See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Ron Paul Helps Glenn Beck Debunk FEMA Camps
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.roguegovernment.com/Ron_ ... A_Camps/14611/0/13/13/Y/M.html
Published: Mar 5, 2009
Author: Lee Rogers
Post Date: 2009-03-05 06:44:29 by PSUSA
Ping List: *Black Ops - Psyops* Subscribe to *Black Ops - Psyops*
Keywords: None
Views: 1427
Comments: 69
By - Lee Rogers A new operation appears to have been launched in the mass media mind control complex to make people believe that FEMA camps do not exist. Talking head stooge and former drug addict Glenn Beck who gets paid millions of dollars to lie to people on his radio show and on Fox News, actually began talking about FEMA camps recently. Beck promised that his research team would get to the bottom of what’s really going on with these FEMA camps. This is funny, because news of detention facilities being preserved and built in this country for large groups of people is 100% documented and is really nothing new. Of course, it is doubtful that Beck will actually reveal the truth about government detention facilities when his research team finishes their work. It appears as if the only reason why he’s mentioning FEMA camps is so that he can setup phony arguments as to why they don’t exist. Strangely enough, Ron Paul made an appearance on his program and actually told him that the camps don’t exist. Dr. Paul is right on many issues, but he is wrong about the FEMA camps. In fact, it is amazing to see how Dr. Paul has now been turned into a media darling as the corporate media’s old paradigms are being traded for new paradigms to keep people watching their fake news broadcasts. The fact that Dr. Paul won’t expose the phony terror war fraud, the lies about 9/11 and is now claiming that FEMA camps don’t exist is ridiculous. It is time to call a spade a spade. Beck Mentions FEMA Camps On Fox & Friends Beck Backs Off Of FEMA Camp Report w/ help From Ron Paul Let’s look at some of the evidence that there are detention facilities in place that could be used to hold large quantities of people for whatever reason the government deems to be necessary. First in the 1980s, it was reported by the Miami Herald, the Akron Beacon Journal and other publications on and after July 5th 1987 that Oliver North had assisted FEMA in drafting plans for civil defense. These plans included the suspension of the U.S. Constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps and turning control of state and local governments to military commanders and providing FEMA dictator like powers during catastrophic events including times of widespread political dissent. North himself was even asked about these reports during the Iran-Contra scandal by Congressman Jack Brooks but was stopped by the committee Chairman because it touched upon classified information. We have George W. Bush signing into law a bill that allocated money to preserve Japanese internment camps that were used during World War II. We have KBR the engineering arm of Halliburton being awarded a $385 million contract to build detention facilities under the guise that they would be used to house illegal aliens. There is a declassified U.S. Army document posted on the U.S. Army’s official web site outlining U.S. Army Regulation 210-35 which describes standard operating procedures on how to setup a Civilian Inmate Labor Program. The Associated Press ran a report describing how FEMA is looking for ways to transport large quantities of people via trains during an emergency, much like the Nazis did with Jews back during World War II. There is also ample anecdotal evidence of people who have reported facilities that appear to be built for the purpose of detaining large quantities of people around the country. There is also a new bill entitled HR 645 the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act that was proposed by Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) which would authorize and legalize FEMA camp facilities on open and closed military reservations. It is impossible to dismiss all of this information and say that FEMA camps flat out don’t exist. There is too much anecdotal evidence and mainstream news to say that it is just a wild conspiracy theory. We know there are Japanese internment camps and we know that KBR was given a huge contract to build detention facilities that are not being used to house any illegal aliens at this point in time. With that said, we have to face the facts that there are detention facilities in existence today and that they are pushing to expand and legalize this insane FEMA camp program. It is pretty sad when there is literally nobody in Washington DC including Dr. Paul that is providing the full truth on anything. Even though Dr. Paul’s campaign for President began as a positive resistance movement it was clearly infiltrated and steered in the wrong direction to ensure its eventual defeat. The globalists plan to get rid of the Federal Reserve, so they don’t really mind the fact that Dr. Paul is over TV speaking out against it. They are just going to replace the Fed with the phony solution of a new central bank and a new debt based currency when the Federal Reserve Note currency collapses. The entire political process is a joke and there doesn’t appear to be any way to salvage it. The government is a criminal enterprise on every possible level and should be recognized as such. If Glenn Beck actually tells the truth about FEMA’s role in continuity of government operations coupled with what's really happening with these camps, it will be an enormous surprise. It appears as if Dr. Paul’s appearance was setup for Beck to later debunk this FEMA camp information with his bought and paid for research team cronies. Even though it is possible Dr. Paul might not have full access to all of the information about government run detention centers, his stance on other issues such as the phony threat of Al-Qaeda and the false flag terror attacks of 9/11 raises a number of questions. Who out there is providing the full truth about anything in Washington DC? The answer is simple, and that is nobody. Poster Comment: Embedded links in article
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Even Paul can't be trusted. No surprise. But he had me fooled there for a while.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
I trust Ron's intentions. I don't trust his ability/inability to be subverted by the media lords via his desire to spread his message. Even the best of us can be diverted and co-opted through our own desires and best intentions.
Feh
There are very serious things that Ron Paul knows are in progress, but he tells no one. He's lost his watchman's cred.
DId he ever have credibility? Not IMO. Looking back, realizing he fooled me, he still didn't see 9/11 for what it was, even if he knew better he didn't have the balls to come out and say it. Maybe it was because he thought it would make him look stupid and lose any hope of being (s)elected. Did he value this over telling the truth? It seems to me like he is playing both sides of the fence. He cares more about what people think of him than in just telling the truth. And now we have this blatant lie.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
No one is in these "camps". So they probably don't exist yet. At least not as FEMA prison camps. I suspect they probably will in the future. If you ask HOUNDAWG he will tell you it isn't the real Ron Paul now but a shape shifting lizard.
I bet the KBR camps exist. They already have a contract to provide them.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
I have heard about these camps for over a decade. I have always thought they existed.
