Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8185 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Ron Paul and the John Birch Society
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.
I have another thing to add to this topic. Other than this strange bit of inconsistancy, I like what I am hearing from this man. However, talking and acting are two entirely different things. Does he "talk the talk", but not "walk the walk"?
Also of particular note in the proceeding’s transcript is Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) who, although brave enough to publicly, and aggressively, confront the Constitutional problems arising out of the Committee’s actions, failed to have the fortitude to actually vote for his own proposed amendment which was a direct, formal, and constitutionally proper, declaration of war against Iraq.
If anyone knows why he did this, I would love to know.
Tue May 08, 2007 5:38 am
Sponsor
postcardsfrompalestine VIP
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 1737 Location: It means good luck - a chinese symbol
Because
Declaring War through both houses is not an easy task. If everyone wanted war then it should be declared. ie Korea, Vietnam iraq1 iraq2 Afghanistan are all illegal and against the constitution.
JBS - I don't care much but they do have some good info from time to time. Anyway I would rather have a guy like this instead of any others
you might be interested where he stands.
*Ron Paul has been agaisnt the Iraq War from the beginning. And he voted against it.
*Ron Paul is against the Federal Reserve
*Ron Paul does not take money from AIPAC
*Ron Paul will not go to war for Israel
*Ron Paul is pro constitution, he was against unconstitutional acts like the patriot act and the military commissions act.
*Ron Paul does not support gun grabs
*Ron Paul wants to stop illegal immigration, AND he is against NAFTA (the root of the problem)
*Ron Paul is against the war on drugs
also
The Neocon Reaction to Ron Paul
For whatever reason – perhaps out of fear or power lust – neocons have abandoned conservative skepticism of government in favor of a blind ideology of American exceptionalism. Beck, Hannity, and Giuliani have jumped on Dr. Paul relentlessly because they are beginning to realize that many conservative voters are dissatisfied with the spendthrift, Wilsonian mainstream of the Republican Party. As the base shrinks and moderates start voting Democratic, they know and fear that true conservatives who believe in the ideals of the Old Right might wake up from their post-9/11 slumber and leave the neocons as well. In their attempt to hold their floundering movement together, they have resorted to shouting down and ostracizing the "crazed dope" Ron Paul, hoping to push him "way out" of the presidential race. Dr. Paul and his supporters must be doing something right to raise such fear and ire from the neocons; let us keep it up.
Maybe this is why the media and the GOP are working so hard to keep Ron Paul down?
from WRH
Wed May 23, 2007 7:14 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8185 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Quote:
JBS - I don't care much but they do have some good info from time to time. Anyway I would rather have a guy like this instead of any others
Yes, JBS does have some good information, however the racist and religious aspect of it shouldn't be ignored. What's wrong with Kucinich other than hand gun control, him being a vegan, and having a much younger female friend? Any others?
Quote:
you might be interested where he stands.
Do we consider where he doesn't stand? How would he handle the situation that New Orleans faced? How would he handle the situation in Darfur? What would he do for the Native Americans? When it comes to 9/11, does he point to Israel, or maintain the Islam story? Why are these people painting Arabs as "Muslims"? Jews aren't a race, and neither are Muslims. Americans aren't Christians. How would Americans feel about being called Christians instead of Americans?
How do we know that all the publicity incidents surrounding Ron Paul aren't staged? So he's *slightly* suppressed on mainstream. What are we hearing lately? TV viewership is going down. Where are people going? - Internet! Who gets the most internet support? - Ron Paul!
Quote:
FLASHBACK: JDL Targets Ron Paul And Other 'Israel Haters'
Rense? - Puhleaze!
If you believe we actually have the power to vote who is President: by all means vote for Ron Paul.
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 1737 Location: It means good luck - a chinese symbol
I hear you
I know it seems fruitless. I am aware of the vote fraud, I have not seen any others willing to take on the Federal reserve
JBS - agreed - it should not be ignored
I think he know's the 911 story is bogus, but it would be political suicide to say the truth. Where does Kucinich stand on 911? I will look into Kucinich more.
