[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria

White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d

Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago

Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids

Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW

Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike

I heard libs might block some streets. 🤣

Jimmy Dore: What’s Being Said On Israeli TV Will BLOW YOUR MIND!

Tucker Carlson: Douglas Macgregor- Elites will be overthrown

🎵Breakin' rocks in the hot sun!🎵

Musk & Andreessen Predict A Robot Revolution

Comedian sentenced to 8 years in prison for jokes — judge allegedly cites Wikipedia during conviction

BBC report finds Gaza Humanitarian Foundation hesitant to answer questions

DHS nabbed 1,500 illegal aliens in MA—

The Day After: Trump 'Not Interested' In Talking As Musk Continues To Make Case Against BBB

Biden Judge Issues Absurd Ruling Against Trump and Gives the Boulder Terrorist a Win

Alan Dershowitz Pushing for Trump to Pardon Ghislaine Maxwell

Signs Of The Tremendous Economic Suffering That Is Quickly Spreading All Around Us

Joe Biden Used Autopen to Sign All Pardons During His Final Weeks In Office

BREAKING NEWS: Kilmar Abrego Garcia Coming Back To U.S. For Criminal Prosecution, Report Says

he BEST GEN X & Millennials Memes | Ep 79 - Nostalgia 60s 70s 80s #akornzstash

Paul Joseph Watson They Did Something Horrific

Romantic walk under Eiffel Tower in conquered Paris

srael's Attorney General orders draft for 50,000 Haredim amid Knesset turmoil

Elon Musk If America goes broke, nothing else matters

US disabilities from BLS broke out to a new high in May adding 739k.

"Discrimination in the name of 'diversity' is not only fundamental unjust, but it also violates federal law"

Target Replaces Pride Displays With Stars and Stripes, Left Melts Down [WATCH]

Look at what they are giving Covid Patients in other Countries Whole packs of holistic medicine Vitamins and Ivermectin

SHOCKING Gaza Aid Thefts Involve Netanyahu Himself!


All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Get Ready for a Major, Major Disappointment (Ron Paul's Built-In Loss)
Source: Meself
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 24, 2007
Author: Me, Me, Me
Post Date: 2007-12-24 10:19:48 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 7772
Comments: 264

Merry Xmas everyone and may your grandest wishes come true, for as long as they don't come into conflict with my own :). I haven't done a vanity in a long, long, long time but I felt that it's important to discuss the reality of where RP is currently heading.

Disclaimer: I stand for just about everything RP stands for. 'Just about' stands for his continuing membership in the stupid, evil, dangerous GOP party.

Now, on the topic of Ron Paul. I just watched a clip of him on the Tim Russert show where RP re-stated in the most forceful way that he has no intention whatsoever to run for US Prez outside of the GOP reservation. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that RP is really running for the GOP nomination and, of course, he is NOT going to get it. He is not even going to be a close third or fourth. In the end, you will find RP trailing Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, Giuliani and just about everyone else who stands for Bush, War and the fat State way because this is what the GOP membership is standing for these days.

I am fully aware of the 'hijacking' theory. Its exponents believe that, somehow, the RP activists are going to show up all 100% of them to vote in primaries and everyone else's supporters are going to stay home and we will see RP winning state after state after state. This is, of course, nonsense. Reality is coming on Jan 3, I believe, and Jan 2 will be the last time you are going to hear about the hijacking theory.

Then, I heard someone here stating that 'the 2 parties' are nothing but tools for whomever is seeking the presidency to get the presidency. This, my friends, is as naive as it gets. The parties are Mafia-like organizations whose aim is to seek, get and exercise political power for the benefit of the inner circles who own them and they as much a 'free' tool for the people the parties put forward for the voters to vote on as the Mafia is a tool for the Mafia bosses. The inner circle has no use for RP, he does not support the type of 'leadership' they are paying for.