The "camp list" everyone has seen is bogus, IMO. Total disinfo bullshit. I wish that "list" would die.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican.
www.iamthewitness.com/aud...n.3.02.09.Part.1.of.4.mp3 www.iamthewitness.com/aud...n.3.02.09.Part.2.of.4.mp3
Ron Paul vowed on bended knee his lifelong love and devotion for the ...republican...party, one half of the criminal enterprise called a government. Therefore what he has to say has no meaning.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a 19th century German philosopher and theologist who wrote the Science of Logic in 1812. For many historians, Hegel is "perhaps the greatest of the German idealist philosophers." In 1847 the London Communist League (Marx and Engels, pictured left) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision for the future. Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to stop land grabs, privacy invasions, expanded domestic police powers, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. Only then can we be released from the limitations of controlled and guided thought. When we understand what motivated Hegel, we can see his influence on all of our destinies. Then we become real players in the very real game that has been going on for at least 224 years. Hegelian conflicts steer every political arena on the planet, from the United Nations to the major American political parties, all the way down to local school boards and community councils. Dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic, and terror and intimidation are also acceptable formats for obtaining the goal. Calverton Private School has posted a great visual chart explaining the dialectic. The ultimate Third Way agenda is world government. Once we get what's really going on, we can cut the strings and move our lives in original directions outside the confines of the dialectical madness. Focusing on Hegel's and Engel's ultimate agenda, and avoiding getting caught up in their impenetrable theories of social evolution, gives us the opportunity to think and act our way toward freedom, justice, and genuine liberty for all. Today the dialectic is active in every political issue that encourages taking sides. We can see it in environmentalists instigating conflicts against private property owners, in democrats against republicans, in greens against libertarians, in communists against socialists, in neo-cons against traditional conservatives, in community activists against individuals, in pro-choice versus pro-life, in Christians against Muslims, in isolationists versus interventionists, in peace activists against war hawks. No matter what the issue, the invisible dialectic aims to control both the conflict and the resolution of differences, and leads everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts. We're definitely not in Kansas anymore. The origins of deductive and inductive reasoning Methods for reasoning are mathematical formulas that base their conclusions on ideas, experiences, or information from outside sources. It was introduced to the world by the Greeks in the 4th century B.C. Aristotle gave us the foundations for the most often used methods for logical and critical thinking. Deduction is a process that moves from the general to the specifics. Induction moves from the specifics to the general. Kemerling (2002) explains: "In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion; in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true." Here is a chart from Whitworth College explaining inductive and deductive reasoning. At Lander University: Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic: The Nature of Logic. The History of Western Philosophy posted at marxists.org. Deductive reasoning is often defined as pre-Enlightenment thinking because it's based in the commonly held belief that God created the universe. Inductive reasoning is considered to be the scientific, non-religious formula that gained authority after the enlightenment. Aristotle wasn't all that concerned about which method was preferred, or best used, but a well-founded scientific argument that uses deductive and/or inductive reasoning establishes strong premises that relate directly to the conclusion. Man's capacity to reason beyond the knowable can be seen in modern universal principles, such as with the theory that said the earth was round and not flat. For centuries the established religious belief was that the earth was at the center of the universe, and the naked eye tells us the earth is flat and the sun goes up and down. The deductive principle was that God created the universe and man was created in God's image, which placed the earth at the center of God's universe. This belief also designated the monarchy and the established church as the divinely appointed rulers of man. Unseeable, unprovable conclusions (such as the earth is round and the earth circles the sun) were formed under an inductive form of reasoning based in man's abilty to think beyond what can be seen or is commonly believed. The original methods for reasoning based its premises on commonly held truths and used mathematical principles to advance mankind into realms of greater knowledge and truth. Deductive reasoning dominated up until the 16th and 17th centuries when rational thinking expanded to include both deductive and inductive reasoning. This paved the way to applying inductive scientific reasoning to political and economic systems. Many amazing scientific advancements were made by the greatest rational thinkers in the world who were able to apply both. Rational thinking was the foundation behind the documents used by Americans to obtain their freedom. The scientifically based political ideas of man's natural rights to property were based on the writings of John Locke, who historically may be one of Englands most rational thinkers. He is remembered as "the intellectual father" of the U.S. Locke used both deductive and inductive reasoning, as did the Americans who inherited his ideas. Locke subscribed to the three levels of law: top-God's law, middle-Natural law, bottom-Civil Law, and he believed that each type of law must correspond up to the next level. Men believed that while God's law was unknowable, it was possible to understand God's law through an understanding of nature, and that civil law was bound by the rules of natural law. The realization of U.S. laws and citizen's inalienable rights to individual freedom were attained via both the belief in a Creator and purely scientific, rational thinking. The most commonly used formula for reasoning is called Modus Ponens: If A and B both exist, it's probable that C exists if it is a combination of A and B. For example: (A) 1 + (B) 1 = (C) 2. Or: If (A) I live in a country where everyone is free under God's laws, and (B) you live in my country, then (C) we're both free under God's laws. How the Hegelian dialectic changed the formula for deductive reasoning The original method of deductive logic based its premises on the presense of agreed upon truths which led to an otherwise unknowable conclusion. Hegel altered deductive reasoning from a simple 1 + 1 = 2 formula to a series of progressive triads where two opposite premises combine into a synthesis, and then each synthesis becomes the premise in the next triad, and on and on it goes (where it ends, nobody knows). He established that history follows a "logical" progression through the dialectical process of constant conflict between extremely different ideas that keep blending together, over and over, forming new ideas that keep merging and blending again and again, until mankind realizes perfection in philosphy. Most importantly (to us) is that "Hegel's version puts all of the emphasis on the collective expression of what is best for the people rather than on each individual's capacity to discover it for herself or himself" (Kemerling 2002). Hegel took logic to the next logical level, in