Anyway I agree that there is a lot shit that is just not right. Are you saying Ron Paul is a racist? Cause the whole civil war thing is taken out of context. He seems to be expressing the knowledge of where Abraham Lincoln stood, and that the purpose of the war was not about slavery and that slavery could have been settled in a peaceful way.
Darfur - What should we do? The conflict is there so Western, Russian and Chinese oil companies can get at the resources easier at some point.
Wed May 23, 2007 8:02 pm
Sponsor
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8185 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Re: I hear you
postcardsfrompalestine wrote:
it would be political suicide to say the truth
What about the supposed polls the so called truthers are pointing to? I can acknowledge that the polls are nonsense, but most of the same people supporting Ron Paul appear to support bullshit polls.
Quote:
If AIPAC, Israel and Neo-Cons don't like him, it adds my interest.
Blogspot? NWO? anti-semitic?
Who uses these? I use blogspot for advertisement. Anyone can create blogspot blog for free.
Quote:
The info on Rense comes from the JDL site.
Better to use the source. Rense publishes a 13 year old science project without a control group, but a control sample. They also love to promote the space alien propaganda that appeals to Christians.
Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 pm
postcardsfrompalestine VIP
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 1737 Location: It means good luck - a chinese symbol
Re: I hear you
madthumbs wrote:
postcardsfrompalestine wrote:
it would be political suicide to say the truth
What about the supposed polls the so called truthers are pointing to? I can acknowledge that the polls are nonsense, but most of the same people supporting Ron Paul appear to support bullshit polls.
There are the Truthers that are led down a path that is laid out for them. I know this and I understand it. I have not seen a candidate that is gonna stand up and say Israel was involved in 911 or any of the truths that we hold and not get slammed. Jim Condit - and he did not do to well. It is like giving them the ammo to knock you down before you have even started. Just look to the voting record on bills and look at what groups they belong to or what money the get from the Lobbies.
To me it seems that out of all the candidates so far Ron Paul is the closest to the truth without shooting his own foot.
Change foreign policy seems like a nice way of saying don't give blind support to Israel. Don't give billions in paper and bombs etc....
If you try to tell people the truth when they are not ready, it only leads them turning away. This has happened to me when I discuss the Holocaust with people, I have lost friends and family members over it. cause they are unwilling to discuss it and are not ready to even consider the evidence.
Anyway to me Ron Paul believes in the constitution and anything against it is a "no". For me that is a good place to start
also like the disband IRS, remove federal reserve, change foreign policy, dissolve Homeland security, dissolve patriot act, get the US out of the UN, disband the CIA, get the US out of IRAQ, etc.........
Maybe I am wrong but it seems that he's got 90% of what the USA needs and 10% he likes the JBS because they provide good information sometimes. Believes the Osama story, but always asks "why did we not try to catch him?" to me I think he is alluding to "what's wrong with this story" and using the official story to question others, such as the cia and 911 ommission report. In the radio show above he comes out and says the report was nothing more then a cover up! which leads me to believe he knows more then he is saying.
The questions he asks are like asking "If Japan bombed us at pearl harbor, why did we go to fight the Germans first?"
I would be willing to review other candidates if you have any to suggest.
Does any know if Kucinich
he only talks about OIL and he is not on the JDL list
has accepted AiPAc money
What is his take on UN and FED?
Last edited by postcardsfrompalestine on Wed May 23, 2007 9:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
I still get tempted to like the guy however I'm going to steal a quote from alexclaton. When push comes to shove they will just push the I win button of electoral fraud. I just don't see how this man can convince 50% of a brainwashed nation to like him. I'll be optimistic though and hope the spammers do what they gotta do.
Wed May 23, 2007 9:17 pm
Sponsor
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8185 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Jim Condit is also a Christian which classifies him as a racist also. Exposing Jewish crimes is one thing: attributing them to race is another.
Quote:
To me it seems that out of all the candidates so far Ron Paul is the closest to the truth without shooting his own foot.
