Ron Paul (2010-2011)

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by alienHunter (here)

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about
many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions
disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted
restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism;
other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s
operations and detention practices."

This is called executive authority to declare war.

Oh, wait. I'm confused. Who are we at war with again? Oceania? Or Eastasia?

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT! The parallels between 1984 and the present day are uncanny. "War is peace." I hope you don't support our agression in libya hunter. That would be too much.

[Arrowwind]

Posted by alienHunter (here)

Posted by jackovesk (here)

Posted by alienHunter (here)
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

Your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the Constitution is another..!

the Constitution...another analogue to the Bible. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of either. They are both living documents and subject to contemporaneous perspective. As I have pointed out in various threads...the only wisdom not amenable to change is wisdom from the God/gods. Can you tell me which documents attain that level of sacrosanctity.

The constitution is not an analogue to the bible and it offends greatly that one would say so.

and it is because we have failed as a congress, as a senate, as presidents and judicary and as a people at large to maintian the rules of the constitution that we are in the dam mess that we are in today. Presidents are not suppost to declare war, judges are not suppose to legeslate. Senate and congress are not suppose to be bought and sold.

We know the constitutions origin clearly and it pushes no belief system on anyone except that for life liberty and the persuit of happiness and an orderly progression of acts to allow that to happen.
It forces society to accept all peoples of all cultural differences and of all means.. and has been put to the test of time.

Clearly the bible in its 1500 years of existence has been used for the repression of all women and most successfully, until the US constitution came to stand up agaist it. As the principles of the constitution came alive within humanity the church was forced down and women became free.. and will become freer yet as the corrupt nature of churches are more fully revealed including the lies and ommisions in the bible desinged to disempower woman.. which really means to keep men in power.

The hostilitites promoted by presidents went outside of legal bounds and often based on lies.. consider the bay of Tonkin incident as well as Iraq and the Iran event that we are currently heading for, not to mention Libya where Obama circumented congressional approval by going in under NATO to put in harms way US citizens in the military without the approval of the US citizens.. This should be illegal and an ammendement to the constittuion is warrented for this transgression. . WE need a leader who will not do this and will stand up against it.

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by arrowwind (here)

Posted by alienhunter (here)

Posted by jackovesk (here)

Posted by alienhunter (here)
you're right, i was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the military does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the congress and the executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the constitution is another..!

the constitution...another analogue to the bible. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of either. They are both living documents and subject to contemporaneous perspective. As i have pointed out in various threads...the only wisdom not amenable to change is wisdom from the god/gods. Can you tell me which documents attain that level of sacrosanctity.

the constitution is not an analogue to the bible and it offends greatly that one would say so.

and it is because we have failed as a congress, as a senate, as presidents and judicary and as a people at large to maintian the rules of the constitution that we are in the dam mess that we are in today. Presidents are not suppost to declare war, judges are not suppose to legeslate. Senate and congress are not suppose to be bought and sold.

we know the constitutions origin clearly and it pushes no belief system on anyone except that for life liberty and the persuit of happiness and an orderly progression of acts to allow that to happen.
it forces society to accept all peoples of all cultural differences and of all means.. And has been put to the test of time.

clearly the bible in its 1500 years of existence has been used for the repression of all women and most successfully, until the us constitution came to stand up agaist it. As the principles of the constitution came alive within humanity the church was forced down and women became free.. And will become freer yet as the corrupt nature of churches are more fully revealed including the lies and ommisions in the bible desinged to disempower woman.. Which really means to keep men in power.

the hostilitites promoted by presidents went outside of legal bounds and often based on lies.. Consider the bay of tonkin incident as well as iraq and the iran event that we are currently heading for, not to mention libya where obama circumented congressional approval by going in under nato to put in harms way us citizens in the military without the approval of the us citizens.. This should be illegal and an ammendement to the constittuion is warrented for this transgression. . We need a leader who will not do this and will stand up against it.

hear hear!

[Arrowwind]

This article clearly points out the problem with the new bill.

Could Target Americans for Military Detention

By Dr. Harold Pease

Civil libertarians and constitutional buffs are angrier with the Federal Governemnt now than at any time since the Bush Patriot Act was pushed onto the American People ten years ago. Buried deep within the over 600 pages, $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act is language that "would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to Al Qaeda or its affiliates, even those captured on U.S. soil indifinitely" and without trial on the say so of the miliarty though the President alone. Moreover, even Americans could be removed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, against their will and deprived fo their constitutional rights.

The fury has to do with U.S. citizenship. Origianlly Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, who sponsored the bill, did not exempt U.S. citizens - a serious omission which dumps sizable portions of Amendemnts 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill of Rights. Senators Paul, Dianne Feinstein and others demanding a citizen exclusion proposed amendments to do so, all of which were rejected. Senator Fienstein noted that her goal "was to assure the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists." The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, following the Civil War forbade the U.S. miliary from performing law enforcement functions of American soil. The American Cilil Liberties Union was also blunt. "Since the bill puts miliarty detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, Amercian citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the militarty without charge or trial if this bill becomes law." When asked if it were possible for an American to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay, John McCain, a co-author of the bill, said yes. Senator Lindsey Long was more blunt. "When they say 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them. 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer."