what many consider to be a higher intellectual level, claiming an (A) ideology conflicting with its (B) opposite ideology = (C) a new and sometimes better philosophy. The dialectic pits A against B in a constant conflict and resolution, which eventually creates an outcome that may or may not have any resemblance to A and B. According to modern social scientists, C does not have to be a reasonable conclusion, since Hegel's dialectic takes pure reason out of the reasoning. If you don't get it, that means you got it, because anything arrived at using Hegel's "logic" doesn't have to make any sense. Here is a quote from Bertrand Russell on the end of rational thinking. The dialectical method of reasoning is based on the premise of constant conflicts of opposites, or ongoing tension between two or more commonly acknowledged truths. Good versus evil is the most commonly understood dialectic. In Hegel's version it is through our understanding of what is evil that we are able to understand what is even better than good. Hegel's dialectic was an inward discovery of being versus nothing. This method changed the format for deductive reasoning into one in which truth is obtained by pitting truth against a falsehood which leads to a false truth. Frederick Engels and Karl Marx expanded on the Hegelian dialectic to suit their own purposes. See: Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General by Karl Marx (1844) and Marx's Grundrisse and Hegel's Logic by Hiroshi Ouchida (1988). Hegel's dialectical idealism was founded on the premise that the abstract thought process comes before the actualization of the idea. To Hegel, the idea came first. Marx and Engels said the opposite, and wrote that human events preceed the ideas about the events. They used the dialectic to explain the necessary conflicts that will lead mankind into social perfection. State control of the production of goods and services and equal distribution of all wealth was to be the final crowning achievment of mankind. The communist theory of human progress proves life is an ongoing conflict between people at various levels of material wealth, and Marx thought of himself as a scientist who had discovered the key to human history. Dialectical materialism changed the Hegelian formula in several crucial ways. First they excluded God's law from the formula altogther, then they pitted a lie against a lie, claiming the result was a perfect synthesis. Their theory of inexorable, inevitable world evolution into totalitarian communism was attained via the Hegelian dialectic. The modern theory of global spiritual evolution into global communitarian collectives was as well. Transformational Marxism is the Hegelian dialectic applied materially, as opposed to ideally. The Soviet Union was based on the Hegelian dialectic, as is all Marxist writing. The Soviets didn't give up Hegelian reasoning when they supposedly stopped being a communist country, they simply modernized their language. Hegel Resources from Andy Blunden. Mr. Blunden is an Australian communist who studies Hegel's contributions to totalitarian "dictatorships of the people." American author Steve Montgomery explores Moscow's adept use of the Hegelian dialectic in Glasnost-Perestroika: A Model Potemkin Village. For a lengthy analysis of Hegel's dialectical reasoning, the University of Idaho has an online version of Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic by John Ellis McTaggart (1896). In Chapter VI: The Final Result of the Dialectic, the author explains the confusion inherent in Hegel's philosophy: "Hegel taught that the secrets of the universe opened themselves to us, but only on condition of deep and systematic thought, and the importance of philosophy was undiminished either by scepticism or by appeals to the healthy instincts of the plain man. But there is some difference between taking philosophy as the supreme and completely adequate means, and admitting it to be the supreme end. There is some difference between holding that philosophy is the knowledge of the highest form of reality, and holding that it is itself the highest form of reality. It seems to me that Hegel has been untrue to the tendencies of his own system in seeking the ultimate reality of Spirit in philosophy alone, and that, on his own premises, he ought to have looked for a more comprehensive explanation." Why it is almost impossible for a layman to understand the Hegelian dialectic Hegel's theory that philosophy is the ultimate achievement of the human spirit is extremely difficult reading for a well-educated person. It's almost like reading a foreign language to the average student, and it rings false to the "healthy instincts of the plain man." Detective Phillip Worts' 2001 article Communist Oriented Policing is a nice explanation of the influence Dialectical Materialism has had on America. Henry D. Aiken, a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard explains the Hegelian theory of no-reason in Introduction to the Age of Ideology: "...Beginning with Kant, the very conception of the philosophical enterprise that had prevailed since the time of Aristotle underwent a profound sea-change, with the consequence that the meanings of even such basic terms of the traditional philosophical vocabulary as 'metaphysics' and 'logic' were altered beyond recognition... Much of the obscurity that pervades nineteenth-century philosophical writing is directly related to this fact." Considering the power it wields, and how many people have embraced the ideology, it's amazing how very few people in the world will tell you they understand the Hegelian dialectic. That's because it was never written to be understood. Even Hegel's biographers call his writing "impenetrable" which means: "incapable of being penetrated or pierced," innaccessible to knowledge, reason or sympathy" and "incapable of being comprehended" (Merriam Webster). At one point, Karl Marx planned to simplify Hegel for the "common man," but we have not been able find this explanation, if it exists. We think there's a very simple explanation for why the Hegelian dialectic is not simple, and why it can never be simplified. While the American's 18th century political system ranks among the top modern scientific achievements, the 19th century's educated imperialist writers pursued the highest achievements in irrational thinking about thinking. Hegel is at the top of our list of the world's most irrational thinkers. How is it possible to consider a Hegelian argument? If the ideas, interpretations of experiences, and the sources are all wrong, can a conclusion based on all these wrong premises be sound? The answer is no. Two false premises do not make a sound conclusion even if the argument follows the formula. Three, four, five, or six false premises do not all combine to make a conclusion sound. You must have at least one sound premise to reach a sound conclusion. Logical mathematical formulas are only the basis for deductive reasoning. Equally important is knowledge of semantics, or considering the meanings of the words used in the argument. Just because an argument fits the formula, it does not necessarily make the conclusion sound. Hegel knew this when he designed his dialectic. He was an imperialist con-artist who established the principles of dialectical "no-reason." His dialectic has allowed globalists to lead the world by its nose into a superstitious, unreasonable, racist age of global dominance. National governments are supposed to protect the common man from imperial controls over private property, trade and production. They insure their workers against imperial slavery by protecting markets. But if you use Hegel's twisted logic, the only way to protect people from slavery is to become a slave trader, just for a while. Like Hegel and Marx, the best street con knows his spiel has to be based in truth to be successful, and good cons weave their lies on logic. This sort of