Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in favor of the Gold Standard. - Who has all the gold?
You logical lead is correct, the central banks have all the gold. We would not be getting rid of the power behind the Federal Reserve.
Quote:
Lets just say he does get elected. What the hell is he going to do against a mostly corrupt Congress and a bought and paid for Supreme Court?
I am curious as to what he would do. Thinking humorously, could he possibly be any worse than GWB? At least he will be able to speak properly.
Realistically, he would have a hell of a lot of housecleaning to do. How about a repeat of Andrew Jackson's housecleaning?
Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:47 am
Sponsor
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8221 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
I think he'd leave Iraq in shambles instead of making reparations. I think he'd continue to ignore the Native Americans and their cause. I think he'd make USA more corporate friendly by reducing taxes, continue to blame the Taliban, Al-Queda, etc, probably abolish affirmative action, but lets ignore the bad stuff and concentrate on the good.
Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:01 am
postcardsfrompalestine VIP
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 1737 Location: It means good luck - a chinese symbol
In almost any discussion of Ron Paul (including your diary) someone inevitably brings up a handful of racist quotes that appeared in an article in a newsletter Paul was publishing at the time of the LA Riots.
It is telling that:
1) there are no other quotes like these at any other point in his career, despite the fact that he has been a prolific writer and certainly seems unafraid to hold an out-of-the-mainstream opinion
2) Paul did not write the article, a member of his staff did
3) After much discussion the quotes were removed from Paul's wikipedia bio, since they could not be attributed to him.
According to a Texas Monthly article (quoted on a wikipedia talk page, but alas only available by subscription):
When I ask him [Paul] why [the article was not strongly repudiated], he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
I have to agree with the journalist's assessment. It looks like he didn't want to hang his staff out to dry, and made the wrong call. Racism? No. Misplaced loyalty? Yes.
Quote:
Zionism is racism and if you support it you are a racist.
The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.
Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.
Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.
Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
December 24, 2002
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Apparently the staffer who wrote the material Quotes as coming from Ron Paul's hand was fired after the publication came out. To me this seems like a smear campaign plain and simple. As far as I know this is the only guy out there not in Israel's Pocket. He may not be perfect on everything but he sure does seem a lot better then the alternatives.
Anyway MadThumbs may be right!
I suspect that they may want to get him in and then blow up one of those suitcase bombs hidden aways * As seen in The Video on Google " Angels and Demons" or it could be another coup as with Reagan.
Or the if the point is for vote fraud or denial of the peoples choice stirs up enough people for revolution - they can crack down hard on the American people and usher in their grand plans.
Here's a post I wrote back in May
Quote:
It does occur to me that as we are led by the nose from place to place that this might be exactly what the Big boys want. I have read that they are planning to dismantle the fed, and change over the money system and change the tax system anyway, so why not leak the information and educate us how they have been lying to us and stealing for years. Then swing us into the new system by "our own free will" just slightly manipulated. Just a thought. Anyway that is exactly what I think Mr. Russo's film is. There have been many people who exposed the same issues for years but never got the exposure. So why now???
Anyway change of monetary system is slated for completion according to CFR 2010.
I might be a paranoid android, but one has to question.
So I just want to say who can know if we are being led or not. It seems MSM that he is not liked.
Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:28 pm
Sponsor
postcardsfrompalestine VIP
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 1737 Location: It means good luck - a chinese symbol
Family tree
Anyone have a complete family history? I don't see any bankers etc... only dairy farmers
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 1737 Location: It means good luck - a chinese symbol
And just to further say
if there is any doubt who the MSM is shaping up for the race
Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:13 am
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8221 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Quote:
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.
These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.
The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.
“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”
This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.
Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”
Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken responsibility for them and apologized for them on several occasions.
An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:
"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...
"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."
The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.
Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”
The John Birch Society is mentioned in the Deguello Report. Though this report isn't verifiable, it does offer insight into how things work behind the scenes.
Robert Welch who founded the John Birch Society was apparently under Zionist influence for absorbing and deflecting the energy and money of freedom fighting Americans from the Zionist Conspiracy against America to the Communist Conspiracy.
It's important to note that there is no such thing as a Jewish race. Sorry, I have to repeat this, but Judaism is a racist religion that fabricates a race for the purpose of control. Islam and Christianity are off-shoots of Judaism. All 3 were created to manipulate the masses, and when you look enough into these matters it will be clear as day what is really going on in world politics. You can read in the Deguello Report how people who think themselves Jews are being manipulated just like our homosexual politicians.
I don't hate religious, homosexual, or Jewish people . This is about how they're manipulated.
Here's what Ron Paul had to say about the John Birch Society:
Quote:
"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."
Ron Paul is apparently a long standing supporter of the John Birch Society.
There's always some good to hide the bad. (a teaspoon of sugar).
Part of the Jewish Conspiracy involves generating hatred towards people who THINK they're Jewish, along with scaring these same people into being afraid of Gentiles. The perceived hatred fuels the hate crime legislation which makes it illegal to discuss the things like the Holocaust in some countries. It also keeps the Jewish group afraid of outsiders or integration.
It's not my intention to create hatred for the Jewish people, but I would like to see them understand how they're being manipulated, and for them to help expose the corruption themselves. Jews are no more guilty than Christians in this Jewish conspiracy. I've been a Christian and now I've escaped it's mind control. My hope is that others will as well.