Finally, Dianne Feinstein successfully got Senate colleagues to accept a weakened version of the same thing, "nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens." Even while getting this clarification Senator Levin was still arguing, "that the June 2004 Supreme Court decsision n Hamdi v. Runsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indifinitely." So, since it was so difficult to get an exclusion, for American, and the co-autohors of the bill, Senators Levin and McCain, say that it does include U.S. citizens as well. Why would a weak exclusion give civil libertarians any comfort? It doesn't.

Some things are very clear. The terms "terrorists" and "affiliates" are not adequately defined, the President is given way to much power, and it violates the U.S. Constitution upon which everyone voting has sworn to uphold. It is hard to trust the government's precise definititon of terrorists when Vice President Joe Biden, a few weeks ago referred to Tea Partiers as terrorists and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a few months prior to this referred to them as mobsters, (a term also implying a threat to society). What guarantee to we have that the "new" enemy does not simply rotate to anyone defined as "anti-government," citizen or not?

The measure places to much power and trust in the office of the President which has not proved particularly trustworthy in the past with respect to the Constitutional and civil libery. Franklin D Roosevelt, with the storke of a pen, detained thousands of Japanese Americans in "relocation camps" in World War II on the basis of race and potential terrorism alone. Jose Padilla, allegedly an affiliate of al Qaeda, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago for having plans to "detonate a dirty bomb," was tortured and confinded, without benefit of a lawyer for three years, by then President George W. Bush; all this within the borders of the United States. No acutal evidence of a d "dirty bomb" wa ever produced, nor was Padilla ever charged with a crime. Two other Americans, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, had similar torture experiences as did Padilla but with less time in solitary confinement, again without chares. (see details in the December 5 issue of the New American). Ulitmatley, with no evidence to support their confinement, they were set free.

And if Americans are sent to Guananamo Bay under this law, how much confidence can we have that if found innocent they would be set free, especially given President Barrack Obama's recent assertion, cited in the above referenc, that were miliatary commission to find them innocent they still "wound never be set free from prison." This is so wrong. Why should we have confidnece in any president to not use this power as seemeth him good?
The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawer, judege and trial is very serious. The miliatary performing police duties here to for rednederd by civil authorities is unconscionable in a free society. Only seven understood the Constitution well enough to vote no. Should President Obama sign this bill into law, I will follow with a column on how it emasculates Amendments 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill of Right. Until then pass this column alon gto others. It is your liberty at stake.

................................
Dr Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writtings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years, at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit
www.LibertyUnderFire.org

.......................

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by alienHunter (here)
Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

...And another thing! I don't think obama is essentially bad. Obama is a tool. His masters are bad, or rather just serve themselves. If a gun owner shoots somebody do you blame the gun? Is the gun bad? Did the gun have intent to harm someone? No. The gun is a tool. The person who had their finger on the trigger is responsible. The tool certainly isn't good either. It just carries out it's master's wishes. Obama is a tool and right now he is in the most dangerous of hands.

[Arrowwind]

Posted by AlternativeInfoJunkie (here)

Posted by alienHunter (here)
Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

...And another thing! I don't think obama is essentially bad. Obama is a tool. His masters are bad, or rather just serve themselves. If a gun owner shoots somebody do you blame the gun? Is the gun bad? Did the gun have intent to harm someone? No. The gun is a tool. The person who had their finger on the trigger is responsible. The tool certainly isn't good either. It just carries out it's master's wishes. Obama is a tool and right now he is in the most dangerous of hands.

I blame him for selling out, and under what duress I care not. He has stopped being a truth speaker and has become a puppet. I did not vote for a pupet and I thought maybe he had the balls to stand up and be a free man, not only for himself but for us all, but I guess not.
Probably the day he met with the Bilderburgs was the day our hope in him died.

[jackovesk]

Dec 17, 2011

You'll have to Watch the Video below and (See it to Believe it)..!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0gN5UrPB-xA

PS - MSM CAUGHT OUT YET AGAIN..!

[humanalien]

The MSM is just trying to demonize ron paul for not wanting
to send troops over there and giving them money.

[modwiz]

Posted by jackovesk (here)
Dec 17, 2011

You'll have to Watch the Video below and (See it to Believe it)..!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0gN5UrPB-xA

PS - MSM CAUGHT OUT YET AGAIN..!

With all due respect....Does this interviewer have a mind of her own? Not a cell! I guess Ron Paul is "pushing the envelope" like Conan O'Brien did.

The MSM news is the like the regurgitant mother birds feed their chicks.

[modwiz]

Well, he is now the front runner there. This graph shows how three of the candidate have been nothing more than a flavor of the month. To be sure, these people are jokes, but the real joke is the fickle American public. These graphs weave more than a drunk on a road. Severe bi-polarity is demonstrated here. It is hard to have a good democracy with so many unsteady minds.


It is a national disgrace.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...ontrunner.html

BTW. Who was running? Moe, Larry and Curly? Shemp will be next.

[sygh]

Posted by percival tyro (here)
Hi jackovesk. Ali.. One of my all time favourite human beings. Wonder what he would like to say about Obama.

He'd probably say, "I told you so."

This observation wasn't lost on me, prior to 2008. Since then, Obama has been used and abused by the globalists in a thousand different ways prior to, and during his presidency. If I were Obama, I'd want to b-----slap someone.

We all knew there was no way he wouldn't win. First of all, so many of us wanted to see a black man, or woman in the Oval office. But I also know Obama had no serious opponent, other than Ron Paul who was negated as a formidable.

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by Arrowwind (here)

Posted by AlternativeInfoJunkie (here)

Posted by alienHunter (here)
Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

...And another thing! I don't think obama is essentially bad. Obama is a tool. His masters are bad, or rather just serve themselves. If a gun owner shoots somebody do you blame the gun? Is the gun bad? Did the gun have intent to harm someone? No. The gun is a tool. The person who had their finger on the trigger is responsible. The tool certainly isn't good either. It just carries out it's master's wishes. Obama is a tool and right now he is in the most dangerous of hands.

I blame him for selling out, and under what duress I care not. He has gstopped being a truth speaker and has become a puppet. I did not vote for a pupet and I thought maybe he had the balls to stand up and be a free man, not only for himself but for us all, but I guess not.
Probably the day he met with the Bilderburgs was the day our hope in him died.

Well i mean you can be mad at him for not having a mind of his own i guess. But who knows how much mk ultra mind control hes been through? I just see him as an inanimate object with a big corporate puppeteer's hand up the back of his suit. And i certainly dont want one of those for a president!

[BMJ]

Posted by humanalien (here)
The MSM is just trying to demonize ron paul for not wanting
to send troops over there and giving them money.

But is seems to back fire. It seems possible that Netanyahu is indirectly saying he supports Ron Paul election, (which would be a message to American jews to take note of).

[Limor Wolf]

Pleeeease...I wouldn't even joke about it..

[Unified Serenity]

Posted by toad (here)
.... he calls the Palestine people 'invented'.

Hi Toad,

You may not be aware of this, but prior to the Balfour agreement, there were not nearly as many "Palestinian" in the region now called Israel. As soon as it was made known that the "Jews" were going to come back to the land, Arab and Muslim people were encouraged to leave their countries and take up residence in the land. Thus, when the counting started after the Balfour agreement, and Arab / Muslim in the land was counted as indigenous as if from time immemorial and only the Jews entering were counted as immigrants.

Then these Arabs and Muslims were used as pawns by their homeland countries like Egypt, Syria, etc.. and not allowed to return when things got bad for them. It was either during the Yom Kippur war or the 6 day war that the "palestinian" people were told by Arab leaders to leave their homes because a full on attack was coming to destroy Israel, and so they left their new homes. Well, the Jews won, and they did not give back the homes which their enemies left, and that is when the "refuge camps" started. Talk about problem crisis solution being set up!

Now, they get to take pictures of all these unfortunate people who the nasty Jews kicked out of their homes! No one cares that this tiny nation of Israel was being attacked by it's neighbors who to this day deny their right to exist and want them all dead. No one cares that these interloper arabs and muslims (NOT Palestinians) pretended to be displaced when in fact they hadn't lived in the land for more than a decade or two. It's all been a set up, and for whose gain? I will go on to say that even Hitler's targeting the Jews was a set up in another problem crisis solution to set up the nation of Israel as prophesied. Are prophesies just being fulfilled via these people or do they have a millenia plus plan which we are all just pawns? I am really seriously thinking about this these days. How much is prophecy and how much is a well orchestrated plan of a very patient group?

So, many who claim to be Palestinian displaced from their homeland by the Jews are liars and are not Palestinians at all. There is a lot of documented proof on this. The news does not go into this history. It's like 1984 and who are we at war with again? It keeps changing depending on whose writing history.

[Referee]

Nice and uplifting IMO

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VE30TH6Y7cI

[jackovesk]

END THIS WAR

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lvhu9lUz-hE

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WNvOCcYIooI

[etm567]

I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...s-lew-rockwell

Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/...#ixzz1hBcRz6wF

[jackovesk]

Posted by etm567 (here)
I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...s-lew-rockwell

Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/...#ixzz1hBcRz6wF

Posted by etm567 (here)
I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

I'm Sorry YOU LIE..!

[etm567]

Posted by jackovesk (here)

I'm Sorry YOU LIE..!

No, I'm very sorry, but it isn't a lie. Please check it out. And I don't like being called a liar. Holy Moly, Business Insider is a very legit, mainstream publication. These newsletters are in the public record. Go read them yourself. But please, don't call me a liar.