twisted logic is why cons are so successful. Hegel twisted it in such a way as to be "impenetrable." The communitarian purpose for the Hegelian dialectic Hegel was an idealist who believed that the highest state of mankind can only be attained through constant ideological conflict and resolution. The rules of the dialectic means mankind can only reach its highest spiritual consciousness through endless self-perpetuating struggle between ideals, and the eventual synthesizing of all opposites. He believed that all conflict takes man to the next spiritual level. But in the final analysis, this ideology simply justifies conflict and endless war. It is also the reasoning behind using military power to export an illogical version of freedom and false democratic ideals. The reason we can call it the justification for modern conflicts and war is because no one can prove Hegel's theory is true. No matter how many new words they make up to define it, or how many new theories they come up with to give it validity, we can prove beyond a doubt that it is all false. And, we can show the final equation in Hegel's dialectic is: A: The [your nation goes here] System of Political Economy (List 1841) + B: State-controlled world communism = C: State-controlled global communitarianism The Hegelian dialectic was created because the American colonials won their national independence from Imperial domination. In the War of 1812, the United States of America defeated the Imperial British Navy. That same year, Hegel published his confusing theory in The Science of Logic. Coincidence? Not hardly. The Hegelian dialectic was used to justify expansionist colonial policies and terrorist acts against Americans. It was an academic elitist ploy to cloak British interference in national trade, now that they'd lost their naval-piracy power over the world's trade routes. The Americans won their second War of Independence, which was fought for the same reasons as the first war: to stop British control of local manufacturing. Americans declared their right to produce and trade as a sovereign nation. They insisted they were free to trade without thuggish European merchants and banks getting in their business. After this embarrassing defeat, the imperialists needed a sneaky way to regain domination of American trade. Hegel's theory created a justification for the conflict between European merchants and the American system of Political Economy, which allowed merchants to operate as independents. Americans have forgotten that theirs was an economic revolution. The American Colonial Revolution wasn't a "revolution of ideas" -- it was a revolution against the European imperial mob, which controlled the production of goods and services in its colonies. The American idea of an economy free from tariffs and constraints spread like lightening across the world. Colonies and peasant workers everywhere took actions to regain control of their own national markets and stop imperial gluttony. By 1824, colony after colony had declared independence from imperial domination. Greece declared independence from the powerful Ottoman Empire and based their successful revolution on American principles for self-governance. The imperialists were also losing control to new national unions, which formed to protect local production from foreign imports. The government of the United States was formed simply to protect labor and markets, and American economics was the foundation for the protected German manufacturing unions in the 1840s. Considering how many nations embraced the idea so quickly, it must have been a pretty easy sell to the "healthy instincts of the plain man." So, what did the imperialists do next? They created a theory of collective worker's rights and claimed that abolishing private property and controlling world markets was the best way to help laborers. Marxism was the foundation for the Fabian Socialist agenda when they merged with the British Labour Party in 1904, and the entire labor movement has been convinced their principles are based in Marxism. Modern labor unions have no idea what they are factually based in, which is entirely in the protected individual merchant principles inherent in the national system of political economy. The U.S. constitutional framers also agreed to require all public servants to abide by a fixed standard of law, whereas the British constitution is continually evolving. There was a time when Americans had the ability to call a duck a duck. The former colonials were fearless in their devotion to The Rights of Man (Paine 1791). Some of our citizens maintain the founding principles of economic liberty to this very day, in spite of how most of the world drowns in the brown matter that clouds the dialectical head game. While Darwin's theory of evolution is still being debated, there is absolutely no proof that societies are continually evolving. So when the London Communist League used the dialectical method of spiritual advancement via constant resolution of differences, they based the theory of communism on an unproven theory. Marx and Engels later changed their minds, amazingly, and redesigned communism around the anthropological theories of Lewis Henry Morgan (also unprovable). When Amitai Etzioni used Hegelian reasoning to base the Communitarian Network on a "balance" between rights and responsibilities, he built the entire theory of communitarianism on nothing but disproven and unprovable, unscientific theories. This gives credence to the Anti Communitarian hypothesis: (A) Communitarianism did not evolve naturally (B) and it was never a movement that arose out of U.S. society (C) therefore, communitarianism has no natural home in the United States. How we interpret the history of the dialectical argument Aristotle gave the world his methods for deductive logic in the 4th century B.C. American colonists used John Locke's philosophy of man's natural property rights to form a free country in 1776. British economist Adam Smith published Wealth of Nations in 1776 to distort and redefine American economics. In 1791, Immanuel Kant challenged reasonable, logical principles used by Americans with his Critique of Pure Reason. Edmund Burke backstabbed France and America both when he wrote Reflections on the Revolution in France. Thomas Paine published a rebuttal to his ex-friend Burke called The Rights of Man. Paine's reasoned arguments against the imperialists rippled further than his motivational pamphlet Common Sense did during the American Revolution. The Rights of Man went global with the French Revolution, and something had to be done to stop it. In what could be called the most brilliant act of desperation of all time, the imperialists used Kant and Hegel to redefine logic and exclude reason from logical formulae. In 1841, Friedrich List published The National System of Political Economy and successfully disputed imperialist free trade ideology. His book is still in use worldwide, such as with the Social Movement Pan Russian Eurasia. In 1844 Engel's published Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, and in 1845 Marx wrote a A Draft of an Article on Friedrich List's Book, where he repeatedly calls List a "German Philistine." Accounts about the life and death of Friedrich List are full of inconsistencies. According to some, he was the most outspoken opponent of free trade, and was becoming a venerated source for ideas to protect local labor and markets. Others claim he was ridiculed for his outlandish protectionist theories, lost hope and became despondent, wandering aimlessly around Europe. In 1846 List died mysteriously after (or during) a trip to London, where he was discussing English manufacturing and free trade with regular folks and leaders of the Comden Club. There is a huge disparity in the record of his death, so that it is impossible to determine how, when, and where it happened. However he died, List's body was barely cold before the London Communist League began preparing their 1847 draft of a manifesto for world peace and economic justice via a mass revolutionary movement against private property. German-British merchant Frederick Engels revised Hegel's theory to suit his needs, and then passed it on to Karl Marx, who rewrote it with "proper revolutionary flair" (Chaitkin 1985). The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. In 1850, a French economist named Frederic Bastiat wrote The Law and logically disputed Marxist fallacies used in France. Amazingly, the logic of Locke, Paine, List and Bastiat are relatively unknown to modern Americans, and yet Karl Marx is a household name. Already gaining substantial ground against the Americans, British Marxism was bolstered when Charles Darwin published his theory of human evolution in 1859. Engels, according to modern day scholars, seized upon Darwin's theory to substantiate communism: "When Marx read The Origin of Species he wrote to Engels that, 'although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.' They turned against what they saw as the social, as opposed to the biological, implications of Darwinism when they realised that it contained no support for their shibboleth of class oppression. Since they were slippery customers rather than scientists, they were not likely to relinquish their views just because something did not fit." (see: Marxism and Darwinism by Anton Pannekoek, 1912.) In 1877 Lewis Henry Morgan published Ancient Society, or Researches in Life, Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism, to Civilization. Then the "slippery" Engels seized upon Morgan's work as the constantly "evolving" basis for the totally unsubstantiated theory of natural social evolution into utopian world communism. In 1887 the First World Zionist Federation was formed to plan for the creation of a Zionist nation state. In 1947 Israel was formed in Palestine. In 1958, Fabian-Zionist Amitai Etzioni emmigrated to the U.S. from Israel. This former terrorist became a sociologist, joined the "peace movement" in the 60's, and created the Communitarian Network in the 90's. The "father" of communitarianism also created the "new" science of socio-economics and has been advising the White House to incorporate Hegelian solutions into domestic policy since 1979. Today Etzioni is often called a "guru" by mainstream media. It's not unusual for Hegelian players to change their modus operandi, as can be seen in other writers like fellow Fabian H.G. Wells, who was an early supporter of ethnic cleansing. As Well's biographers explain, "Wells's political evolution was from an optimist who believed in casual eugenic slaughter to a pessimist who cultivated humane virtues." n 1889 the British Fabian Society-London School of Economics created Socialist Clubs across America and worked with Oxford, Harvard, Columbia, and Yale to infiltrate the Marxist's more socially evolved ecomonic theories of Maynard Keynes, using the Hegelian dialectic to describe the conflict between Marxism and the un-American "capitalist" theories of Adam Smith. The definative authors of American political and economic practices, such as Locke, Hamilton, List, Paine and Bastiat were somehow relieved of their former influence and position in the "debate." By the time Dr. Etzioni "introduced" the academic world to the Hegelian communitarian synthesis, re-educated American students were well-prepared to accept any new Hegelian based theory without ever hearing the real and valid American arguments against global imperialism and free trade. Hegel's formula has been so successful that in 2003 all U.S. domestic and foreign policy is dominated by "communitarian thinking," the whole country is living under the new laws, and yet Americans most affected by "impenetrable" Hegelian laws have never once heard the term used. "... some historians have depicted the United States as a society centered around Lockean values, those of rights and liberty 8. Actually, it is now widely agreed that the United States had, from its inception, both a strong communitarian and individualistic strand, a synthesis of republican virtues and liberal values." -- The Emerging Global Normative Synthesis by Amitai Etzioni. Published in The Journal of Political Philosophy (2004). Postgraduate Certificate in Spiritual Development and Facilitation University of Surrey, UK. Four examples of the power of the semantics in the dialectic ONE A. Adam Smith's laissez faire capitalism emphasizing selfishness (false) B. Communism and socialism emphasizing controlling capitalist selfishness (false) C. Communitarian morality emphasizing balancing capitalist selfishness (false) TWO A. Government of the People (true) B. Government of the State (false) C. Government of the Community (false) THREE A. American's Individual Freedom (1775- ) power inherent in the people (true) The U.S. Constitution, The U.S. Bill of Rights, and 50 individual U.S. State Constitutions in constant conflict/resolution with B. Marx's Theory of World Communism (1847- ) power inherent in the state (false) The ideology of Engels and Marx, enforced by European powers, international banks, the Mossad, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc naturally balances/evolves into C. The Communitarian Third Way (2002- ) power inherent in the global community (false) Jacobin Civil Society: legally authorized by United Nations' Local Agenda 21 players and their Earth Charter-- represented by the Communitarian Network, the International Socialist Party, British Fabians & The New Democratic Leadership Council, British Labour, the neo-cons, the International Court of Justice, NATO, Jewish and Christian Zionists, feminists, the Christian Right, Chinese communists, the Russian KGB, the Mossad, the CIA, M-15, the European Union, the World Bank, The Bilderbergs, the CFR, the Royal Society, Rhodes Scholars, the G-8, the WTO, AID, IMF, Community Policing, cultural anthropologists, Rural and Neighborhood Planning, thousands of non-governmental organizations, conservationists, Gaia worshipers, think-tanks, the Radical Middle, the terrorist environmental movement, the violent peace movement, 33rd degree freemasons, progressives, change agents and community "builders," et. al. FOUR A. United States of America: Individual Rights of the Common Born Man. (national law) The U.S is founded upon the concept of man's "natural rights." Man's natural rights, (as can only come from one's Creator) are recognised for all naturalized, individual U.S. state citizens. The U.S. states created a new system of federal government, one that works submissively for the free states, under Supreme Laws that arose from a free society. It was established under one-of-a-kind, original, legally binding documents. B. Communism: The Common Good of the Party, Sacrificing Individuals. (unprovable theory) The Marxist theory of extreme, central government control is the first step to teaching people to live collectively. Communism trains people to be more moral citizens. Once a population is subdued by the absolute power of the local committees, the theory says that totaliatrian controls can and will be modified to allow mankind to blossom into full utopian bliss. It was established under Frederick Engel's and Karl Marx's publication of the "Communist Manifesto" in 1848, an unoriginal, non-legally binding document. After social scientists earnestly engaged in the capitalist-collective debate for over a 100 years in a worldwide "philosophical" struggle, it has finally been resolved in a "new age" political theory. Americans saw what happened to Senator McCarthy and the results of the Cox Congressional Investigtations* of communists. Americans who questioned communist programs and agencies were termed "red-baiters," and completely discredited. U.S. laws against communist conspirators remained on the books, but since 1953 few Americans have participated in the "debates." In 1993, U.S. Individual Liberty and International Communism were balanced by social scientists; they established: C. The Third Way: Elitist Social Justice by Sacrificing Individual Rights. (unprovable theory) Human Rights is the new preferred term used by all politically correct goverment bodies. It is the result of the communitarian's balancing act between man's natural rights and the collective good. The modern communitarian philosophy used by Americans today was founded by Dr. Amitai Etzioni, a Zionist-Fabian scholar who emmigrated from Israel to the U.S. in 1958. Active in the World Order projects since the early 60's, Etzioni's rise to American power is a lesson in itself. As an adviser to Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr., Etzioni's involvements include new Character Education, Americorps, Faith-based initiatives, community governments, community cops, limiting individual's privacy, and total elimination of individual's right to bear arms. His lectures on his "more moral" dialogues are the basis for all new communitarian laws. * - "In 1952, Congress commissioned the Cox Committee to investigate U.S. foundations. In 1953 it was the Reece Committee." Rene A. Wormser was its general counsel. He published "Foundations: Their Power and Influence." [Sevierville TN: Covenant House Books, 1993. 412 pages. First published in 1958 by Devin-Adair Company, New York.] 9. Four different impressions of the modern Hegelian dialectic theory The Scientific Side: Hegel's Dialectic as Interpreted by Gavin Schmitt: "To Hegel, understanding what something is not helps to better understand what something is (and conversely, the more we know what something is, the more we know what it is not). The concept or object (which we call a "realization of the concept") is "affirmed" by its opposite....Often times Hegel's method is explained as "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." This was, in fact, the way it was explained to me in my introductory classes and the way it appears in many philosophic dictionaries. If we start with a certain idea or object, this idea or object is the thesis. Any idea or object we compare contrary to the thesis is the antithesis. The outcome is the synthesis, a better understanding of the thesis and occasionally a "higher" step in the world of ideas (as we will see in a moment when I discuss history)." The American Side: Helping you connect the global to the local: UNDERSTANDING HOW THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC IS TRANSFORMING THE WORLD TO BRING IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER by the Women's International Media Group, Inc. Researcher-writer Joan Veon's view: "In the last four years while covering the United Nations, I have come face to face, on a regular basis with communism, fascism, and socialism. I found, as a result of my own ignorance, that I could not identify them and therefore not identify the true meaning of what was being put forth in all of the documents I was reading. While I understood the goal of world government to be behind everything the United Nations was doing, I did not know how -- what modus operandi -- they would use to convert people from a capitalistic system where the individual is the master and molder of his own destiny undergirded by personal property rights reinforced his claim to that destiny, to one of complete control where man did what the State directed, when the State directed, and in the process gave up his freedoms and private property so the State could better direct its use. I then found that the "modus operandi" being used for this transition was called the "Hegelian Dialectic" which is comprised of three parts: the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. " COLD WAR MYTH: AN EXERCISE IN THE USE OF THE DIALECTIC by Charlotte Iserbyt,November 23, 2002, at NewsWithViews.com. The Israeli Side: The Talmud is considered to be a "dialectic". "Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz has written a multivolume work, The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition (Random House), which includes a A Reference Guide, in which he says: "... The ultimate purpose of the Talmud is ... to seek out truth. ... The Talmudic dialectic can be compared to an inquiry in pure science, particularly in the sphere ... of mathematics. ...". The Catholic Side: Pope John Paul II endorses the New World Order and Communitarianism. The Vatican calls St. Peter's 2nd conversion and baptism (at 1429) a communitarian event. Much more at the link...
did y'all catch that?
I started assuming it a few months ago. ; )
Therefore what he has to say has no meaning. I know it's painful for some (I was sick when Buchanan left us on the battlefield) but it's always best to know. If a man is an R or a D, run don't walk away. And by all means, keep the money flowing to his Revolution!
OK. But that does not resonate with Jack and Jill Sixpack. They dont know squat about the fed, and they don't care if it is blatantly unconstitutional. He is preaching to the choir, people that already know. So he is not doing any damage to the maggots in .gov. How many sheeple converted to his message, versus how many were already predisposed to listen to what he was saying? Want to do some damage? Bring up that KBR contracts, and hammer it home. Bring up www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645 There is so much out there in the MSM that there is no need to make things up. He needs to attack. But he wont. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice and $%&% off, Paul.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
did y'all catch that? Makes sense. They torched the feral reserve / dah dollah and good. The new regional/international currency will probably suck even more. Digitized money to the next level.
Who is Ron Paul ?
Never heard of him.
He was one of the Beetles maybe ?
yep.
Have you registered for your North American Union NAU Biometric ID Card / Chip yet ? You get a 5% 'cash bonus' for registering early PLUS 'speedy lane' access for all state approved health care needs !!
If you're not a racist, you're anti-white. The mantra works, and stopped me in the nick of time from chipping in for 4um's Paul advert.
Erectus Walks Amongst Us Reminds me of Israel. Isn't it better to live in New York?
Erectus Walks Amongst Us The mantra works, and stopped me in the nick of time from chipping in for 4um's Paul advert. I have absolutely no idea what you mean.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Peter, PAUL, and Mary???????????????????
I'm not surprised.
... now with Solium™!
A politician.
I backed off from Paul when he chose the party over the movement. He had a good thing going and failed to capitalize on it. That showed me he wasn't serious. I still like him and think he has good things to say but he seems to be controlled opposition.
I know I'll probably get flamed for this but I'll say it anyway... Why does Dr. Paul lose credibility just because he doesn't march in precise lock-step to every non-mainstream theory there is about chem trails, 9/11, detention camps, etc.? While I don't believe that the official gov't story about 9/11 is entirely truthful, I don't believe that drone planes were flown into buildings. I believe that real people flew those planes, who they worked for is another story. So I can believe some things but not the whole truther enchilada. Does that make me a sheeple or a sold-out like many of you accuse Dr. Paul of being? Chem trail theories are way out there as far as I'm concerned. Detention camps - I have not made up my mind on what the purpose may be. But just because I reserve judgment does that make me too easily manipulated by the media? I think "truthers" need to be careful in their rush to criticize thoughtful, intelligent people like Dr. Paul just because he does not jump on board with every unorthodox paranoid theory that comes up on the 'net.
