Page 600 of 740 FirstFirst ... 100500550590596597598599600601602603604610650700 ... LastLast
Results 5,991 to 6,000 of 7393
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

  1. #5991
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Doug Wead: Ron Paul’s Big Win!

    Today, Ron Paul, and you and I, are on the verge of a great triumph, a victory that would have been unthinkable only four years ago. No, I am not talking about the GOP presidential nomination, I am talking about the bill before congress to audit the Federal Reserve. There is widespread support in congress. It is likely to pass. Now, more than ever, we should be sticking together. This is Dr. Paul’s moment. This is our moment. Stay positive. Stay tough. Let’s finish this.

    This latest bill to audit the Fed won’t mean an end to corruption. It won’t mean that “insiders” who cheat the system and have become rich off our labors will not find another way to get easy money. It won’t mean that it will make it through the Senate, where many opponents lurk, and where the corporate porkers will enlist the media to make a stand. But it does mean that the American people, thanks to Ron Paul, and many of you, are finally, fully awake to the theft and injustice of a few. The power elitists of the left and the right have been stripped bare, their robes of self-righteous and phony altruism pulled away for all to see their naked ambition and cruel greed. They have helped employ the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich in all of American history. They have made a mockery of the U.S. Constitution.

    Now, more than ever, those who have supported Ron Paul and the Liberty Movement should stick by him and pressure the House and then the Senate to finish this task. The crooks are on the run. Incredibly, with all of their advantages, with the national media in their pocket, they are losing this war of public opinion. 80% of the nation now wants to see a legitimate audit of the Federal Reserve. This was Ron Paul’s doing. This was the work of the Campaign for Liberty and hundreds of thousands of Americans like you. It is wonderful to see.

    And yet, despite our advances the forums are still crawling with accusation and recriminations about the Ron Paul campaign. Some are in denial or anger over events. Some are making accusations of betrayal.

    Was this campaign perfect? No. But I have been part of seven presidential campaigns and this was one of the best I have ever seen.

    There is no such thing as a perfect campaign, even winning campaigns.

    Compare it to the campaign of GOP nominee Mitt Romney, a campaign that couldn’t even organize the delegates in his own home state of Massachusetts and whose national spokesperson regularly misspeaks. And who manages to offend powerful allies who only want to help, like Rupert Murdoch.

    Or compare it to the Rick Santorum campaign, who couldn’t field a full delegate slate in his own state of Pennsylvania and who dropped out when he was leading in some polls.

    Or compare it to the Newt Gingrich campaign, who wasn’t even on the ballot in his home state of Virginia. For all the criticism they have taken, Jesse Benton, John Tate and the campaign staff have run a very effective campaign against an entrenched system who owned the airwaves. In state after state the campaign exceeded all expectations and Dr. Paul actually won four states. In my opinion, had the process happened naturally, without manipulation, he would have easily won 1,000 delegates and alternates and won eleven states. Ron Paul supporters succeeded in taking over no less than three state Republican parties and scored hundred of victories in county and district GOP leadership.

    I find it highly ironic that critics who only a year ago had no conception of a “delegate strategy” at the precinct level, now second guess the execution, legally or procedurally, of how it was done in one state or another. Don’t you realize it was Jesse Benton and John Tate who secretly laid that strategy out a year and a half ago? And now you call them traitors because you disagree over some part of a strategy that they, themselves, dreamed up and executed?

    Remember Iowa? We were doing everything we could to win Iowa and came within one week of doing it. We spent every dime we had on it and almost pulled it off. We peaked in the polls only seven days too soon and the media pounced. Do you remember that week? Only days to go and we were actually leading in the polls for the Iowa Caucus and the media was frantic.

    Well, from the very beginning, when Ron Paul HQ was opened, when Jesse and John laid out the strategy, they talked about Iowa and NH and the sequential power of winning the early contests but then they also talked about the backup plan, the delegate strategy, how we would be an insurgent army within the GOP at the precinct level. This was their idea, their plan, in the first place.

    Some are attacking Senator Rand Paul, who has done more for our cause in the last year than any other Senator has done in a career.

    Some are critical of our legal team. One ad hoc field organization of lawyers has said, “We are taking over the campaign.” But anyone who knows anything about law knows that we cannot be making headlines by announcing what we are doing. What I can say is this, the campaign has quietly but effectively taken action in Massachusetts, Louisiana, Oregon and other states where there were clear violation of rules and our people were cheated or hurt.

    The campaign has not taken action in places where, regardless of how we may have been treated, we were going to lose anyway. And there are reasons for this. We also are not taking action in states where we controlled the process. If we lost in those states it was our own fault.

    The campaign has not wasted valuable financial or staff resources on meaningless lawsuits that have no basis in law and are destined to fail.

    Some of the criticism coming from the field is legitimate. None of us are perfect. And we are learning from our mistakes. Others are only seeking attention and money, selling books and promoting websites. By attacking Dr. Paul or his campaign they know they will get more viewers. I don’t begrudge them that and I certainly cherish their opinions and ideas and warnings. They have earned a following, and I, too, like to hear what they have to say and I am learning from them. But there is a time and place for us to fight it out and a time and place for us to stick together.

    We have only another few weeks until the Republican National Convention, and then a few months left in Dr. Paul’s 22 year career in congress. In those days and weeks the battle to audit the FED will be in full force. Can we stick together till then? We have all worked hard for Dr. Paul and the cause of liberty. Can we be loyal for a few more weeks, months, YEARS?