This is why I say if you believe in the elections: by all means vote for him. However; I believe election reform is more important.
Quote:
Change foreign policy seems like a nice way of saying don't give blind support to Israel.
It's also a nice way of saying don't support Darfur, and we were right to not intervene in Ramaldi.
Quote:
I have lost friends and family members over it. cause they are unwilling to discuss it and are not ready to even consider the evidence.
People who play on emotions and ignore the facts. Should such mind-controlled people be permitted to live? Aren't they more of a hazard to human life?
Quote:
Anyway to me Ron Paul believes in the constitution and anything against it is a "no". For me that is a good place to start
So does the John Birch Society
Quote:
also like the disband IRS, remove federal reserve, change foreign policy, dissolve Homeland security, dissolve patriot act, get the US out of the UN, disband the CIA, get the US out of IRAQ, etc.........
Pipe dreams, Does the US president really have the ability to change this?
Quote:
Maybe I am wrong but it seems that he's got 90% of what the USA needs and 10% he likes the JBS because they provide good information sometimes.
Put yourself in the shoes of a so called 'negro'. Would you still support Ron Paul?
Quote:
I would be willing to review other candidates if you have any to suggest.
The guy you know as edisme. I'd register just to vote for him.
The guy you know as edisme. I'd register just to vote for him.
NO WAY! I'm too much of a revolutionist to believe in this effed up system. Though Ron Paul says
things we like to hear isn't that the job of a politician?
I in no way want to be related to politics. Its a big soap opera. As posted in this thread their policies are
given to them.
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 1737 Location: It means good luck - a chinese symbol
what to do?
We are big enough to make our own decisions, rather then have Government tell us what is right and what is wrong and what to do or not do. I guess I am just happy I don't live in the US any longer.
Some quotes regarding the article below
Quote:
A lot of Paul’s positions are super-idealistic.
But when you put a cubic zirconia next to a bunch of turds…..
it sure looks like a diamond.
Quote:
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.
— John Locke
The only model I see is based on freedom versus slavery. You either believe that government has no right to control the individual other than its most basic necessary point to secure the freedom of that individual or you don’t. Our nation is terribly off course in that regard. The machine of government serves only itself and the most clever of manipulators while feeding off of the general population.
Your also ignoring the vital point of my first post/statement. The programs your speaking of. The EPA, Social Security, are going to stay. The American people want and expect them..
What they don’t want is to see their liberty flushed down the toilet in phony..war on _ terror…drugs…=you
Any time the government commits to one of these wars our freedoms go down while corporate welfare goes up.
I believe those are the problems the majority and Paul are concerned with, I think those threats are far more immediate.
Paul would move quickly to bring our troops home and relax the security state we are currently building around us. These infringements are not merely trifles to be disregarded, they are a fundamental threat to the very future of the nation and her people.
I am deeply more concerned with the threat to free society in such trying and extreme times. After the last 7 years with Bush, I would think you would be more concerned with these issues than hypothetical projections of rabid libertarianism sweeping the country with every social service and watchdog lost to the public. I again assert that in the current structure of our political body along with the will of the people your fears are unfounded.
Merely being out of the mainstream is not a qualification for being president. Having real solutions would be, but Paul doesn’t have any that I can see.
the danger of the current structure and trajectory of the system, combined with the evolution of new technological capabilities make me believe that we need a man such as Paul to pull us back.
We are very quickly accelerating our technology, and the danger that power poses to all of us in the wrong hands is a question that must addressed especially in relation to the consolidation of power into such a small segment of our society.
Of course, I like his criticisms of foreign policy and surveillance, but doing away with the EPA really seems to be the wrong idea.
leftists have alleyways tried to criticize libertarians on the ideas you outlined above, yet that caricature is as false as any blasé stereotype…
The truth of the matter if you listen to the man his main messages are a retreat from our suicidal, and costly Iraq war, the dismantling of the homeland security bureaucracy designed with the sole intention of controlling and monitoring the American public (at their expense), and the balancing of the national budget in an attempt to bring our fiscal policy back into some reasonable margin thus protecting the nations people far better than big promises with no payoffs.
These are basic libertarian and constitutional principles.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
— Thomas Jefferson
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent force of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse [benefits] from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasure, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always foiled by dictatorship.
— Alexander Tyler
These are the issues of the day. These are the threats to our democracy that a libertarian executive would put a stop to.
I believe this is the best course of the nation.
To me, those are diametric opposites. Paul is a corporatist. I’m not
To me socialist/corporatism is much like what national socialism promised(the original party line..before the night of the long knives) only the socialism part stays. that gives the illusion to the people that they are getting a piece of the pie when in fact they are getting robbed blind and enslaved. It seems to me the term neo-feudal fits it well. Perpetual wars, restrictions, enemies everywhere. All fear and no hope.
Bottom line.
We have two different sets of concerns based on our perceptions of the political structure as it currently is as well as what are the most pressing issues of the day are.
Ron Paul has received a lot of favorable comment on this site for his opposition to the Iraq war and the ongoing assault on civil liberties. His campaign is a great illustration of the breakdown of traditional ideas of right and left in American politics. An example of this is the fact that “5ociali5t” is supporting a candidate endorsed by the John Birch Society whose goal is to return America to the shining path of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
Apparently, Ron Paul thinks the problem with America is that the people running the government these days aren’t conservative enough. I don’t agree.
Here are some of the positions Ron Paul would be likely to take on other issues that would come up in his administration.
First, Ron Paul is a champion of free markets. He is an enthusastic supporter of free trade, although he has opposed some of the existing agreements for not being free enough. As president, he would privatize everything. He would likely try to sell off NASA, the CDC, whatever has any value in the markets. Everything would be in play, and it would all be sold to the highest bidder. You could, for example, visit the Nabisco-Hilton Yellowstone Theme Park on your vacation. Or the Merrill Lynch Washington Monument. Bring your wallet.
He is also opposed to public assistance of all kinds. This would include welfare, social security, medicaid, medicare, food stamps and any related programs. He was even opposed to federal assistance for Katrina victims. In fact, if Paul had been president, FEMA would not have failed in that crisis. It wouldn’t have existed.
He is pro-life. He would overturn Roe v. Wade and end federal funding for stem-cell research. (Well, he’d end federal funding for pretty much everything.) Surprisingly, he’s also opposed to capital punishment.
He’s opposed to government regulation. All government regulation. He would either weaken or eliminate federal departments like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Education. He’s also a champion of tort reform, which would limit or end the rights of citizens to hold corporations accountable for the consequences of their actions. The corporations would be able to do anything they wanted.
Civil rights is no longer a major issue in the United States. It could be again. Ron Paul is opposed to any type of affirmative action program in the public or private sector. I couldn’t find any information about his stand on anti-discrimination laws, but he’s likely to oppose them if they come up. It was the federal government that ended a long history of disenfranchisement of minorities in the south. With the federal govenment no longer involved, would states like Alabama and Texas move backward on voting rights?
Ron Paul is a staunch isolationist. While this can be a good thing (He wouldn’t have invaded Iraq), there are drawbacks to this as well. There won’t be any humanitarian interventions in a Paul presidency. He would also withdraw the United States from all efforts at international cooperation, including the United Nations. And when it comes to helping solve problems elsewhere in the world—the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Africa, for example—well, Ron Paul’s America will wish everyone the best of luck with that, but it won’t be taking part.
Paul would also try to abolish the income tax. He’s worked to do this in the past. He’s so opposed to taxes that it’s hard to say what he would do to pay the remaining costs of government after he takes a meat cleaver to it, but it’s safe to say that it won’t be an income tax. And it won’t be an estate tax, a capital-gains tax, or anything similar. Taxing the rich, after all, would be an instance of interference in the free markets.
In reality, President Paul would have to get his legislation through Congress. And he’d veto most of the bills enacted by Congress. He’d form alliances and make deals to get some of his program through. That would be entertaining, but it’s no way to run a country. Which parts of his program would pass? Which would fail? It’s really anyone’s guess. Does anyone want to trade the EPA for a weakening of the Patriot Act? Should we give up anti-discrimination laws to keep social security? Or give up social security to keep anti-discrimination laws? Why should we have to make these choices?
We do not live in a perfect world. We do not have a perfect system of government. No one does. The disasters of the Bush administration should not blind us to the fact that government can play a positive role in the world. Given the problems we face, it will have to. But it’s our responsibility to elect leaders who will take actions for the benefit of the nation and the world. When we fail to do that, we have only ourselves to blame. Electing a president whose whole program can be summarized as “Government bad” is not a solution to anything at all.
Wed May 23, 2007 10:36 pm
Sponsor
postcardsfrompalestine VIP
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 1737 Location: It means good luck - a chinese symbol
just to respond
madthumbs wrote:
Jim Condit is also a Christian which classifies him as a racist also. Exposing Jewish crimes is one thing: attributing them to race is another.
Agreed - But criticizing Israel and exposing Jewish Crimes is often viewed as Racism
Quote:
Quote:
To me it seems that out of all the candidates so far Ron Paul is the closest to the truth without shooting his own foot.
This is why I say if you believe in the elections: by all means vote for him. However; I believe election reform is more important.
I might just do that - change is required - some change any change. Agree with you on election reform, maybe we can get everyone on this forum to go out and become part of the ballot team and keep an eye on the back room activities.
Quote:
Quote:
Change foreign policy seems like a nice way of saying don't give blind support to Israel.
It's also a nice way of saying don't support Darfur, and we were right to not intervene in Ramaldi.
It seems to me that arms given to people are part of our foreign policy. So in essence we create these situations by meddling in the first place and supplying weapons for them to kill each other, so we can benefit from the situation later.
As an example
Quote:
Quote:
I have lost friends and family members over it. cause they are unwilling to discuss it and are not ready to even consider the evidence.
People who play on emotions and ignore the facts. Should such mind-controlled people be permitted to live? Aren't they more of a hazard to human life?
I think we can all be mind controlled at some point or another, so there would be to many people left around.
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway to me Ron Paul believes in the constitution and anything against it is a "no". For me that is a good place to start
So does the John Birch Society
So where does that leave us?
Quote:
Quote:
also like the disband IRS, remove federal reserve, change foreign policy, dissolve Homeland security, dissolve patriot act, get the US out of the UN, disband the CIA, get the US out of IRAQ, etc.........
Pipe dreams, Does the US president really have the ability to change this?
all visions must start with a dream, Something has to change.
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe I am wrong but it seems that he's got 90% of what the USA needs and 10% he likes the JBS because they provide good information sometimes.
Put yourself in the shoes of a so called 'negro'. Would you still support Ron Paul?
Not sure what you me by so called 'negro', but my wife and kids are all dark skinned and are considered sub-human by the Chinese and I guess I would have to say yes I would still want Ron Paul over all the other candidates that I have seen. like I said it's not perfect but it better then what we have now.
Quote:
Quote:
I would be willing to review other candidates if you have any to suggest.
The guy you know as edisme. I'd register just to vote for him.
[/quote]
Edisme is swell.
Wed May 23, 2007 11:41 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8185 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
What Ron says sounds ideal. In practice, would it be? Would it not favor corporatism? Would it not keep the stupid rich stupid rich, and lead to the poor being more oppressed? Don't things need to get worse for people to want to revolt to make things better? W is the scapegoat for all the bad that happened during his term. Ron Paul would be the appeasement, but the damage is already done. I predicted a person like Ron Paul would come along and replace Bush. My fears may come true.
If we pulled out of Iraq like Ron would have us do, imagine the possible retaliation and conflict that could follow. We need to make reparations and try to win their favor.
self wrote:
Should such mind-controlled people be permitted to live?
I hope people didn't take this the wrong way. My intentions were to get people to think about the seriousness of the situation.