"Part of the Jewish Conspiracy involves generating hatred towards people who THINK they're Jewish, along with scaring these same people into being afraid of Gentiles."
This is what I suspect the Sephardi's are doing to the Ashenkenazi's/Khazar's.
Because the Khazars became Jews through initiations/conversions and hold no tie to the ancient biblical bloodline from The Middle East.
This is what I said about Jews earlier:
"The Jews are a nation of people, higher ranking one are connected by a set of ancient bloodlines, while lower ranking ones are iniated into the International Jewish Nation.
"Judaism is a racist religion "
I know that Judaism is a racist religion, but according to Jewish law a person is dictated to be a Jew if he/she has Jewish blood from Jewish parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc...
And he/she will always be a Jew no matter if he/she accepts the Judaic religion or not and also according to Jewish law, you don't have to be circumsized to be a Jew."
Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:20 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8221 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
We aren't under Jewish law unless we choose to be. People are told they're born catholic also, but that doesn't make them catholic to me.
We aren't under Jewish law unless we choose to be. People are told they're born catholic also, but that doesn't make them catholic to me.
True, also keep in mind that Crypto-Jews will always say and pretend like they have nothing to do with Jews.
It's my feeling that most if not all Male Crypto-Jews are Uncircumsized, no definative proof though.
Some like to first get in an affair with some girl and then have the girl give "Proof" that he's not Jewish from telling about his Uncircumsized Penis.
Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:56 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8221 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Ron Paul Support is a Conspiracy, claims National Media
Major media outlets have denied fund raising reports, rally attendance, and record breaking internet support as the work of a small secretive group of Ron Paul supporters conspiring to defraud the public. Is it time for them to give up this conspiracy theory before they lose credibility?
It has been revealed that fourteen percent of republican presidential campaign donors in the second quarter, donated to Ron Paul. He has placed first and second in many national online polls with respondents numbering into the tens of thousands. He has more money on hand than John McCain. His grassroots campaign boasts twenty thousand members and he has over 20,000 videos dedicated to him on YouTube.Com, dwarfing all other republican candidates. He sells out rallies wherever he attends and has won a straw poll in crucial New Hampshire. In fact, there is only one metric which measures his support to be on the same level as second tier candidates, national polls. National polls ask small groups of people, often less than one thousand, who they plan to support for the White House. In July of 2007 how can this be taken as a metric of anything besides name recognition when the election is over 12 months away.
Many pundits have taken his online popularity to be the work of “spammers”. One can only assume that these pundits have gone to the Ted Stevens’ school of Internet Learning. Spamming is when a small group of people with multiple IP Addresses, forged identities as it were, send unsolicited emails. Online Polls are soliciting a response from individuals, and most reputable ones filter attempts from forged IP Addresses. Winning an online poll means your campaign was the best capable of identifying the poll, disseminating information to your supporters, and motivating your supporters to participate. Ron Paul’s grassroots campaign has proven to be more agile and effective than any of the manufactured enthusiasm from other campaigns. The sheer volume of videos produced about the congressman, the amount of personally written comments on Ron Paul related news articles, and the number of unique hits received by his campaign’s website all rule out the idea that his support is the work of a small number of dedicated internet users. Ron Paul’s legitimate supporters have put Ron Paul’s war chest in third place among republicans, second place if you exclude Mitt Romney’s personal investment in his campaign. More Military and Veterans donated to Ron Paul than any other candidate. Most of his money came from small personal donations- the work of the many, not the few. These figures do not take into account the average five unpaid hours a week the Ron Paul supporter spends making signs, distributing literature, and operating phone banks.
For those who would still question Ron Paul’s chances due simply to national polls, consider this. National polling agencies only poll landlines. Many Ron Paul supporters do not use landlines, they are cell phone and VoIP users. No national polling would ever reach them. When Fox News had its post debate cell phone text message poll, Ron Paul came in second with twenty-five percent, trailing only Romney with twenty-nine percent. Many personalities on air stated disbelief in the accuracy of this poll, but surely they would not suggest that Ron Paul supporters had the thousands of extra cell phone plans and phones needed to skew a poll of this size.
Perhaps the lack of legitimate support reported by the media is an internal belief rather than an objective reality. Many in the media, such as Michelle Malkin, have claimed Ron Paul supporters are overzealous conspiracy theorists. It is Ironic that they then attribute all of Ron Paul’s support to a small group of people meeting in secret, rigging polls and colluding against the mainstream candidates. George Stephanopoulos and the New York Times have stated that Ron Paul “Will not be the next President”. Is this their opinion or their stated goal? Have they set themselves up for another “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment?
Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:04 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8221 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
LiveLeak.com Exclusive: Interview With Ron Paul- Tease
LiveLeak Dispatch host Shawn Wasson talked at length with controversial Republican Presidential candidate and Internet phenomenon Ron Paul. The full in-depth interview will be release later this week on LiveLeak.com.
Ron Paul Says:
George Bush and Co. are 'radicals' and 'extremists.' He would be inclined to impeach Bush. He questions most everything the government does. He is unaware of the connection between himself and the '9/11 truth' crowd. He thinks the media is censoring him in debates and polling. He calls Hillary Clinton and John Edwards 'undemocratic.' And he says all of this within the first 5 minutes of a 20 minute interview. See the full uncensored interview later this week on LiveLeak.com.