    No one, especially Dr. Paul, would ask for you to blindly trust him, or any other man, but hasn’t he earned enough trust by his example to stick with him, and stick together, for a little longer?

    Can we follow him to Tampa and hear what he has to say? And let him play the cards we have given him? And help him in the remaining months of his career in the U. S. Congress to walk this audit the Fed bill through the den of thieves?

    Have we become so used to losing that we are paralyzed by the chance of a win? Unable to accept it? Like a jinxed football team who cannot believe we are actually leading in something and so we are still trying to find a way in the last minutes to lose the game?

    The Audit the Fed is a real victory, a surprise victory that has been four years in the making and it is because of the leadership of Dr. Paul, the Campaign for Liberty and the thousands of activists around the country.

    And it is suddenly, amazingly, upon us at the end of a losing campaign for the presidency. Keep in mind, even if Ron Paul had won the presidency, this is one of the things he would have wanted to do and now it is happening without the White House.

    We must stay the course, and get this done. And if we win in the House today, we must make the Senate feel our heat in the coming days. And we must count our blessings that Ron Paul may have lost the election but he has won the argument. And America and the world will never be the same.

    Doug Wead on today’s Mike Huckabee Show talks about children of politicians in the business.

    Ron Paul’s Big Win! « Doug Wead The Blog
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #5992
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #5993
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696




    Clark County (Las Vegas) Republican Party Passes Anti-NDAA Resolution


    July 23, 2012 | Jason Nellis



    On Wednesday July 18th, the Clark County Republican Central Committee (including myself) voted on a momentous resolution against the NDAA. Introduced by motion of CCRCC member Dirk Tejan, Resolution G-108 resolves to:
    Take an express political position on a matter of public policy regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, the dangers it poses to civil liberties, a call for the Clark County Sheriff to protect citizens of the United States in his jurisdiction; and providing for other matters properly relating thereto.

    The resolution has some very powerful requests such as calling on the Sheriff Douglas Gillespie to “not enforce the imposition of martial law, absent a declaration of war duly approved by Congress,” and “to publicly state that he will not aid or participate in the unconstitutional arrest, detainment, torture, assassination, or extraordinary rendition of any United States citizen in Clark County, Nevada.”


    In one of the first votes of 2012 in which we had unanimous “yays” and no “nays”, this was a resounding victory for the liberty movement and a shining moment for a local party that over the past few months became bitterly divided and gained a reputation for being a complete shambles.

    After liberty-minded “Ron Paul Republican” delegates swept most of the state convention in May and war nearly broke out when a resolution passed at a CCRCC meeting later that month to call for RNC chairman Reince Preibus’s resignation after his major rule-breaking endorsement of Romney with Paul still in the race, sore Romney people created a “shadow party” called Team Nevada in which they could fund Romney’s campaign without breaking Republican party rules against funding a candidate who was and is not yet nominated. The county party was quickly seen as a mess and a “shell of a party”, mostly declared by two-faced journalists such as Jon Ralston. Several board members including the chairman David Gibbs stepped down, well-known Ron Paul Republican/Secretary Cindy Lake took his place, and more recently Washoe County (home to Reno and capitol Carson City) filed with the SEC to break affiliation with the state party, so as to work with Romney’s Team Nevada.

    Now of course not nearly all status-quo Rinos have jumped ship in protest/fright of the liberty movement, and the proportions at this meeting weren’t all that different from the last, though liberty candidates did sweep all offices up for election that night (including County Chair Cindy Lake and Vice Chair Carl Bunce, both organizers of the 2012 Ron Paul campaign). So it was quite the moment when not one “nay” was vocalized in the vote for the resolution against the NDAA, despite Romney’s vocalized strong support of the NDAA when asked about it in a major debate.

    County Whip Jordan Ross, a person who has previously at times been seen as an antagonist to Ron Paul supporters on the committee, read the resolution from the podium and then came down to the discussion mic to adamantly support it. He took off his County Whip badge and held up his Constable badge to say that he was speaking as a law enforcement officer and citizen, and that these sections of the NDAA are of extreme concern and highly unconstitutional. His impassioned speech was refreshing and powerful and surely many people skeptical about him gained a new respect for him.

    The one voice of dissent came from a man who was consistently fighting everything put into motion by Paul supporters, and sitting across the aisle from me I could hear his groans and see his head shakes and edge-of-his-seat readiness to fight it from the outset of the resolution’s reading. He complained that he couldn’t support it without seeing the actual sections in writing, which was fair enough, and the Whip then explained that those sections were twenty pages long and too much to print out for a committee of a few hundred people. He sat down, a couple more comments were made, and the vote was held and unanimously passed.

    Whether the Sheriff will comply with these requests will be of great significance. If he does, it would be a major statement against the tyrannical direction of our federal government, not only Obama and the Democrats who passed the NDAA but also the Republicans and Romney who supports it. If he doesn’t, it would show he’s just another tool who isn’t abiding by our constitution and just like anyone else who would enforce or support it, amounts to a traitor. Of course, if martial law were to be declared by the President or individuals were to be detained under the permission of the NDAA, and Sheriff Gillespie were to comply with our resolution, the federal government may very likely go around his authority or he could simply go back on his word and be proven to be a panderer. Whatever the outcome, this is a very powerful resolution that should garner significant media attention; if only the media weren’t run by certain special interests.