Now, RP is going to lose. He took millions of dollars from supporters who refused to accept that he can NOT win the US presidency under the stinky and filthy flag of the GOP. He was asked repeatedly whether he would consider running as an independent, OPPOSING the 2 monstrous political Mafias and, every time he answered the question, the answer was a strong 'NO'.

THE FUTURE: the next US Prez is going to be Hillary, O'Bama, Giuliani, Romney or, maybe, Huckabee. Ron Paul will win ZERO primaries/caucuses and, if he is true to his words, he will get back to delivering babies and representing his Texas district. I suspect that RP is going to be very much at peace with himself but, what are his supporters going to feel about it? What are they going to do? They supported a campaign for the US presidency that was built from the ground up to lose the race - and they refused to see it because they liked the excitement. Are they going to be sad? Angry? What would be the consequences of RP's campaign? The main consequence that I see is that of legitimizing the 2-party system. RP is a saint among politicians. He says and does all the right things and, yet, he insists in staying inside the GOP party and he retreats when the GOP, as predicted and as expected, deals him a humiliating defeat in his attempt to represent the political Cosa Nostra - because he is not a made made and he is not from the families. However, staying as an 'unmade' member of the organization, he adds credibility to it. It would be something close to Jesus joining the Pharisees and seeking Caiafa's job.

I will be watching with interest how the RP fantasy gets itself crushed by the inevitable political reality. Just you all keep in mind that, while 'the media' and 'the corrupt politicians' can be blamed for RP's inability to win the GOP nomination, the main problem is RP's seeking the GOP nomination instead of running for the US presidency and seeking the support of the people, not the nod of the GOP party bosses.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 242.

#37. To: noone222 (#0)

your opinion?

christine  posted on  2007-12-24   17:57:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: christine (#37)

your opinion?

I have yet to see a comparable political situation. Ron Paul has support from every quarter of society and the unique position of having a 20 year track record of excellence. He also has the internet communications network supplying more energy, contributing more dollars and converts than the competition.

Kennedy had the Catholic Church network with its publications, sermons, organizations, Bingo and millions of energetic supporters when he made his run, and I saw that as a child. There were posters everywhere, people in the streets talking about it, people attending conferences and meetings etc., similar to what appears to be happening with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is hated by his own party. He will have more problem getting nominated than he would have getting elected. I think the secret to his success lies in the nomination process. Get him nominated and he will be elected.

That's my 2 cents worth !

noone222  posted on  2007-12-25   11:29:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: noone222 (#45)

He will have more problem getting nominated than he would have getting elected.

I have been preaching that for a long time but to no avail. Glad you share the view.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-12-25   11:34:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Cynicom, noone222 (#46)

What can we do to help get him nominated?

buckeye  posted on  2007-12-25   11:43:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: buckeye (#47)

What can we do to help get him nominated?

Glad you asked.

Money is always the prime need but it alone will not accomplish the job.

It takes thinking and doing, big and small, by many people, such as the money bombs and the blimp and the 4um ad. Waiting for someone else to do it has gotten this country into this mess.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-12-25   12:00:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Cynicom, buckeye (#49)

The MSM will not get the message out, and advertisements can only do so much. Some people will google Ron Paul and learn what he stands for, but many more will have to be reached one-on-one. Discuss him with family, friends, co-workers, associates. Show how he has credible arguments for

eliminating the income tax,
bringing the troops home -- discuss how many countries we have troops posted in --
discuss that there is a credible economic answer to the inflation of $3-4/gas and $4-5/milk and $4 hamburger.

People will start to look and think for themselves.

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2007-12-25   12:26:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: DeaconBenjamin (#52)

In that vein, I asked a friend if he could support Ron Paul. His answer... "I am a democrat".

Cynicom  posted on  2007-12-25   12:38:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Cynicom, DeaconBenjamin (#53)

Democrats are going to have to face the facts: do they want to war to end, or do they want Fed-funded welfare. They can have welfare a little longer under Ron Paul, but he'll lead us away from both war and socialism. I wish I could teach them what I know: a big federal welfare state requires an empire to pay for its excesses. They can't be unlinked.

buckeye  posted on  2007-12-25   12:46:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: buckeye (#56)

The overwhelming advantage to genuine Constitutional Government is that it isn't biased in favor of anyone or any group. I think Ron Paul already enjoys a good deal of "democrat" support.

This country hasn't had an open, honest leader in a hundred years or more. It's time we did.

noone222  posted on  2007-12-25   12:53:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: noone222 (#58)

This country hasn't had an open, honest leader in a hundred years or more. It's time we did.

You would have loved Rutherford B. Hayes. No, I was not olde enough to vote for him.

Hayes promised two things, he would serve one term and go away and there would be no corruption. He delivered on both.

His wife promised no booze in the Whitehouse and she delivered on that.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-12-25   13:07:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Cynicom (#62)

According to President Rutherford Hayes, who issued no formally designated “executive orders”:

The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution. The real test has never come, because the Presidents have down to the present been conservative, or what might be called conscientious men, and have kept within limited range. And there is an unwritten law of usage that has come to regulate an average administration. But if a Napoleon ever became President, he could make the executive almost what he wished to make it. The war power of President Lincoln went to lengths which could scarcely be surpassed in despotic principle.

cited in Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to "Run the Country" by Usurping Legislative Power

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2007-12-25   14:08:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: DeaconBenjamin (#74)

The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution.

someone(s) erred, big time, with that.

christine  posted on  2007-12-26   10:10:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: christine, DeaconBenjamin (#88)

The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution.

someone(s) erred, big time, with that.

It was not an err, christine. To understand, study the establishment of the First Bank of the United States, and Washington's.... as in President Washington's, role in the charade.

Or, as I have posted before, study the order made by President Washington that established what has come to be known as the Federal Zone, which overlays the states of the union.

Or, read the book, The CONstitution That Never Was, but, well, perhaps you get the picture.

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26   10:39:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: richard9151 (#93)

George Washington's choice for secretary of the treasury was our first clue.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-12-26   10:43:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: RidinShotgun (#94)

George Washington's choice for secretary of the treasury was our first clue.

LOL! Why would an agent of the Rochschilds make anyone think something smelly was going on?!

I am still amazed at the countless numbers of people who believe that getting back to the Constitution will solve everything, when what we have in America is the fruit OF the Constitution! No one seems to be able/willing to deal with that.

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26   10:55:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: richard9151 (#100)

I can remember back to the days when I still thought getting back to the constitution would do the trick, so its kind of hard to fault people who haven't gotten over it yet. Of course that doesn't stop me from wanting to shake them until all the feel-good myths fall right out of their heads and they can finally see the tapeworm they've been harboring between their ears.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-12-26   11:05:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: RidinShotgun (#103)

I can remember back to the days when I still thought getting back to the constitution would do the trick, so its kind of hard to fault people who haven't gotten over it yet. Of course that doesn't stop me from wanting to shake them until all the feel-good myths fall right out of their heads and they can finally see the tapeworm they've been harboring between their ears.

Very well said. I understand. Esp. the part about wanting to shake them so hard that.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whew! Glad I got that out of my system today!

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26   11:11:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: richard9151 (#105)

You are right about the millions of people who have given up voting, but it irritates the daylights out of me that so many of them don't understand the whole thing was a set-up right from the beginning and that they continue to blame all the "failures" of constitutional law on themselves. It is absolutely stunning to me that anyone could actually still believe that regular everyday Americans ever had any control over this country's insane policies.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-12-26   11:25:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: RidinShotgun (#108)

In the nineteenth century, America was the freest country in the world, with an extremely limited federal government. That was under the same Constitution we have today (minus a few amendments), at a time when there had been less time to subject it to misintrepretation that grows upon itself over time.

aristeides  posted on  2007-12-26   11:58:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: aristeides (#115)

In the nineteenth century, America was the freest country in the world, with an extremely limited federal government. That was under the same Constitution we have today (minus a few amendments), at a time when there had been less time to subject it to misintrepretation that grows upon itself over time.

That depended entirely on who you were at the time, as well as what you said and did that went against the conventional wisdom, not to mention the color of one's skin. Its not good to get too wrapped up in myths, however comforting they may sound.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-12-26   12:22:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: RidinShotgun, aristeides (#123)

In the nineteenth century, America was the freest country in the world, with an extremely limited federal government. That was under the same Constitution we have today (minus a few amendments), at a time when there had been less time to subject it to misintrepretation that grows upon itself over time.

That depended entirely on who you were at the time, as well as what you said and did that went against the conventional wisdom, not to mention the color of one's skin. Its not good to get too wrapped up in myths, however comforting they may sound.

Very correct. It is also important to note here that, by the end of the noneteenth century, the Federal Zone that overlaid the states had been in effect for a hundred years, and America was just beginning to see the effect of that (outside of banking, that is.)

The consolitadion of power was well underway, as shown by the robber barons of the late 1800s, and it would come to fruitation with the Federal Reserve Act of 1912, the popular election of Senators, and WWI.

But the real exercise of this power was the Civil War and its aftermath. Would you care to discuss Reconstruction? Or, note perhaps, that Reconstruction has never been terminated? Not to mention that the Civil War has never been terminated, officially?

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26   13:17:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: richard9151 (#127)

Not to mention that the federal government owns all of the land the states occupy and always has. Outright. Take, for instance, the Louisiana Purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and all the other usurpations. In none of the paperwork, including the CONstitution, is it ever said that the american people own or control one square inch of anything.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-12-26   13:34:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: RidinShotgun (#132)

Where do land patents fit in this picture.

rowdee  posted on  2007-12-26   14:01:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: rowdee (#139)

Where do land patents fit in this picture.

In some bank's vault. Pull a few financial panics, talk people into signing up for mortgages and tell them they might own something someday. Putting your patent into a shredder would have the same result. And it was all done voluntarily, dontchaknow.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-12-26   14:09:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: RidinShotgun, rowdee (#140)

In some bank's vault. Pull a few financial panics, talk people into signing up for mortgages and tell them they might own something someday. Putting your patent into a shredder would have the same result. And it was all done voluntarily, dontchaknow.

Included in that is entering into a trust by registering your land with the state, which is why you have to sign a contract to do so. With the state as trustee, well, you certainly have no rights in the land, or, you would not need a trustee.

And then we do have the best example of an existing, 'old' land patent what is still enforced; the land patent issued to the original railroads when they were building across America.

These have been carefully passed along and are still in force, as illustrated by the railroads not paying any property tax on such land nor on any improvements that have been built on the land.

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26   14:32:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: richard9151 (#141)

Included in that is entering into a trust by registering your land with the state, which is why you have to sign a contract to do so.

Explanation, please........

rowdee  posted on  2007-12-26   16:03:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#197. To: rowdee (#173)

Explanation, please........

You can go down and record a paper in the court house as public record. You pay a fee, but you sign nothing.

If you go down to record the title to a piece of property that you just bought, again, of public record, you must first sign a paper.

Signing a paper is a contract, particularly when the paper is from the government (any arm thereof). Understanding what the purpose of the contract is explains the trust you entered into.

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26   17:46:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#230. To: richard9151 (#197)

If you go down to record the title to a piece of property that you just bought, again, of public record, you must first sign a paper.

You sign what paper with the state--if it isn't state owned land you've purchased or are buying from them?

FWIW, you don't HAVE TO record a land purchase. It is in your best interest to do so. Clouded titles can get to be an expensive proposition.

rowdee  posted on  2007-12-26   20:49:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#234. To: rowdee (#230)

you don't HAVE TO record a land purchase.

(Sigh.) Rowdee, that is the point, isn't it. If you do not have to record a land purchase, something should tell you that so doing is for another purpose. If you were REQUIRED to record a land purchase, then it would not be a VOLUTARY action. And to do that VOLUNTARY recording, YOU MUST SIGN A CONTRACT to complete the recording. That is the only recording of a public document that a signing of a contract is required.

Before all of this 'property tax' non-sense started, people had ABSTRACTs, and there were no clouded titles, cause every action taken with that land, back to when it was first sold, was of record in that abstract. And if there was an error in that abstract, whoever prepared it was responsible. Errors were very, very rare. Much rarer than they are today.

BUT, when the money system was changed in America, and credit became the 'money' of the realm, no banks would lend on property that they could not reposse. That is when everything started to change; title insurance was the biggest part of the scam; making sure people 'thought' they were getting a good deal.

You may try this site; http://landrights.com/

They have a pretty good handle on what is going on. I do not thing that they have all of the answers, but they have a LOT of good info.

So what was the problem?

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26   21:05:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#238. To: richard9151 (#234)

I am trying to find out what 'contract with the state' you think a property owner is signing? What is it called? Quit the condescending bullshit and talk like a real man instead of a conceited asshole who thinks he has a long on intelligence. Perhaps its in the way you word things.....but then, it seems as though this is how I've always found your character.

rowdee  posted on  2007-12-26   21:15:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#239. To: rowdee (#238)

I am trying to find out what 'contract with the state' you think a property owner is signing?

Have you ever registered a piece of land? If you have, then you signed a contract to do so. What the paper is called varies from state to state, and at times, within the state. It depends on what system of land law you have in your area. In some, the presumption is that the property tax attaches automatically, recorded or not and you must file an excemption to be excluded. In others, it is the actual act of recording that attaches the tax.

Now, I do not have my books on property tax here; they are packed away, and I find no reason to go dig them out to give you a short course in land tax law.

To give you some simple idea of what the differences are, try here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Register

United States of America

In the USA, land registration is not required. Instead, there are laws that are commonly referred to as "recording acts." Each state in the USA has a different recording act. Generally speaking, however, recording acts come in three flavors, "race statutes," "notice statutes," and "race/notice statutes."

Race Statute - Whoever records first wins. Race statutes are extremely rare because most people agree that it is unfair to protect a person who had actual notice of a prior conveyance. Currently North Carolina is the only state that employs this method.

Notice Statute - A subsequent purchaser for value wins if, at the time of conveyance, that subsequent purchaser had no actual or constructive notice of the prior conveyance. In short, a subsequent bona fide purchaser (BFP) wins.

Race/Notice Statute - A subsequent purchaser for value wins if: (1) at the time of conveyance, that subsequent purchaser had no actual or constructive notice of the prior conveyance and (2) the subsequent purchaser records before the prior purchaser. In short, subsequent BFP's win only if they record before the prior purchaser.

Even though recording acts in the USA do not require recordation, they do create a strong incentive for recordation. At a minimum, recordation creates constructive notice to any subsequent purchasers that a prior conveyance occurred and therefore protects the prior purchaser in the event of a subsequent conveyance.

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26   21:26:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#242. To: richard9151 (#239)

I have recorded land ownership in several ways. In more than one state. I'm trying to understand what it is you are trying to tell folks. I've not signed anything bringing the state into the picture.

All my land record dealings have been through county agencies, and at that, the county is not involved as a participant in the matter, other than the registrar or some clerk making notations that the document was recorded on page such and such of document such and such in such and such a book.

I've witnessed friends dealing with a clouded title issue that wound up involving numerous families, so I'm rather interested in learning how if they had just not signed some 'paper' with the state that all would be well and hunky dory, with hugs and kisses be tossed hither and yon. Alas, I guess that is for another day, too.....

Regards

rowdee  posted on  2007-12-26   22:11:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 242.

#245. To: rowdee (#242)

I have recorded land ownership in several ways. In more than one state. I'm trying to understand what it is you are trying to tell folks. I've not signed anything bringing the state into the picture.

This website can probably answer your questions.

www.freedom-school.com/land_patents-allodial_title.pdf

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-12-27 09:49:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 242.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]