          Myth #5: The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners.
          I wonder where all the Kings and Queens put there funds, this coupled with some of the largest Catholic (Vatican is a bank), Jewish and protestant bankers. Its better to create wealth together instead of competition.


          Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited.
          Before 1913 it was in constant audit.


          Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.
          What do you think and interest rate is, When the federal reserve states that interest will be 4%, thats interest on the use of the Bankers money.


          Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.
          Gold does not inflate, fiat money is inflation. Gold is 100 percent money it neither inflates or deflates. If Gold is $1 dollar and ounce, then its $880 in fiat exchange. Thats is based on inflation. We make lots of money and still pay the same for products that we paid for 100 yrs ago. In 1913 a pound of butter cost 2 cents, you do the math.


          Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it

          When a country goes bankrupt, it loses it privilege to create Debt This happened in New Zealand and they almost go taxed out of existence. .Banks take over. It takes 70 yrs to create credit on the international scale. 1789 borrowed form King Geoge, add 70yrs, 1859 Civil war, Lincoln and the US where in debt to the French and British (who in turn wanted the states as there new colonies again, north British, south French), They wanted control over the Reserve, he refused, he got shot. Add 70 yrs 1929 the stock market crash, Birth Certificates and SS number where introduced for taxation, the new deal under Roosevelt was the selling of of the US Gold reserves (follow the yellow brick road to the Emerald city) and totally in debt to the international banks. Depression was to ensure that all commodities where to be controlled by the banking institutions. Add 70 yrs 1999, in 2000 the present adminastration is in, Bush has borrowed more money because of 911 than all presidents combined, the national debt is soring and no bid contracts for war, medicare where pharmaceutical companies charge extreme prices for medications and so on. The middle class is dwindling and free trade has ruined and thriving economy.

          We are so conditioned in believing what is modern in our society. But if we look closely at the Free world as we call it, it is based on Anglo Saxon common law. The British empire is common law, the US was part of it and still maintains its stance in Common law. Common law is Freedom thats our bill or rights, Compare the Common Wealth with just about any other country, China, totalitarian, Russia under a Czar then under Communism and now under Putin, a dictator, look at Europe, know for its Fascsim and strong national pride of race, two of the largest wars in known history happened because of that. Look at Africa, tribal and underdeveloped because of tribal leaders, Look at Japan a closed in society. Compare them to Britain the US Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Indias' attempt to create a self government. One of the statements above was something like we would live back in the 19 century, Thats what we want, thats what we need. There was no income tax, all social programs where paid for by Property taxes, taxes levied on specific corporate profits. People made less money but paid less for products. Imagine our systems today if we did not pay income tax, it would be true capitalism. If I had 10 million dollars to day and wanted to start a business, I would go to China, because of international trade and control of the economies by international cartels it would be useless for me to attempt it here.

          Russia kicked the Chase Manhattan bank out of Russia, paid there debt to the international banks and are now creating money backed by Gold, Russia is the largest producer of Gold in the world. They are gaining in energy and production. While we sweat under tremendous debt. This is known by our political representatives and they are the ones who tend to have tons of money in the stock market, even thou there is a finiacual crisis at this moment in the states they still confess that the economy is strong and the stock market is strong. Thats because there international, it has nothing to do with us, we have the debt. The taxation was poured into these corporations (no bid) and as long as they stand strong internationally then they exist, but we are the ones paying for this, what benefit is it to you.
          join to post
      • Sean
        Sean
        offline 92

        Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

        Thu, January 10, 2008 - 8:05 AM
        Cliff, maybe you should ask yourself why you're in bed with an admitted communist.
        join to post
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

          Thu, January 10, 2008 - 8:11 AM
          The liberty Ron Paul demands is:

          The liberty of the capitalists to exploit without labor laws and environmental protections;

          The "state’s right” to decide who votes without the interference of the Voting Rights Act (voted against it in Congress);

          The "states right" to ban abortions without the interference of Roe V Wade;

          The freedom of the government to deny same-sex rights (was an original sponsor of the "Marriage Protection Act");

          The freedom of children not to attend schools (would abolish public education);

          The freedom of the elderly to starve (would abolish Social Security);

          The freedom of the sick to die (would abolish Medicare);

          The freedom of the U.S. to destroy the planet without even the most basic limits on carbon emissions (opposes signing on to Kyoto);

          This is, in short, the liberty of the wealthy minority to make their money from the exploitation of labor and the environment with zero interference from labor laws, environmental laws, and the IRS. While his program is liberty for a minority of white heterosexual males, it is slavery for the majority.
          join to post
          • James
            James
            offline 554

            Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

            Thu, January 10, 2008 - 8:38 AM
            Here is some more interesting information about Ron Paul. Supposedly, Ron Paul stands for the legalization of marijuana. At least for medical purposes. On the surface, this might seem like a good thing. However, on closer inspection it sounds like Ron Paul is merely saying whatever it is he expects voters want to hear. He is telling pot activists that he is in favor of legalizing medical marijuana 'forever', then he is turning around and telling conservative Christians that he will ban abortion, forever. Ron Paul is a Libertarian one minute, and a NeoCon the next.

            mmj.tribe.net/thread/e57a...d92468b9b4b5
            join to post
  • cDub
    cDub
    offline 47

    Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

    Sun, January 13, 2008 - 12:17 AM
    ron paul is no more racist than george bush or any other of the paid-up members of the elite. they're all racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. etc. etc.

    ron paul however takes admirable stances on foreign policy and his approach would mean millions less die.

    as a black person its hard for me to get too riled up about whatever ron paul had or had not said in the 80s. i'm sure every republican candidate has said the same in his life.
    join to post
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

      Sun, January 13, 2008 - 6:47 AM
      He has said this stuff much more recently as well.

      You're not bothered by Ron Paul voting against the Voting Rights Act? Or by Ron Paul now hiding his racism by pretending race can be ignored in American politics today?

      You're not bothered by a guy who would dismantle labor and environmental laws and eliminate public education and Social Security?
      join to post
      • cDub
        cDub
        offline 47

        Re: The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

        Wed, January 16, 2008 - 1:56 PM
        sure i'm bothered by it - but the point is, he' not getting elected and even if he did he wouldnt be able to pass that shit thru congress. what he IS doing is trying to pound some senses into the fucking morons in the republican party.

        anyway he's no more racist than the rest of the DC establishment is. he's just more honest about it.

        lets be clear: my two favorite candidates are gravel and kucinich, in that order. if i were deciding, gravel would be president. rp is just the voice of reality in the gop, to me.
        join to post

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
The Silence of the Sheep Inna 5 Today, 1:09 AM
Supreme Court of Death Rules Against Mumia Abu-Jamal Steven 125 Today, 12:51 AM
Natural Medicine should be part of Health Care offlineDjinn 15 Today, 12:46 AM
The Democrats are Coming After Social Security cDub 26 Today, 12:39 AM