    This is a major victory for the liberty movement, and hopefully another sign of things to come for the future of the grassroots movement building its ranks politically in the Clark County Republican Party/Nevada Republican Party, which for these reasons am becoming increasingly proud to be a part of. May this be the route the nation begins to take. This is how the revolution happens, resolution by resolution, and electing liberty-minded candidates to office.

    My opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the CCRCC or NRCC. I’m writing this simply as an American citizen.

    Related:
    Republican Party Denounces NDAA by Dirk Tejan (member who proposed the resolution)




    Tags: civil liberties, clark county republican central committee, clark county republican party, constitution, habeus corpus, las vegas, Mitt Romney, NDAA, obama, revolution, ron paul, ron paul revolution


    Clark County (Las Vegas) Republican Party Passes Anti-NDAA Resolution | The Libertarian Review


    THIS IS WHAT IT's ALL ABOUT PEOPLE... REJECTING TYRANNY AND UPHOLDING LIBERTY

    WOOOO HOOOO GO RON PAUL REPUBLICANS
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 07-25-2012 at 04:06 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #5994
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Military Spending A Poor Investment

    July 25, 2012 by
    Sam Rolley

    PETTY OFFICER 3RD CLASS CARLOS M. VAZQUEZ II, U.S. NAVY A U.S. Navy pilot exits an F/A-18C Hornet aircraft after landing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea on July 9. The pilot and Hornet are attached to Strike Fighter Squadron 151.

    The issue of whether the Federal government should cut defense spending has been coming up this week in the 2012 Presidential campaign, and one thing is clear:

    If you believe that American military spending should be thoroughly examined and trimmed, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is your guy.

    Obama, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday, accused Republicans of putting Pentagon funding in danger by calling for tax cuts. The cuts, claims the President, will further deepen the Federal government’s massive deficit and allow for automatic spending cuts, which don’t spare the military, to kick in.

    “People in Congress ought to be able to come together and agree on a plan, a balanced approach that reduces the deficit and keeps our military strong,” he said to VFW members in Reno, Nev. “And there are a number of Republicans in Congress who don’t want you to know that most of them voted for these cuts. Now they’re trying to wriggle out of what they agreed to.

    “Instead of making tough choices to reduce the deficit, they’d rather protect tax cuts for some of the wealthiest Americans, even if it risks big cuts in our military. And I’ve got to tell you, VFW, I disagree.”

    Romney, in turn, criticized the President for even positing that across-the-board defense cuts were an option.

    “Don’t bother trying to find a serious military rationale behind any of this, unless that rationale is wishful thinking. Strategy is not driving President Obama’s massive defense cuts. In fact, his own Secretary of Defense warned that these reductions would be ‘devastating.’ And he is right,” Romney said.

    The candidate continued,”… I am not ashamed of American power. I take pride that throughout history our power has brought justice where there was tyranny, peace where there was conflict, and hope where there was affliction and despair. I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced.

    I believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known, and that our influence is needed as much now as ever. And I am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion: This century must be an American Century.”

    Obama, in a rare visit to the Pentagon earlier this year, held a press conference to discuss what he called a plan to reduce the size of the military while making sure that it remained a strong defensive and strategic force. Included with the plan was the agreement between the White House and Congress to cut a projected $480 billion from the Pentagon budget over the next decade.

    The cuts, however, are largely symbolic, as the military budget will simultaneously increase to account for the rate of inflation during the same time. By the end of the year, if Congress fails to reach a budget agreement, an additional $700 billion in defense cutbacks is set to be triggered. Lawmakers are unlikely to allow this to happen, according to most analysts.

    As Romney and Obama make the same defense-cuts-make-us-less-safe arguments and offer different solutions (Obama’s tax increases and Romney’s politically impossible promise to increase defense spending without higher taxes), special interests are also having their say.

    Last week, former Vice President Dick “Halliburton” Cheney told House Republicans that it would be fine to slash military spending in a safe world, but we don’t live in a safe world.

    “There is no significant change in our strategic stance to justify these cuts,” Cheney told members of the House Republican whip team in the basement of the Capitol, according to a POLITICO source in attendance.

    “Actually, things are not better, they’re worse.”

    With a spending allotment that has roughly doubled over the past decade as the United States finds itself perpetually battling “terror,” it seems Cheney’s claim that things are worse should defeat his own argument against cuts. If American defense policy isn’t really working (or, in Romney’s words, bringing “justice where there was tyranny, peace where there was conflict, and hope where there was affliction and despair”), why keep throwing money at it?

    Here’s what American taxpayers have gotten for their benevolent investments:

    Nearly a decade occupying Iraq at a cost of about $1 trillion in overall military spending has yielded a country rife with violence and extremism — a country less stable and arguably far more violent than it was under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

    The ongoing struggle in Afghanistan with 2,000 Americans killed; 16,000 Americans wounded; 12,000 Afghan civilian deaths and U.S. expenditures of $400 billion has yielded a politically corrupt and violence-stricken country with a bleak future.

    The country will likely depend on the United States as a crutch for decades, despite the fact that American-trained members of its military and police continue to shoot American service members and civilians.

    The United States intervened in Libya earlier in the year, handing the country over to Islamic extremists; a similar scenario will likely play out in Syria in coming months.

    Each of the places that have seen U.S. military intervention in the past decade, some experts argue, have become hotbeds for the same sort of violent Islamic extremism that sparked the Mideast invasions following Sept. 11, 2001.