Hah! You're just not as cynical as I am. I saw him the same way you do.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Well, you asked for it! I dont recall anyone saying he had to march in lockstep with anyone. But in regard to deterntion camps, there are credible MSM stories, not to mention the legislation. Paul ignores this. In regard to 9/11, there are also credible sources that call bullshit on the commissions report. We might not know what really happened and exactly who did it, but we know what didn't happen. Paul ignores this. As flames go, I think I was rather kind to you... That wasn't so bad, was it ;)
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace ALAS, BABYLON
Because some people expect a carbon copy of themselves.
I dont recall anyone saying he had to march in lockstep with anyone. But in regard to deterntion camps, there are credible MSM stories, not to mention the legislation. Paul ignores this. In regard to 9/11, there are also credible sources that call bullshit on the commissions report. We might not know what really happened and exactly who did it, but we know what didn't happen. Paul ignores this. As flames go, I think I was rather kind to you... That wasn't so bad, was it ;) Yes, your response was quite reasonable and I thank you for your restraint. The 9/11 commission's report was probably as high as 75% truthful but the lies, omissions though only representing 25% were grand and pivotal. But because there was a good deal of factual truth in it, it makes it difficult for people - even Ron Paul - to attack it. To fail in demonstrating just one thing to be a lie is to then be dismissed on questioning all the other details. You see whether we like it or not, the 9/11 commission report comes with an implicit aura of authority and sanctity - after all it was a bi-partisan investigation and witnesses testified under oath - whereas for people to question this authority they must be 100% correct in every single thing they question or they will be dismissed as kooks, buffoons, attention seekers. Dr. Paul says what he knows for sure and nothing more because he could lose all credibility if he speculates and is wrong. So what he said in an interview with Glenn Beck - as I recall - was that he felt that the government's involvement in 9/11 was its incompetence, its bungling. He says what he knows with certainty. You and I can speculate because we are nobody's, we represent no one but ourselves. Dr. Paul represents the majority's needs and wishes of his electorate in Texas. What % of his electorate do you suppose asked Dr. Paul to investigate 9/11 for the "real" truth? What % of Dr. Paul's electorate even indicated that they thought the 9/11 commission's report was false? I'd suggest to you that the % of Texans in his congressional district that thought the 9/11 commission report was "bullshit" and told Dr. Paul so was less than 1%. As for the detention camps, it could be that Dr. Paul - assuming he has been told all the facts along with other elected reps and senators - has been sworn to secrecy so as not to create pandemonium in the public. My belief is that the camps are not so much for detention as in gulags/imprisonment as they are for gov't enforced mass quarantine due to a natural medical disaster like ebola or deadly flu epidemic or due to a biological or radiological weapon having been released. However, that's not to say that though the intent is for quarantine use, our gov't would not ever use the camps for detention, imprisonment. One scenario I could see happening as a possibility would be that if the Mexican government falls, millions of Mexican nationals would surge northward and overwhelm our borders within 48 hours. US authorities would then have no choice but to declare martial law and detain all non-US citizens/legal residents in the camps until order was restored in Mexico by our military. I don't think Dr. Paul has ignored 9/11 or the detention camps. He is choosing in the first case to be precise in what he says in public and also to be responsive to the stated priorities of his congressional seat's electorate. In the second situation, it may very well be a case where he's sworn to secrecy and is unable to share the facts he has been told with his electorate and with the general public. That's how I interpret Dr. Paul's actions and frankly I'd do the same if I were in his shoes.
If Paul wants to represent his TX district, more power to him. Go home, and stay home. When it comes to national and "Constitutional" issues, keep off the boob tube and just bring the pork home to the Great State Of Texas. IOW, be a typical CONgressman, if that job is so fucking important to him. "I'd suggest to you that the % of Texans in his congressional district that thought the 9/11 commission report was "bullshit" and told Dr. Paul so was less than 1%. " You're could be right. But he was running for president. He used those "truthers" and small "l" libertarians for his own ends. Rather cynical of him. They gave him their energy and goodwill, and he gave them shit. "In the second situation, it may very well be a case where he's sworn to secrecy and is unable to share the facts he has been told with his electorate and with the general public. " Omerta. Right. If that is the case, I have even less respect for him now than I did 2 minutes ago. It's conjecture, sure, but if that happened then he is also a traitor. He has sworn loyalty not to the Constitution but to his political handlers that forced him to swear that oath. You seem to excuse this. I am not nearly so kindhearted. But, like I said, it's conjecture. "As for the detention camps, it could be that Dr. Paul - assuming he has been told all the facts along with other elected reps and senators - has been sworn to secrecy so as not to create pandemonium in the public. " But pandemonium is exactly what we need, especially if it is the result of citizens learning who those detention camps are built for, them. People are getting armed up. And they aren't suddenly taking up hunting. The "Ron Paul Revolution", remember? Well, let there be a real revolution. Nothing else will fix the situation. Only IMO Paul can stay home. He's useless.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
b. Omerta. Right. If that is the case, I have even less respect for him now than I did 2 minutes ago. It's conjecture, sure, but if that happened then he is also a traitor. He has sworn loyalty not to the Constitution but to his political handlers that forced him to swear that oath. You seem to excuse this. I am not nearly so kindhearted. a. How did he "use" the truthers and the libertarians? The truthers had a very focused self-serving agenda that was not shared by 95% of Americans. The truthers were no doubt infiltrated by gubment types as well as certain lobby groups. In other words it was a group that had some genuine AmericaFirst individuals, but also many flakes and untrustworthy types. The truther group was hoping to gain legitimacy and increase its profile and influence in DC by attaching itself to the coat tails of a political figure like Kucinich or Dr. Paul, regardless if the groups unsavory types tarnished the reputation and ruined the career of those politicians. I think the truthers were taking advantage of Dr. Paul (and Kucinich), not the other way around. As for the libertarians, Dr. Paul told them straight up that he was running as a GOP candidate and several times when he was asked if he would run as a 3rd party candidate should he not win the GOP Presidency candidacy, he said "no." So how did he let the libertarians down? That they hoped that he would change his mind down the stretch is not Dr. Paul's fault. b. IF Dr. Paul has been sworn to secrecy, it's because he and other Congressional members have been asked to keep the knowledge of quarantine camps under raps by the Oval Office. And how does this represent anything remotely unconstitutional? Where is it in the constitution that you and I have the right to know every single detail per what the President and Congress know regarding how government is prepared to control/contain a medical epidemic/emergency or sovreignity threat posed by another nation's government's implosion?
OK, Let's say he just led them on. He did nothing to discourage it, did he? Didn't he play their game? If he didnt agree with them, then that just makes him another political whore out tricking for supporters. Or maybe a better comparison would be as a stripper. They tease, you pay, but you get nothing. OK, I'll split the difference and call him a stripping whore. "b. IF Dr. Paul has been sworn to secrecy, it's because he and other Congressional members have been asked to keep the knowledge of quarantine camps under raps by the Oval Office. And how does this represent anything remotely unconstitutional? Where is it in the constitution that you and I have the right to know every single detail per what the President and Congress know regarding how government is prepared to control/contain a medical epidemic/emergency or sovreignity threat posed by another nation's government's implosion? " If Paul was sworn to secrecy over this, then he is no better than any other political whore. But remember you said that if you go to one of these camps. You call them quarantine camps. Maybe that is what they will be used for. But I doubt it. Maybe you will believe them when they say that quarantines are needed and martial law is declared. I mean, they are SO well known for telling the fucking truth, arent they? By golly, they never lie, do they? They are such little angels... You make allowances for (I guess) Mexico. Tell me, with the border leaking like a sieve, do you really think they are doing this because of Mexico? That is laughable. But as for me, I will not and I do not believe 1 single solitary word they say. If you choose to believe them, it's on you. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
It's kind of a catch-22, but it occurs to me that those who believe government to be the absolute most loathsome are the very ones condemning Paul for being a traitor to THE CAUSE, whatever that is. If everything is a conspiracy, then it doesn't matter which one we resist. How's that for some reductio ad absurdum? It sounded better when I thought it than when I typed it.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
How many people had even heard the term "Austrian" in relation to economics prior to Dr Paul's campaign?
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Comments (42 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: PSUSA (#1)
#3. To: PSUSA (#0)
Ron Paul is completely and thoroughly irrelevant (now).
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#4. To: bluegrass (#2)
I trust Ron's intentions.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#5. To: Rotara (#4)
He's lost his watchman's cred.
#6. To: PSUSA (#0)
(Edited)
#7. To: Old Friend (#6)
#8. To: PSUSA (#7)
I bet the KBR camps exist. They already have a contract to provide them.
#9. To: Old Friend (#8)
#10. To: Rotara (#4)
There are very serious things that Ron Paul knows are in progress, but he tells no one. He's lost his watchman's cred.
#11. To: PSUSA (#0)
"Name the monster under the bed"
#12. To: Jethro Tull (#10)
#13. To: PSUSA (#0)
#14. To: Cynicom, Jethro Tull, Rotara, PSUSA, bluegrass (#12)
The globalists plan to get rid of the Federal Reserve, so they don’t really mind the fact that Dr. Paul is over TV speaking out against it. They are just going to replace the Fed with the phony solution of a new central bank and a new debt based currency when the Federal Reserve Note currency collapses.
#15. To: christine (#14)
did y'all catch that?
#16. To: Cynicom (#12)
Ron Paul vowed on bended knee his lifelong love and devotion for the ...republican...party, one half of the criminal enterprise called a government.
#17. To: christine, All (#14)
did y'all catch that?
#18. To: christine (#14)
The globalists plan to get rid of the Federal Reserve, so they don’t really mind the fact that Dr. Paul is over TV speaking out against it. They are just going to replace the Fed with the phony solution of a new central bank and a new debt based currency when the Federal Reserve Note currency collapses.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#19. To: Jethro Tull (#10)
Ron Paul is a Republican.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#20. To: Rotara, christine (#19)
Who is Ron Paul ?
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#21. To: Esso (#20)
Never heard of him.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#22. To: Rotara (#18)
Digitized money to the next level.
#23. To: christine (#22)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#24. To: PSUSA (#0)
I will not go to Auschwitz. I have ordered the book. Da-do-run-run-run Da-do-run-run.
#25. To: christine (#14)
(Edited)
did y'all catch that?
I will not go to Auschwitz. I have ordered the book. Da-do-run-run-run Da-do-run-run.
#26. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#24)
If you're not a racist, you're anti-white.
#27. To: Rotara (#21)
He was one of the Beetles maybe ?
#28. To: PSUSA (#26)
#29. To: Rotara (#19)
Who is Ron Paul ?
#30. To: PSUSA (#1)
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life." — Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Meteorology
#31. To: bluegrass, All (#2)
I trust Ron's intentions. I don't trust his ability/inability to be subverted by the media lords via his desire to spread his message. Even the best of us can be diverted and co-opted through our own desires and best intentions.
#32. To: farmfriend (#30)
I backed off from Paul when he chose the party over the movement. He had a good thing going and failed to capitalize on it. That showed me he wasn't serious. I still like him and think he has good things to say but he seems to be controlled opposition.
#33. To: scrapper2 (#31)
I know I'll probably get flamed for this but I'll say it anyway...
#34. To: redpanther (#13)
(Edited)
Bring up www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645 There is so much out there in the MSM that there is no need to make things up.
Hegelian dialectic
FEMA camps link
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
#35. To: scrapper2 (#31)
Why does Dr. Paul lose credibility just because he doesn't march in precise lock-step to every non-mainstream theory
#36. To: PSUSA (#33)
(Edited)
Well, you asked for it!
#37. To: scrapper2 (#36)
#38. To: PSUSA (#37)
a. He used those "truthers" and small "l" libertarians for his own ends. Rather cynical of him. They gave him their energy and goodwill, and he gave them shit.
#39. To: scrapper2 (#38)
a. How did he "use" the truthers and the libertarians?
#40. To: scrapper2 (#38)
#41. To: PSUSA (#39)
OK, Let's say he just led them on. He did nothing to discourage it, did he? Didn't he play their game? If he didnt agree with them, then that just makes him another political whore out tricking for supporters. Or maybe a better comparison would be as a stripper. They tease, you pay, but you get nothing.
.
.
.