    Cheney is right; things are getting worse abroad. Of course, defense contractors and companies that receive government contracts for nation building won’t see anything get worse unless across-the-board budget cuts kick in. Last week, as Cheney was making his rounds speaking with Republican lawmakers, another man with interest in defense spending was also seen at the Capitol: the president of Lockheed Martin.

    Military Spending A Poor Investment : Personal Liberty Alerts=

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5995
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Ron Paul's 'Audit-The-Fed' Swan Song Passes House, Unlikely To Pass Senate


    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/25/2012 15:04 -0400





    When Paul first introduced his bill a decade ago, it was written off as another piece of his far-flung libertarian worldview is how Politico juxtaposes today's (now successful) vote on Ron Paul's Fed Transparency Bill. "I want to appreciate and congratulate Dr. Ron Paul for his tireless pursuit of openness and transparency," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). "Without his leadership, we wouldn’t be at this point today."

    Via Bloomberg:

    • *FED AUDIT BILL OPPOSED BY BERNANKE GAINS APPROVAL BY U.S. HOUSE
    • *FED AUDIT BILL NEEDS SENATE APPROVAL, PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE
    • *FED AUDIT BILL SPONSORED BY REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL OF TEXAS



    Eric Cantor

    @GOPLeader
    The House passed H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012, in a 327-98 vote. pic.twitter.com/TDWNNabf


    25 Jul 12



    Via Politico:




    “I’m pleased. It’s something I’ve worked on for a long time, and it’s a good first step,” Paul told POLITICO. “It’s coming to the floor as a response to the American people, because I don’t have a whole lot of clout around here.”

    Paul really doesn’t want this bill to be treated as his swan song in Congress, but to some extent this vote represents a coda to an eccentric congressional career. Paul’s movement has always been stronger outside the Capitol than inside it, yet the fact that at least one of his ideas is starting to break through shows that he may still have some clout on the national stage, even if he’s leaving the congressional payroll and ditching his presidential runs.

    And even though a return to the gold standard, legalization of drugs and abolishing the Federal Reserve remain pipe dreams, Paul believes the traction on his Audit the Fed bill does validate his grass-roots, populist approach to monetary policy.

    “I like to think of it more as verifying that my approach is a little bit different than just becoming a powerful player and having an influence, versus really changing people’s minds,” he said. “Events have also brought it about because these last five years have been so important to the economy. If the crisis hadn’t hit, I don’t think I could have gotten as much attention.

    “Government reflects the people, sometimes that happens slowly,” he said. “When the American people get upset, Congress listens.”
    and some useful comments from the opposers of the bill...




    Never mind that the Fed audit is dead in the Senate — Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office has said he won’t bring it up.

    There are still many Democrats who aren’t convinced, like Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). “There is an audit of the Fed done every year. It’s not what Dr. Paul prefers, but I think the public has been misled in believing there’s no accountability. That’s not accurate,” Cleaver said. “I do think there are times when members will vote for something they don’t normally like as a tribute to members that are departing. Some of that may happen.”

    And Hoyer said no matter how many Democrats are co-sponsors, he still thinks the bill is bad policy — and he’s urging Democrats not to support it.

    “Whatever the motivation is, and however broad the sponsorship is, my own view is that it’s bad policy,” Hoyer told reporters on Wednesday. “It will undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve and will, therefore, undermine the competence in the Federal Reserve, which plays a significant role in stabilizing the economy and addressing the creation of jobs.”
    and the full roll-call...



    Ron Paul's 'Audit-The-Fed' Swan Song Passes House, Unlikely To Pass Senate | ZeroHedge



    Good thing Harry Reid (who controls the senate) stole the election uh? (Remember, his SON ran the electronic voting machines in the state and before power went down, Reid was LOSING by quite a lot and... BOOM, power goes out, when it goes back on, Reid is winning... what a coincidence!)

    Trillions of $$$ and thousands of corrupt banksters on the line... if you think they wouldn't rig an election over it, you're lying to yourself.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #5996
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Dennis Kucinich on the Fed ‘What's at stake here is our liberty, our national sovereignty – Ron Paul knows that’

    Submitted by Kurt Wallace on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 18:39
    Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) cosponsor of H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Dennis Kucinich on the Fed ’What's at stake here is our liberty, our national sovereignty – Ron Paul knows that’ to discuss the Federal Reserve Transparency Act – what are they hiding? He discusses working with Ron Paul ‘Ron Paul is a great American’.

    He discusses working with Dr. Paul on fighting against the wars, defending our civil liberties and the patriot act.

    Listen to the Interview Here!


    Dennis Kucinich on the Fed
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #5997
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Guest Post: CFR Globalists Say Don’t Worry - “Your Guns Are In Safe Hands”



    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/25/2012 08:45 -0400




    From Brandon Smith of Alt-Market

    CFR Globalists Say Don’t Worry - “Your Guns Are In Safe Hands”

    It’s funny, I was worried about my Second Amendment rights just a moment ago, but now that the Council On Foreign Relations, a global governance think tank and inbred cesspool of despotic elitism, has explained the situation to me, I suddenly feel at ease…

    In preparation for the fast approaching UN summit on “international conventional arms trade” in New York, the CFR has published yet another disinformation piece skewing the facts and twisting reality to lull Americans into a state of apathy:
    http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2012/07...in-safe-hands/

    Am I surprised that the CFR would rehash the talking points of the UN and declare uninhibited support for their worldwide gun grabbing bid? Of course not. The CFR and the UN are part and parcel of the same nefarious sea monster; each tentacle does its duty to rend sovereign ships asunder.

    However, such propaganda articles from establishment organizations do give us an opportunity to dissect and annihilate a host of lies and misdirections in one fell swoop. There may not be much sport in pulling apart the CFR’s poorly composed arguments, but, it has to be done…

    CFR writers Stewart Patrick and Emma Welch begin with a kind of red herring distraction, immediately bringing up the internal conflicts in Syria as some kind of rationale for the UN putting its nose into the gun buying habits of sovereign countries.

    I would like to point out that most of the “illegally procured” firearms being shipped into Syria are coming from the U.S. to supply an insurgency which is now looking more and more like a bought and paid for destabilizing false flag army rather than a true and honest revolution for freedom:

    Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination - The Washington Post

    I am highly doubtful that the UN has any intention of stopping this activity on the part of the U.S., primarily because they have never declared opposition to the covert support of Syrian rebels. On top of this, the guidelines of the UN Small Arms Treaty are so broad that they could be interpreted any number of ways to fit any number of desired outcomes. If the UN wanted to label the supply of U.S. arms to Syrian insurgents “legal” within the bounds of the treaty, they could.

    The injection of Syria into the treaty issue by the CFR is an obvious ploy designed to make you falsely associate the UN action as being useful in combating Syrian destabilization, even though this is in no way the UN’s goal.

    Ironically, after slipping the Syrian crisis into the discussion to manipulate readers, without mentioning the U.S. government’s involvement in the clandestine supply of arms to the opposition movement, the CFR then attacks Iran’s involvement in the treaty as hypocritical, because of their alleged funneling of arms to the Assad regime.

    So, within the first two paragraphs of their article, the Council on Foreign Relations has dishonestly tied Syria to the gun treaty debate with cherry-picked data and criticized Iran for supposed crimes of which the U.S. is also guilty. This kind of disinformation truly boggles the mind…

    The article continues by outlining the “horrors” of the small arms trade, which it immediately associates with terrorism, rogue states (of which they apparently include Iran, but not the U.S.), and criminal syndicates. When, in fact, most of the arms deals taking place in shadow markets around the world are consistently discovered to be facilitated by governments themselves (as the Syria crisis clearly illustrates as well as the Fast and Furious scandal).

    I still have not seen any indication from the UN that this is a problem for them as long as participating governments play the globalist game.

    You can read the text of the Small Arms Treaty here:
    IAPCAR » BREAKING NEWS: UN Arms Trade Treaty – Full Proposed Document

    The only thing the UN treaty accomplishes is a double standard in favor of establishment entities to which the rules do not apply. A destabilized Syria serves globalist interests, and so, the insurgency WILL get U.S. arms, and the United Nations WILL look the other way, treaty or no treaty.

    The CFR goes on to claim that:

    “…participating countries generally agree that a treaty is desperately needed and long overdue…”

    This is to paint a false image of consensus in the minds of readers. It is as if we are supposed to say “well, if everyone is for it, then I am too…”

    Only a few lines later, the article contradicts itself by lamenting:

    “…despite three years of preparations and nearly a decade of advocacy campaigns, there remains a lack of consensus on the scope, criteria, and implementation of the treaty. The usual suspects, Russia, China, and—to a certain extent—the United States, are among the most influential of a handful of countries raising objections, particularly over the proposed inclusion of small arms and ammunition, human rights criteria, and regulatory measures. And to compound matters, the United States continues to face domestic opposition to its participation in the treaty negotiations…”

    So, we finally get to the heart of that which chaps the CFR’s behind, and the primary reason the article was written: Domestic opposition to U.S. participation in the UN treaty.

    Government opposition to the treaty is not what worries the UN. Barack Obama will sign the accord in a heartbeat and salivate while doing it. What does concern the globalists is the fact that so many Americans, millions of them, are largely against the proposition. This fact, in itself, is very revealing of their true intentions.

    Why is it that, though the UN has clear support from our President and our Secretary of State, they are so adamant about public support and acceptance?

    Senate ratification may become a stumbling bloc, but their arguments do not address the senate; they address us as citizens.

    Why is the CFR so concerned with convincing us that the treaty is “harmless”?

    If the treaty is going to be signed regardless of what we feel, and if it is truly not a threat to our rights, then why not simply pass the resolution, and show us through action that our right to own firearms is not under threat? Why are the UN and the CFR so interested in manufacturing our consent?

    The reality is, laws and treaties, domestic and international, are mostly implemented to achieve psychological acceptance from the populace. If a law or set of principles is written down and praised by the bureaucratic circus, but the people do not embrace the action, then the lawmakers have ultimately accomplished nothing. They are not satisfied with codification. They want cultural identification. They want people to love the new law.

    I have found in my time tracking and analyzing corrupt law, the harder the shills work to convince you that a particular regulation is innocuous, the more dangerous it ends up becoming.

    The CFR continues by giving a deliberately weak sided opposing view to the treaty by quoting arguments from the NRA and Mitt Romney, of all people. The NRA has many times in the past actually contributed to the support of laws in the U.S. which are undermining to the 2nd Amendment and has long been considered by knowledgeable gun right advocates to be controlled opposition.

    Mitt Romney’s (flip-flopper extraordinaire) record on gun control is no better than Obama’s:

    Mitt Romney's Flip-Flop On Gun Control, Assault Weapons And The NRA - Business Insider

    The CFR would of course never quote true and intelligent proponents of gun rights, like Gun Owners of America, for instance. Otherwise, their string of logical fallacies would be completely disrupted.

    That said, the threat to American sovereignty and Constitutional protections is indeed on the minds of many in this country. The CFR labels these concerns “inflammatory” and “unfounded”. They list the stock responses and talking points which have no doubt been composed and passed around by the UN.

    I have listed them below, along with the reasons why they are disingenuous:

    1) The treaty is limited to the international trade of conventional arms, which pertains to the buying, selling, transshipping, transferring, or loaning across borders.

    Don’t worry America, the UN treaty only covers the importation and exportation of firearms, says the CFR. I would like to remind you, though, of similar situations that have been exploited by the Federal Government here in the U.S. in the name of the Commerce Clause. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to allow the Federal Government some oversight over the FOREIGN and INTERSTATE trade of goods. Sovereign states were meant to retain governance over all internal commerce.

    Unfortunately over time, especially since FDR’s presidency and the New Deal, the government has used and abused the commerce clause, subjugating the rights of states and claiming authority over ALL trade, not just external trade. Even when a state takes a stand on a particular form of commerce, as Montana has with firearms or medical marijuana, the Federal Government has ignored local law and unleashed alphabet agencies like the FBI, ATF, and FDA to crush dissenters. I have no doubt that the UN will eventually abuse the Small Arms Treaty just as our Federal Government has abused the Commerce Clause.

    2) The draft text of the treaty explicitly recognizes “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through the constitutional protections on private ownership.

    As stated above, there are no guarantees on this. Also, there has been a consistent push by globalist academia to assert that treaties somehow “supersede” Constitutional protections. This argument comes primarily from a misguided interpretation of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution by men like Chief Justice John Marshal, who said in 1829:

    “A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument…In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature…”

    Marshal was a very confused and foolish interpreter of the Constitution, at least in this instance. In regards to treaties and the Supremacy Clause in general the Constitution clearly states:

    “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    Meaning, all laws and treaties are subject to the guidelines of Constitutional rights and the laws of the states first and foremost. If a law or treaty violates those rights, it is null and void. Period. Sadly, this fact has not stopped the use of treaties by certain government officials and think tanks as an argument for an end run around the Constitution.

    3) In response to the charges that the treaty would co-opt U.S. national sovereignty, arms control experts argue that the treaty would have “little to no impact” on existing regulatory processes…

    By signing this treaty, the U.S. would indeed lose sovereignty. The CFR acts as if the UN is simply handing out a short list of guidelines and giving regulatory control to nation states. It would seem they have not read the fine print.

    Article 13 of the UN treaty establishes what they call the “Implementation Support Unit”. This group collects data from member countries, oversees the enforcement of treaty provisions, asserts final authority over the interpretation of said provisions, collects financial obligations from member countries, and centralizes the entire process under one roof. The ISU will be a UN agency that administrates over the U.S. and other countries when it comes to the trade of small arms. For the CFR to claim that the U.S. will not lose sovereignty is a flagrant falsehood.

    4) In an attempt to diminish concerns that the UN will overstep its bounds when it comes to U.S. sovereignty, the CFR states: “The United States already has in place a rigorous export control system, defined as the “gold standard.” Instead, the treaty is primarily aimed at countries in which rigorous controls and oversight are absent, in an attempt to harmonize and coordinate standards worldwide…”

    My question is, if the United States ALREADY has a rigorous export control system, then why is it necessary for us to join the UN gun treaty at all???

    The CFR moves forward by stating that the U.S. must use its position to “set an example”, but it would appear that we already have set that example according to the CFR’s own words. What purpose then does a UN treaty on guns serve? Why do we need the UN to mediate anything? Does anyone have a logical explanation for this? I would enjoy hearing it.

    I believe that the UN Small Arms Treaty is another step, perhaps an important step, in the imposition of a subversive philosophy: that gun ownership is an affront to the “globally conscious”. That it is a barbaric relic of a bygone era, and that it is no longer practical in our modern times. The mass shooting in Colorado this past week has been used as a rallying point for the anti-gun fervor, but what that event really showed us is what the world would be like if law abiding citizens were totally disarmed (as they were in Aurora by anti-carry laws within the city).

    Criminals will always be able to get weapons, and they will almost always choose targets that are unarmed and low risk. If Americans lose their right to bear arms, I can promise that we will see massacres like the Aurora Theater attack on a regular basis.

    As far as national sovereignty is concerned, the CFR is completely unqualified to comment. CFR members have in the past openly admitted the true purpose of their organization, which is to eliminate national sovereignty and institute global governance:

    "The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind,
    that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to
    American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization.
    Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further
    popular education."

    CFR "American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments", 1944

    "The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ... [and] ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established…I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known." Dr. Carroll Quigley, CFR Member, Mentor to Bill Clinton, from Tragedy and Hope

    "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbott, CFR Member

    In light of this information, I find the Council On Foreign Relations’ attempts to reassure us on the safety of our sovereignty rather hilarious. Their blind stab at defending the UN’s gun treaty tells me all I need to know. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and no quarter should be given to these people. None. Their intentions are not honorable, and they often seek to deceive to get what they want. Our safest bet is to stand in the way of any action they choose to support. If it’s good for them, it will invariably be bad for us.

    Guest Post: CFR Globalists Say Don
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #5998
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    S 202 - Audit the Fed: 20 Co-sponsors

    Submitted by sunny on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 19:11
    Daily Paul Liberty Forum
    DP Original

    Updated on June 1, 2012

    On record so far at www.thomas.gov

    Title: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011

    Sponsor: Sen Paul,Rand [KY] (introduced 1/26/2011)

    Cosponsors: (20)

    Latest Major Action: 1/26/2011 Referred to Senate committee.

    Status: Referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

    Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] - 1/26/2011
    Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 1/26/2011
    Sen Lee, Mike [UT] - 3/1/2011
    Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 5/24/2011
    Sen Boozman, John [AR] - 5/24/2011
    Sen Heller, Dean [NV] - 6/22/2011
    Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 7/25/2011
    Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 9/6/2011
    Sen Risch, James E. [ID] - 10/6/2011
    Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] - 10/6/2011
    Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 10/6/2011
    Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] - 10/6/2011
    Sen Barrasso, John [WY] - 10/6/2011
    Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 10/6/2011
    Sen Thune, John [SD] - 10/6/2011
    Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 10/6/2011
    Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] - 10/6/2011
    Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 10/31/2011
    Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 10/31/2011
    Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 3/28/2012

    S 202 - Audit the Fed: 20 Co-sponsors | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #5999
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    The Audit The Fed Bill Gets Passed By The House But Obama And The Democrats Are Going To Kill It


    On Wednesday, Ron Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve was overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The vote was 327 to 98. You would think that a bill with such overwhelming support would easily become law. But it won't, because Barack Obama and the Democrats plan to kill it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already said that the Senate will not even consider the bill. But of course if Barack Obama called Harry Reid and told him that he wants this bill to get through the Senate so that he could sign it then Harry Reid would be singing a much different tune.

    Sadly, we all know that is not going to happen. Barack Obama's good buddy Ben Bernanke called the Audit the Fed bill a "
    nightmare scenario" last week, and Obama is certainly not going to do anything to upset Bernanke - especially this close to the election. Obama needs Bernanke to do everything that he possibly can to stimulate the economy so that Obama will look as good as possible in November. The sad truth is that there is absolutely no chance that the Audit the Fed bill will become law and that is a crying shame.

    So why is an audit of the Federal Reserve so important?

    Why does Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke consider an audit of the Federal Reserve to be a "nightmare scenario" that must be avoided at all costs?

    Well, perhaps it is because there has never been a true comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve since it was created back in 1913.

    The Federal Reserve has more power over the economy than anyone else in the country does, and yet they are virtually unaccountable and the American people have very little idea what has been going on behind closed doors over at the Fed for the past 100 years.
    A very limited audit of the Fed that was passed a couple of years ago that examined transactions during the last financial crisis discovered that the Federal Reserve had actually loaned out more than 16 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free money to the "too big to fail" banks between 2007 and 2010.
    Keep in mind that U.S. GDP for the entire year of 2011 was only slightly more than 15 trillion dollars.
    The Federal Reserve loaned out trillions upon trillions of dollars to their friends and never told the American people about it.
    Whoa.
    You would think that Congress would be quite eager to see what else has been going on over at the Federal Reserve.
    But instead, many Democrats are completely and utterly opposed to auditing the Fed any further.
    U.S. Representative Barney Frank (a Democrat) seemed to regard the bill as a joke even after it overwhelmingly passed in the House. Frank stated that "nobody here thinks this will ever become law".
    According to Politico, there is zero chance that the bill will get through the U.S. Senate....
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said the Senate will not consider the bill, effectively killing its chances of becoming law.
    But we all know that if Obama wanted this bill to become law that it would be a done deal.
    If Barack Obama came out tomorrow in front of the television cameras and declared his support for this bill it would sail right through the Senate.
    Unfortunately, the Obama administration has made it very clear that it considers a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve to be a really, really bad idea.
    For example, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner once stated that auditing the Fed is a "line that we don’t want to cross" and that if we did audit the Fed it would be "problematic for the country".
    So what exactly did he mean by that?
    That is a very good question.
    In any event, people should take this as an opportunity to confront Barack Obama about the Audit the Fed bill wherever he goes.
    Perhaps Obama will prove me wrong.
    Perhaps Obama will show that he is willing to stand up to the Federal Reserve.
    In fact, if Obama gets this bill pushed through Congress and signs it into law, I will not criticize him for an entire month.
    But we all know that will never happen.
    The Federal Reserve is going to be able to continue to keep their secrets hidden from the American people.
    The following is what Ron Paul had to say following the vote on Wednesday....
    "I think the whole idea that they can deal in trillions of dollars and know that nobody is allowed to ask them a question is a moral hazard."
    And Ron Paul is right.
    If the Federal Reserve can zap trillions of dollars into existence out of thin air and loan that money to their friends at the big banks and to central banks in other countries, then it should not be too much to ask them to be accountable to the American people.
    Over the coming months, the American people will heatedly debate whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would be better for the U.S. economy.
    But the truth is that the Federal Reserve has far more power over the U.S. economy than the president of the United States does.
    The Federal Reserve has been called the "fourth branch of government" because of how much power it has. The Federal Reserve sets our interest rates, it determines the level of our money supply, it regulates and secretly bails out our banks, it determines the "target rates" for unemployment and inflation, and every small move the Fed makes causes global financial markets to swing wildly.
    The Federal Reserve does all of this without ever having to be accountable to the American people. In fact, whenever a bill is introduced that would shed some light on their activities they whine and cry about how important their "independence" is.
    In a previous article, I described how preposterous this all is....
    For a moment, imagine that there is a privately-owned organization in the United States that can create U.S. dollars out of thin air whenever it wants and can loan that money to whoever it wants to. Imagine that this organization is able to act with the full power of the U.S. government behind it, but that nobody in the organization is ever elected by the American people, and that for all practical purposes the organization is not accountable to the president or to Congress. Imagine that the organization is able to make trillions of dollars of secret loans to banks, to foreign governments and even to their close friends without ever having to face a comprehensive audit. Does that sound preposterous? Well, such an organization actually exists.
    The American people need to stand up and demand an audit of the Federal Reserve.
    We deserve to know what is going on over there.
    Sadly, the mainstream media makes it sound as if hell has a better chance of freezing over than this bill does of becoming law. The following is from a USA Today article that was posted on Wednesday....
    The bill stands no chance of becoming law because the Democratic-controlled Senate will not take it up. The vote, however, served as a symbolic swan song for Paul, who is not seeking re-election. It is also an indicator of how Paul's economic views have gone more mainstream, particularly within the Republican Party, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis that shook Americans' confidence in Wall Street and the federal government.
    Well, let us hope that this kind of a bill keeps getting introduced in Congress.
    Perhaps someday we actually will get a real audit of the Federal Reserve.
    When that happens, the following is a list of questions that I would like to see asked by those auditing the Fed....
    If the Federal Reserve is supposed to prevent shocks to our economy, then why have there been 10 different economic recessions since 1950 and why are we about to enter another one?
    Was the Federal Reserve involved in the manipulation of Libor?
    What role did the Federal Reserve playing in creating the housing bubble that resulted in an unprecedented housing crash?
    Why has the value of the U.S. dollar fallen by 83 percent since 1970?
    Why is the Federal Reserve paying U.S. banks not to lend money?
    Why did Barack Obama nominate Ben Bernanke for a second term as head of the Federal Reserve when Bernanke has a track record of failure that makes the Chicago Cubs look like a roaring success?
    Why is the U.S. national debt more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913?
    Why were the Federal Reserve and the personal income tax both pushed through Congress in the same year in 1913?
    Why does the Federal Reserve argue that it is "not an agency" of the federal government in court?
    Why do all 187 nations that belong to the IMF have a central bank?
    Do you have any other questions that you would like to have asked during an audit of the Federal Reserve? Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below....

    Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere:

    The Audit The Fed Bill Gets Passed By The House But Obama And The Democrats Are Going To Kill It
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  10. #6000
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696



    On the GOP Platform

    Some have noted that in the modern era, party platforms haven’t amounted to a hill of beans. They are correct.

    But I would say the same is true, to a large degree, of our Constitution. Only recently, have conservatives began to emphasize that they are “constitutionalists” in a substantive way not seen in recent politics. Some mean it and others don’t. Few hold a candle to Ron Paul in this respect, who is now recognized as a constitutional standard bearer who even his critics will admit is without equal.

    Thanks to Ron Paul and his movement, more conservatives than ever think the Constitution is important again.

    Similarly, the Republican platform will only ever mean as much as Republicans want it to mean. When the Republican is George W. Bush or John McCain, for example, they could care less what is in their own party’s platform and proceed accordingly.

    But what about Republicans like Ron Paul? Rand Paul? Justin Amash? Perhaps possible future Republican Congressman Thomas Massie (KY)? Perhaps possible future Congressman Kerry Bentivolio (MI)? Perhaps future Republican Senators Kurt Bills (MN), Ted Cruz (TX) or John Brunner (MO)? Current Senators like Mike Lee and Jim DeMint who’ve been great allies on many liberty issues?

    Could these Republicans take positions on the Fed, foreign policy, civil liberties and other issues that differ from recent conventional Republican positions on the same issues, and bolster the liberty case by pointing out that their positions are also part of the official GOP platform? When conservatives make their case for abolishing the Department of Education to other Republicans, they often point out that abolishing it had been part of the Republican platform until 2000. They also emphasize that this part of the platform was a Reagan-era plank.

    Why do they mention this? Because it strengthens their case.

    This could also be true of any platform changes Ron Paul and his delegates make in Tampa, where Ron Paul Republicans running this year, in 2014, 2016 and beyond could take true constitutionalist positions and when they are inevitably attacked by the neoconservatives or perhaps people like Rick Santorum as somehow being Republican impostors, these candidates could readily point to the party’s platform.

    It is true that in modern times the Republican platform has largely been a rhetorical tool. But it is also true that it can be our rhetorical tool.

    It could also be something more. The Republican Party’s platform will have meaning to the degree that there are enough Republicans in office or running for office who actually mean what it says. Thanks to Ron Paul, we now have the potential and ability to elect these types of Republicans.

    The Constitution represents a fixed standard of what American government is supposed to look like. For much our history, politicians have ignored it. Now many Republican politicians find political benefit in revisiting it.

    The Republican Party’s official platform is supposed to be a fixed standard of what the party stands for. For much of the party’s modern history, Republicans have ignored it. To the degree that Ron Paul’s forces can have great influence in changing the platform is also to the degree that it could begin to matter again.

    Ron Paul’s movement has always been about principles above personalities. Given where we stood four years ago, codifying liberty principles in the official GOP platform will be a victory by any measure.

    On the GOP Platform*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •