Ron Paul on the IRS and Income Tax

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Charley Reese is a local writer for the Orlando Sentinel which is part of the Chicago Tribune network.

BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them thinking the public doesn’t know the difference.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, then why do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, then why do we have inflation and high taxes? They really don’t want you to know the truth!

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President proposes the budget. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. Only the House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. Note: the President is not in this circle.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million of our population – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. One of those cannot do it alone!

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority to do anything. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. That politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he and he alone will cast his vote.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY – Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault when in reality it is and they know it. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G. W. BUSH for creating deficits when in fact its the House under the leadership of that Speaker who originates spending bills.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? In the current case, Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, n ot the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto

REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million voters cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility to the people of this great country.

I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power over the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ , i t’s because they want them in Iraq.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote each one of them out of office if they do not return to a Government Of the People. By the People, and For the People. That will clean up their mess.

PS:  This is quite easily verified.

Chapter 1 Excerpt From The Revolution: A Manifesto

Chapter One

Every election season America is presented with a series of false choices. Should we launch preemptive wars against this country or that one? Should every American neighborhood live under this social policy or that one? Should a third of our income be taken away by an income tax or a national sales tax? The shared assumptions behind these questions, on the other hand, are never cast in doubt, or even raised. And anyone who wants to ask different questions or who suggests that the questions as framed exclude attractive, humane alternatives, is ipso facto excluded from mainstream discussion.

And so every four years we are treated to the same tired, predictable routine: two candidates with few disagreements on fundamentals pretend that they represent dramatically different philosophies of government.

The supposedly conservative candidate tells us about “waste” in government, and ticks off $10 million in frivolous pork-barrel projects that outrage him-the inevitable bridge-to-nowhere project, or a study of the effects of celery consumption on arresting memory loss-in order to elicit laughter and applause from partisan audiences. All right, so that’s 0.00045 percent of the federal budget dealt with; what does he propose to do with the other 99.99955 percent, in order to return our country to living within its means? Not a word. Those same three or four silly programs will be brought up all campaign long, and that’s all we’ll hear about where the candidate stands on spending. But conservatives are told that they must support these candidates, and so they do, hoping for the best. And nothing changes.

Even war doesn’t really distinguish the two parties from each other. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted for the Iraq war. With the exceptions of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, even the Democrats who postured as antiwar candidates for the 2008 primary elections are not especially opposed to needless wars. They typically have a laundry list of other military interventions they would support, none of which make any sense, would make our country any safer, or would do a thing to return our country to fiscal sanity. But liberals are told that they must support these candidates, and so they do, hoping for the best. And nothing changes.

A substantial portion of the conservative movement has become a parody of its former self. Once home to distinguished intellectuals and men of letters, it now tolerates and even encourages anti-intellectualism and jingoism that would have embarrassed earlier generations of conservative thinkers. There are still some good and decent conservative leaders to be found, and a portion of the grass roots has remained uncorrupted by the transformation of conservatism into just another Big Government movement. But Big Government at home and abroad seems to suit many conservative spokesmen just fine. Once in a while they will latch on to phony but conservative-sounding causes like “tax reform”-almost always a shell game in which taxes are shuffled around rather than actually reduced overall-in order to pacify the conservative base, but that’s about it.

When Republicans won a massive off-year election victory in 1994, neoconservative Bill Kristol immediately urged them not to do anything drastic but to wait until the Republicans took the White House in 1996. Well, the Republicans didn’t take the White House in 1996, so nothing ever got done. Instead, the Republican leadership urged these freshman congressmen to focus on a toothless, soporific agenda called the Contract with America that was boldly touted as a major overhaul of the federal government. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Contract with America was typical of what I have just described: no fundamental questions are ever raised, and even supposedly radical and revolutionary measures turn out to be modest and safe. In fact, the Brookings Institution in effect said that if this is what conservatives consider revolutionary, then they have basically conceded defeat.

Needless to say, I am also unimpressed by the liberal Left. Although they posture as critical thinkers, their confidence in government is inexcusably naive, based as it is on civics-textbook platitudes that bear absolutely zero resemblance to reality. Not even their position on unnecessary wars is consistent-Hillary Clinton and John Kerry both supported the Iraq war, for instance, and the major Democratic candidates in 2008 who claim to be antiwar are generally eager to invade some other country apart from Iraq. Even Howard Dean was all in favor of Bill Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia, going so far as to urge the president to take unilateral military action beyond the multilateral activity already taking place. Liberals at the grass roots, on the other hand, have been deeply alienated by the various betrayals by which a movement they once supported has made its peace with the establishment.

No wonder frustrated Americans have begun referring to our two parties as the Republicrats. And no wonder the news networks would rather focus on $400 haircuts than matters of substance. There are no matters of substance.

In late 2006, a number of friends and colleagues urged me to consider running for president. I was a reluctant candidate, not at all convinced that a sizable enough national constituency existed for a campaign based on liberty and the Constitution rather than on special-interest pandering and the distribution of loot.

Was I ever wrong.

On November 5, 2007, we set a record when we raised over $4 million online in a single day. That December 16, on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, we broke that record by raising over $6 million. In the fourth quarter of 2007, we raised more money than any other Republican candidate. Not only is the freedom message popular, but if fund-raising ability is any indication, it is more intensely popular than any other political message.

By the end of 2007, more than twice as many Meetup groups had been formed in support of our campaign than for all the rest of the candidates in both major parties combined. I have never seen such a diverse coalition rallying to a single banner. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, constitutionalists, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, antiwar activists, home-schoolers, religious conservatives, freethinkers-all were not only involved, but enthusiastically so. And despite their philosophical differences in some areas, these folks typically found, to their surprise, that they rather liked each other.

The mainstream media had no idea what to make of it, since we were breaking all the rules and yet still attracting such a varied and passionate following. I began making this a central point of my public speeches: the reason all these different groups are rallying to the same banner, I said, is that freedom has a unique power to unite us.

In case that sounds like a clich, it isn’t. It’s common sense. When we agree not to treat each other merely as means to our own selfish ends, but to respect one another as individuals with rights and goals of our own, cooperation and goodwill suddenly become possible for the first time.

My message is one of freedom and individual rights. I believe individuals have a right to life and liberty and that physical aggression should be used only defensively. We should respect each other as rational beings by trying to achieve our goals through reason and persuasion rather than threats and coercion. That, and not a desire for “economic efficiency,” is the primary moral reason for opposing government intrusions into our lives: government is force, not reason.

People seem to think I am speaking of principles foreign to the Republican tradition. But listen to the words of Robert A. Taft, who in the old days of the Republican Party was once its standard-bearer:

When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as “free enterprise.” I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world; liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it ought to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to do the same thing.

As we’ll see in a later chapter, Taft was also an opponent of needless wars and of unconstitutional presidential war-making.

This is the Republican tradition to which I belong.

Early on in my presidential campaign, people began describing my message and agenda as a “revolution.” In a way, it is, albeit a peaceful one. In a country with a political debate as restricted as ours, it is revolutionary to ask whether we need troops in 130 countries and whether the noninterventionist foreign policy recommended by our Founding Fathers might not be better. It is revolutionary to ask whether the accumulation of more and more power in Washington has been good for us. It is revolutionary to ask fundamental questions about privacy, police-state measures, taxation, social policy, and countless other matters.

This revolution, though, is not altogether new. It is a peaceful continuation of the American Revolution and the principles of our Founding Fathers: liberty, self-government, the Constitution, and a noninterventionist foreign policy. That is what they taught us, and that is what we now defend.

I was never interested in writing a campaign book as they tend to have (deservedly) short shelf lives. But the ideas I have been promoting, and which have struck such a powerful chord with so many Americans, are ideas that are overlooked and neglected because they do not fit into the template of trivial questions with which I opened this chapter. This book is an opportunity to highlight and explain them in the kind of systematic fashion that campaign speeches and presidential debates simply do not allow.

The revolution my supporters refer to will persist long after my retirement from politics. Here is my effort to given them a long-term manifesto based on ideas, and perhaps some short-term marching orders.

At the same time, I am also describing what the agenda of George W. Bush’s successor should be if we want to move toward a free society once again. Our country is facing an unprecedented financial crisis precisely because the questions our political and media establishments allow us to ask are so narrow. Whether or not politicians actually want to hear them, it has never been more important for us to begin posing significant and fundamental questions. “In all affairs,” Bertrand Russell once said, “it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” I’m not in the habit of quoting Russell, but when in American history has his sentiment been more true?

Message from Ron Paul

April 30, 2008

Today is an exciting day for our campaign and our movement: my new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, is officially released.

Although a short book, it is the product of many years of thought and action. It is a defense of the principles to which you and I have devoted our lives.

My friends are calling it “Ron Paul’s legacy.”

These principles – individual liberty, sound money, the Constitution, and the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers – have had no home in American politics for a very long time. With The Revolution: A Manifesto, I’m letting the establishment know we’re not going away.

Finally, Americans can hear and judge these great American principles for themselves, instead of through an unfriendly media filter. And they can learn once and for all that they need not be satisfied with the phony choices the system offers them every four years. Another way really is possible.

Two days ago I did a book signing in New York at the Borders on Wall Street. All 530 copies had been sold before I even arrived.

They had underestimated you again.

Imagine the attention our cause and our principles could attract with a fantastic opening day today, with people marching into bookstores across the country for their copies. If it should become a publishing phenomenon, The Revolution: A Manifesto can fuel our revolution for a long time to come. You can make that happen.

I hope you enjoy this book, which was a real labor of love for me. Please spread the word.

And may the future be ours.

Ron Paul

Marijuana: It’s Time For A Conversation

Before you watch, I want to say a few things.

It doesnt matter that this video was produced and funded by the ACLU.

This video parrots what William F. Buckley said for years.

Prohibition doesnt not work. All it accomplishes is driving it underground, inflating the cost, and sucks Billions per year out of the economy. I dont have to go into tax bennifit; that is a no brainer.

Please watch with an open mind, hard as that might be for some.

Thanks,

Todash19

Have You Left No Sense Of Decency?

Bob Cesca’s Goddamn Awesome Blog! GO!

(FROM HUFFINGTON POST)

If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it’s very likely we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they’ve spent on Wright, we wouldn’t necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.

If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran’s so-called nuclear program as they’ve been about Wright, there wouldn’t be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking — or entirely obliterating — Iran.

So what is the very serious corporate media, the only industry that is explicitly protected by the Constitution, doing to remedy their failures of the recent past? Rather than watchdogging the Bush administration and Senator McCain on Iraq, Iran, the economy and all the rest of it — areas in which Senator McCain is laughably wrong and dangerously inconsistent — what are we seeing instead?

All three major cable news networks are wasting valuable air time on Senator Obama’s former pastor. Why? Is the story newsworthy? Sure. Is wall-to-wall Wright coverage more important than Iraq or gas prices or the climate crisis? No way. But Reverend Wright is a scary, shouting black man and scary shouting black men equal ratings-sweet-ratings.

We expect to see this sort of race-baiting behavior from Fox News Channel, but CNN and MSNBC have, once again, similarly crossed the tabloid threshold into the very same nefarious Roger Ailes realm by beating this nothing story to death.

MSNBC, for example, continues to invite Pat Buchanan onto their air — a known race-baiter and author of a recent article in which he claims that, despite 300 years of slavery, America has been the best nation ever for black people (food stamps, for example). The article, by the way, totally ignores the reality that, had it not been for slavery and Jim Crow laws, Africans could very easily have immigrated to America as free people and enjoyed the benefits of our constitutional liberties; but the article also lords welfare and food stamps over the heads of African Americans — as if Buchanan ever once supported such measures in the first place.

Yet Buchanan gets thawed out of his cryo-freeze chamber every time there’s some race-baiting to be done. Of the thousands of Republicans at their disposal as a means of balancing out the brilliant Rachel and the equally brilliant Keith, MSNBC chooses the one Republican who’s known as much for his racism as he is for his high pitch voice. This leads me to believe that MSNBC is knowingly stoking the racial fires of the Wright story, simply because they continue to invite Buchanan to speak for the angry white men who think they’re God’s gift to black people (food stamps, for example).

The reality is that only one of the candidates is being attacked for their connections when, in fact, all three candidates have controversial and embarrassing relationships. The difference, as near as I can tell, is that only one candidate has an angry, shouting black connection. And — bonus! — there’s videotape of this angry, shouting black man suggesting that America is partly to blame for the attacks of September 11!

Wait, wait. That claim sounds familiar. Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said — and repeatedly so — that America’s “chickens have come home to roost”?

That’d be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let’s see here… Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?

“I think it’s all up for grabs, and I don’t think that anyone’s emerging. I think these people who are racing to declare anyone the true frontrunner at this point — I just don’t see it. Although I am partial to Ron Paul…” –Laura Ingraham

“That’s music to my ears, Laura.” –Tucker Carlson responding to Ingraham’s praise

“I like him personally, I know him personally… I will say that he is also the one candidate that everybody knows who fought against big government. He voted against unsure Medicare, the prescription drugs, and No Child Left Behind. He’s consistent, he’s courageous.” –Pat Buchanan

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” –Ronald Reagan

“[Ron Paul] is the only candidate out there that’s talking like a lot of us talked in 94. And that’s what a lot of Americans want but no one will say anything anymore…I bet he’s gonna shock a lot of people in New Hampshire.” –Joe Scarborough

“He’s a very engaging person… I’d like to see him as president.”"I think I’m fondest of Ron Paul… He’s the only person I agree with on foreign policy.”

“Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) continues to amaze on many levels, and he had finally started to register on the polls. In last Tuesday’s Midwestern ice storm, almost every Iowa event was cancelled. The exception was a Paul rally, which drew hundreds. His crowds are regularly huge and enthusiastic. He chalked up another record fundraising day on Sunday’s anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, with more than $6 million in online donations in a single day.” –Bob Novak

“The most honest man in Congress.” –Senator John McCain

With the exception of President Reagan of course, I expect all of these Republicans politicians and pundits will step forward and declare their intentions to sever all ties to Congressman Paul, and to subsequently retract all praise for the Congressman.

How about it, Joe Scarborough? Does Ron Paul really talk like you used to talk? And would you, Pat Buchanan, define blaming America for September 11 as “courageous.” And do you still support Ron Paul, Tucker? If Ron Paul is the most honest man in Congress, Senator McCain, does that mean he’s telling the truth about September 11?

Naturally, the difference here is that Congressman Paul is a white Republican, and Reverend Wright is crazy shouting black pastor. Many (too many) white Americans fear angry black people, even though, given the historical record, we all ought to fear old, white, powerful Republicans a little more than we do right now.

What about other white Republicans who have said equally crazy things? Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed Senator McCain, just recently claimed that God “damned” New Orleans. Add that statement to the anti-Semitic statements and the anti-Catholic statements and you’ve got yourself a controversy. But are the cable networks cutting to live coverage of Pastor Hagee for two hours at a stretch? Are ABC and Fox News going to question Senator McCain about his relationship with Hagee — the same questions over and over again, backed with the same footage over and over again? Of course not.

In addition to Hagee’s awful remarks about New Orleans, the networks, by-in-large, skimmed past the news that this month has been the deadliest month in Iraq since September 2007. The networks continue to ignore the root causes of the current recession and Senator McCain’s promise to continue the Reaganomics of the current administration. The networks all but ignored Senator Clinton’s promise to “obliterate” Iran with nuclear weapons, even though hundreds of thousands of Iranian people, who held pro-American vigils after September 11, favor government reforms and disapprove of Ahmadinejad.

So I have to ask the appropriate network executives the familiar yet appropriate question: Have you no sense of decency at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

The constant, around-the-clock coverage has become a race-baiting spectacle far beyond the realms of journalistic decency, honor and integrity, especially given the slag heap through which most Americans are marching right now — a march which truly deserves wall-to-wall news coverage. And if the cable news networks can’t help but to prioritize their headlines with the same twisted fury as far-right talk show hosts or racist Republican strategists like Floyd Brown or Alex Castellanos, it’s clear that the answer to that famous question is a resounding “nope.”

UPDATE: Will Senator Clinton be asked to repudiate Governor Easley’s use of an anti-gay epithet? After all, Senator Clinton thought it was funny.

Ron Paul ankle-biters will swallow your soul!

Exchanging ideas is a good thing, and Nolan Chart created a favorable environment for it. Unfortunately, Ron Paul ankle-biters have turned the comments page into a YouTube clone. Name calling and finger pointing do not qualify as intellectual discourse!

---

by Gary R. Carter
(Libertarian)
Sunday, April 27, 2008

It is not a long shot to say that the Nolan Chart is quite a breeding ground for Ron Paul supporters. The Chart can routinely be counted on the have more than an ample amount of coverage of the great doctor. While I personally think he deserves all the coverage he can get, I wouldn’t expect it to be all too satisfying for those members who do not support Paul. Despite the ubiquitous skewing and monopolization of the majority of media sources, it is not unfair to expect and seek out balanced and informed journalism. So, while the onslaught of Ron Paul articles on the Chart compels me to feel compassion for those opposed to his message, that quickly dissipates under the knowledge that they don’t have to go far to be in like-minded company. From there, my compassion dissipates even further when these same people go out of their way to bash Paul on a regular basis. It is at this point that their habit begins to reveal itself as merely an attention-getting device. By the time these bashers recycle stand-by MSM championed smears that boil down to name calling and finger pointing, my compassion has completely disintegrated and nausea has taken its place. While any genuine Ron Paul supporter would welcome debate and feedback, these petty attacks that have become a common response to every Paul article and do not qualify as either of the two. While I am familiar with the accusations, I have yet to see them expounded upon beyond the headlines they were pulled from. This is what I know:

Manufactured Attack #1- Sound Money/ Gold Standard

Arguing against sound money and a commodity-based currency is like asking the government to put it in a little bit deeper. You are essentially saying that you like the market to be unstable and your currency to be debt. By abandoning the gold standard, the government isn’t restricted by the amount of reserves they need to have for spending. They can just print up more money! To compound matters, the Federal Reserve is a private bank. Instead of exercising one of the few necessary roles for government and printing currency themselves, the government buys it at a rate that already includes debt. They pay for that debt with more borrowed debt, and this results in the advent of a little ditty we like to call the IRS. Also, by abandoning the gold standard and embracing fiat money, you are welcoming the instability of valueless paper in comparison to gold, or some other commodity. By increasing the supply of money, the Federal Reserve devalues the currency that was previously earned at a better rate. The opposite process can also be applied, where bankers refuse new loans while still collecting on current ones, and thus decreasing the supply of money. Despite being blamed on the “free market”, the Great Depression was caused by the manipulation of fiat currency economy. This system is only beneficial to those at the top. By suggesting that the gold standard is antiquated or kooky, you expose yourself as either ignorant, sadistic or in on the cut.

Manufactured Attack #2- Racist/ Anti-Semitic

In an attempt to uncover dirt on Paul, nothing tangible was recovered by a media that produces political scandal like they are printing fiat money. Instead, the MSM offered up a verdict of racism based on events and associations from 15+ years ago. Comprised largely of vague associations, statistical commentary often not even written by Paul, and by presumption, this ploy only resulted in highlighting the unusually clean slate of a rare politician who dares to defy the standards of corruption and scandal. Continuing this farce by suggesting Paul is anti-Semitic based on his assessment that the Israel lobby in D.C. is too powerful and not in a good way, is like calling him a gay basher for not watching Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Under this logic, all actions are based on race solely and criminal activities can all be attributed to racism. It is not a secret that the Israel Lobby carries a substantial amount of influence on U.S. Foreign Policy, though you will seldom catch many politicians pointing that out. The reluctance of current candidates to address the Israel Lobby lends more fodder to the idea of their influence being of a less than savory influence. Furthermore, the fact that racism is a foreign concept to true libertarians and individualists completely debases these fruitless accusations, and is evidenced in Paul’s own words.

Manufactured Attack #3- He associates with that wackjob Alex Jones

I find this one rather amusing. I love to see these trends congealing from top down. Somebody in the media uses a word, other people in the media grab a hold of this word, and next thing you know, it is being repeated with firm conviction all over the streets. This was the case with Alex Jones, as well as with the conclusion that he was a kooky, nutty, wacko, etc. The process is most brilliantly represented in the use of the word “terrorist” these days. Where it once applied to a certain type of person, it now applies to pretty much anybody who disagrees with the official story. Likewise, but not on the same scale, the media has created an army of soldiers ready to throw around names casually and discredit people by guilt of association. First of all, to suggest that Paul is “associates” with Alex Jones, both paints the accuser as a spoon-fed broken record, and it assumes that Paul associates, or is associates, with every member of the media he ever does an interview with. So, I am sure he also associates with Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and George Stephanapolus. While Jones’ personality and bravado don’t particularly lend well to an argument in his favor, his research is always well documented and his websites provide articles and documents that the average tax payer couldn’t collect in a full day of devoted attention. Lack of support for independent media is what drives our current corporate media-opoly. Truth as news was sold out a long time ago. Now, we have paid “experts” and “analysts” deciding the news.

Manufactured Attack#4- He believes in an imaginary and secret North American Union Plan

To be sure, when the President participates in secret meetings, unbeknownst to and without the oversight of Congress, and proceeds to adopt legislation, it might be construed that he is up to something. Speculation of a North American Union plan is largely based on meetings held by the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and the ongoing construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor. The secret meeting in Montebello, Canada in August 2007 even came complete with a 25 square mile security perimeter and agent provocateurs. A bill sponsored by Tom Tancredo and John Olver included language to restrict funding to the SPP, and was passed on November 14, 2007, but has yet to be signed by the president. Bush did, however, attend the 4^th annual SPP summit in New Orleans on April 21^st, 22^nd of this year. With protest over the mysterious activity becoming more and more heated, the summit was seen largely as an effort to play down all the unwanted attention the SPP has been gaining. It is no wonder considering the SPP acknowledges their willingness to implement “evolution by stealth” if necessary. If Lou Dobbs discusses the NAU on CNN, 20 members of the House band together in opposition to the NAU, and a number of states develop legislation locally to oppose the NAU, then Paul’s comments can only be seen as reasonable queries that reflect the concern and foresight of a good politician. By using his comments as a platform to accuse him of “kookery”, the accuser only exposes their feeble-mindedness and lack of concern for truth.

Manufactured Attack #5- Paul’s supporters are nuts/ are 9/11 truthers

In politics, a vote is a vote. This argument can also be discarded by the simple understanding that a person’s supporters do not reflect that person directly. Regardless, I would like to go further on it. In the eyes of the MSM and its finger puppets, what exactly is it about Paul’s supporters that make them “nuts”? From my perspective, anybody that would support the majority of the original candidates and/or fail to see the superiority of Ron Paul is nuts. It has been acknowledged long before the United States came into existence that government is the natural enemy of man. Government exists for the sole purpose of exerting power over people, and history gives more than ample evidence that governments are inclined to increase their power, always much to the chagrin of the people. The United States represent a novel experiment in reversing this order, which was unfortunately undermined from the time the experiment began. It is done in such a simple way too- Politicians offer the people neat gifts and fashionable programs, and naturally, people oooh and aaaah at the prospect of free things. The problem is, the politicians never tell the people that they will have to pay for it; and, that the people who have no use or interest for these gifts will also have to pay for them. So it goes, over and over again, yet politicians continue to win votes by offering up new gifts to the people. The people that have brought this huge elephant into the room and have begged to allow the elephant to stay, have no right at all to call those willing to acknowledge the elephant, nuts. It is an absurd example of reverse logic and those that support this reverse logic have revealed their own illegitimacy.

As for 9/11 truthers- the same rules apply. Without engaging in a lengthy diatribe on all of the evidence that has been brought forward by countless amounts of experts, just as qualified as the government’s experts, I will just say that the official theory is just as kooky if not more kooky than alternative theories. Once again, 9/11 truthers supporting Ron Paul only reflects on Paul in the notion that those who desire truth generally seek to find like-minded company. Paul has never stated that he believes in an alternative theory, only that he would like to see another- independent- investigation. Anybody that has read the 9/11 Commission Report should realize that is was quite plainly a whitewash. Nancy Drew could have done a more in-depth investigation than that even without the paltry financing that the Commission received.

Manufactured Attack #6- Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.” — GW Bush speaking before the UN General Assembly

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” ~ FDR

“History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.” And “History is decided by the winners.” ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

Employing the tactics of Unspeak, the media has managed to turn any and all alternative theories into “conspiracy” theories. Now, by questioning the conclusion of a handful of people, one becomes a “rabid conspiracy theorist”. Winston Smith experienced this in 1984 when he was convinced that 1+1=3. Of course, it took a little bit more to persuade him than it has for the faithful media minions that propagate the same plan for intellectual discourse. Labeling someone a conspiracy theorist is, after all, just a cowardly avoidance of engaging that person in intellectual discourse.

Manufactured Attack #7- Ron Paul is a non-interventionist/ an isolationist

Congratulations!

We are interventionists, and have been since WWI. You should be happy that we look to be continuing on the obviously superior path of murdering people worldwide for Democracy. Never mind the implications that forcing people to pay for an illegal war has on the actual presence of this so-called Democracy. 1+1=3, right?

Conclusion

Ron Paul ankle-biters choose to attack his loyal supporters for not giving up. One of the most amusing ankle-biters I have come across finds amusement in calling Ron Paul a dictator. This kind of twisted logic is endemic of the breed and only assists in identifying the ailment. Undoubtedly, somebody will say that Paul and his supporters wish to force their views on the rest of the population, when actually, we are merely asking the population to stop forcing their collectivist views on us.

George Washington’s take on the Nevada GOP Convention

The following essay was written by a member of a Ron Paul Meetup group that goes by the name of George Washington (his essays have appeared here before). As administrator of this blog, I will tell you that when this individual speaks, I listen. Every time I open my email, I hope to find his messages waiting for me.

Thanks Mr, Washington, for putting things into perspective for t he rest of us. My offer to come on as a contributor still stands.

-Todash19

—————————————————————————————

Any of you still think my identifying the GOP elites (the GOP party boss thugs) as Nazi fascists as “too caustic” and simply “name-calling”?

Delegates are, in some degree, like members of Congress, representing the people of their precinct and Districts. To so nakedly undermine and attempt to subvert the People’s will and voices is as fascist as it gets. More of the same agenda: Black out, shut out, undermine Dr. Paul’s voice and message at all costs; Keep the MSM from reporting on his campaign and message; Block him from participating in Republican debates; Rig and fix the voting results.

This is genuine fascism – it’s how it was done in Europe- through corrupt manipulation of the political process, the fascists were “elected” into power by “fair electioneering” just like this! The carefully controlled mass media and propaganda convinced the masses to go along in lock-step with “the Party’s platform.”

Also reminiscent of communist states as well — Fascists have “elections” and “open party deliberations” — And the candidates and representatives that have been pre-selected and approved by the Committee give the People a “fair choice” of who to goosestep behind: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, McMussolini — You see, the Party’s Select Committee gives the people choices. See, we have choices. . . What’s the problem?

It took FORTY YEARS for the Republican Party to regain the majority – they did this in 1994 under the Contract with America that contractually promised a restoration of Constitutionally limited government. I believe the young fresh conservative Republicans sent to Washington were sincere and committed to restoring control over the runaway government. But the powers that actually control our government quickly shut them down. Ever since then, Congress has behaved as though they’ve had a gun to their heads – going along and passing unconstitutional draconian legislation with little to no opposition from “the opposition party.” And the average person can’t seem to make sense of it all. The American People absolutely do not support the unconstitutional wars of aggression and demand the US cease and desist and bring the troops home – The Dems hear their voices and could politically capitalize on this issue – but instead, advocate and support the continuation of the same foreign policies . . .??? No impeachment proceedings; no Congressional investigations into the nearly incalcuable felonies, high crimes and misdomeanors, including defiant contempt of Congress. Where’s the Congressional will and voice of the People?! They’re undeniably afraid and intimidated . . . . By who?! and By what?!

The Grand Old Party is imploding — Elitist Insiders, backroom dealing, unethical, lawless undermining the will of the People and fair and impartial elections — If the core conservative base departs and forms/joins a new party, the GOP will forever be a “third party” out of power, as it has abandoned its historic principles and Americanism. Once it’s credibility as the conservative party is gone, the GOP party will forever be fractured and finished as a major party.

Like I stated at our last quorum delegate meeting: Be prepared and expect to play hardball with the fascists of the party at State. Don’t think the WA state GOP elite will conduct themselves any differently than NV – This is a centrally managed and directed National Party agenda: Install the elite’s select puppet. The state and county officials (yes, there are exceptions to this) are goosesteping to the directives of national GOP thugs attempting to manipulate and undermine the People’s will in the GOP in order to install another neo-con fascist committed to advancing the Homeland [IN]Security Surveillance Police State of the New World Fourth Reich Fascist Order (North American Union, SPP, open undefended national borders, open uncontrolled immigration, the Fed Reserve criminal syndicate, etc. etc.).

The more the GOP thugs spit on and mock the core conservative base of the Republican Party, openly violate the laws and rules and openly attempt to openly subvert the will of the Republican majority and the People (pushing a pre-designed outcome), they are guaranteeing the GOP will lose both the Presidential election and perhaps several more Congressional and Senatorial seats. John McCain absolutely does not have the support of the core base, and will not excite Democrats to vote for another neo-con republicrat for four-more years!

Of course, what will a Hillary or Obama presidency mean?

• The continuation of the war-mongering interventionist foreign policy
• Moving the New World Fourth Reich Fascist Global Order to power (Just like the neo-con Republicrats)
  • The North AmeriKan [Soviet bloc] Union
  • The SPP
  • Further empowering the criminal syndicate known as the Federal Reserve
  • Furthering the establishment of a fully functioning totalitarian police state in the US, Canada and Mexico
  • The complete dissolution of the American Constitutional Republic

Based on the numbers of voter turnout (Dems v. Repubs) Dems will bury the Republicans this year. Like it or not, the Dems are as enthusiastic and fanatical about their candidate/s, and are very motivated by anti-neo-con Republicrat sentiment (HATE) as Ron Paul supporters. Many of them mistakenly believe the Dem candidate will actually end the illegal foreign wars and destructive military foreign policies. No matter – what they do know for certain is McCain will absolutley carry on perpetual illegal offensive wars, including initiating a war with Iran that will most likely bring the US to war with Russia, China and North Korea and will commit further war crimes in our name, and act against the will of the People and the Constitution.

The ONLY ONE candidate who can change this outcome and the course of America – Dr. Ron Paul. Only his message of Americanism that embraces ALL Americans can win a majority of support from all Americans, not just Republicans. That is why so many RP supporters are disenfranchised Democrats and liberal Americans.

Compare Dr. Paul’s reception to his speech to the NV Convention to the dead silent response McCain’s spokeswoman received here in Clark County. While other former candidates had supporters who were deeply passionate about their candidacy (Romney, Huckabee) McCain does not have such broad support. Romney’s abandonment of his supporters will not allow him to be the water-boy for McCain – Romney’s campaign debate messages clearly idenfying McCain as unfit are not forgotten. Conservatives of real conviction and principle simply cannot and will not vote for McCain, period.

The NWO fascists and their MSM propagandists are betting on one thing: FEAR. “If you don’t vote for McMussolini and suport the neo-con Global fascists, America will have a woman or black Marxist communist Global fascist as president, Osama Ben Laden, the omnipotent evil one, will come to your house and kill you and your family and the Demican puppet won’t answer your phone call at 3:00 a.m. to come and save you and — and we simply can’t have that. . . ” The illusion of the Matrix is finally beginning to fail.

While I thought our county convention was, for the most part, very balanced and respectful (we most certainly didn’t face this type of militant fascism, and Clark County GOP officials were actually very respectul), our intelligence conference calls reported similar lawless unethical tactics at other county conventions. ALL of the WA State GOP elite will be joined together. No doubt the fascists are strategizing over what transpired in NV this weekend and how to thwart the Ron Paul majority in Washington and other conventions around the country.

One item worth noting of the NV Convention: Chairwoman Lowden pointed out that she afforded Dr. Paul the opportunity to speak to the delegates directly (She should be commended and thanked for this!!) — AND ALL OTHER CONVENTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWING DR. PAUL TO ADDRESS THE GOP DELEGATES! More fascist gatekeeping, more bias, more manipulation.

Is it possible to push for Dr. Paul to speak at the WA State Convention? What about scheduling a speech within close proximity to the Convention, even outside so Delegates can hear Dr. Paul for themselves before deciding?

Nolan Chart chooses Jesse Ventura as Ron Paul’s successor

Could Jesse Ventura win the White House as a Libertarian nominee? I’d say no way, but Jeff Wrobel at Nolan Chart believes he can.

In the spirit of Dr. Paul’s request, it is time to choose his successor. It’s time to choose a candidate who can avoid the pitfalls of the Ron Paul candidacy. As discussed in a previous NolanChart article, Paul’s followers should sponsor a moderate libertarian celebrity for president. In the following mathematical model, I will prove that if Paul’s supporters place Jesse Ventura on the ballot, he will be the next president of the United States.

First: an introduction for those unfamiliar with Jesse Ventura. He’s 56 years old and is a former Navy Seal. He became famous as Jesse “The Body” Ventura in the World Wrestling Federation. He used his success there to become an actor. His most famous role was as a member of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s crack commando team in the movie Predator, where he uttered his most memorable line: “I ain’t got time to bleed.” In 1998 he ran (as Jesse “The Mind” Ventura) against very well-known candidates, Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Hubert Humphrey III, for governor of Minnesota — and Ventura won!

Jesse Ventura could be placed at about the center of the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart. He describes himself as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”. Like most libertarians he supports a smaller government in general, lower taxes, gay rights, medicinal marijuana, instant-runoff voting, opposes helmet and seatbelt laws, opposes the use of the National Guard overseas, and opposed the teachers union. In a few areas he disagrees with pure libertarians; for instance, he approves of well-funded government-run lower education and government-run public transportation.

Ventura can avoid most of the troubles that befell Ron Paul. First, Ventura is taken somewhat seriously by the media since he has actually served in a high public executive office (as both a mayor and governor) and has considerable media experience with his own radio and TV talk shows. Second, and most importantly, he is not as radical a libertarian as Ron Paul, so he’ll appeal more to liberals, centrists, and conservatives. Third, he is not nearly as old as Ron Paul, has an imposing 6′ 4″ frame, and (no disrespect to the very honorable Dr. Paul) has a fair deal of charisma.

You can read the entire article, including his mathematical predictions, here.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Libertarians for Art, Entertainment and Culture
• Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me
• Ron Paul Jesse Ventura Ticket? Don’t Count This One Out
• Jesse Ventura Interview With Steve Colbert

What Really Happened at the Nevada Convention

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47172

Posted April 28th, 2008 by cbunce

Out Classed and Out of Options…

Politics is a never-ending game, which has little to no rules, and the rules that do exist can change at anytime. You can choose to start, or stop playing this game at anytime, but no matter how you play this game it comes down who has the most people who care.

On Saturday April 26th , 2008, in Reno Nevada, the Republican State convention came to order with a set agenda and rigged rules to basically give complete control of the Delegate process to the party. The original rules would have only a set list of people that could be chosen as a whole to represent the state called a slate. These slates were created by a small group of people and were never published, and even as we began the convention were not known.

This was the first attempt to keep complete control of the delegate selection process. After three hours of explaining how this was not representative of the convention as a body, the convention modified the delegate selection process to allow anyone to run for a national delegate position. Three would be chosen from each of the three Congressional District and twenty-two from the entire body by each person voting for twenty-two people.

It was lunch at that point in time, giving two hours for the next play to be planned. Upon reconvening from lunch at 2:27pm, no time was wasted to unfurl this plan, which was instead of breaking up into districts to make sure at least three from each one was elected, the party would be kind enough to move around arbitrarily alternates to delegate positions to ensure “a fair distribution”, even better we shouldn’t vote for twenty-two people at large because that would take far to much time, but instead vote for only five. Which took anybody with an eighth grade math understanding to know this was intended to divide our vote by four because in order to vote for twenty people you needed four people now instead of one. So this just was obliterated by the convention getting over a 75% rejection vote.

At this time we split into three districts and began to vote on delegates, this only took about an hour and went rather smoothly in district three and one. District two was continually delayed because of a dispute of whether a printed ballot was acceptable or a handwritten one was, somehow handwritten equals easier to handle to the those that ran the voting for district two. After this we came back and began to debate planks on the floor.

It was two hours in the making, the start of which was a person coming from the count room of the 2nd Congressional District of Nevada, which was the last of three districts to be counted. From our count observers in the rooms of Congressional District’s 1 and 3, Paul Supporters had won all three delegates spots in District 3 and one Paul supporter in District 1. The counts of these districts took about 30 minutes after voting was completed. The 2nd District was taking very long to complete and no one could understand the delay of more then an hour, information from observers within its count room relayed that Paul Supporters had swept its three delegates as well. This meant that Paul Supporters took 7 out of 9 possible Congressional District delegates to the National Convention.

The person walking from the counting room took a straight line to State Chairwoman Sue Lowden, leaning over and whispering into her ear. After the person walked off Sue sat there for about 30 seconds tapping her foot and then stood up and walked over to Councilman Woodbury who was sitting in front of me, leaning over she said, “If we can break Quorum, can we invalidate this?” After saying this rather loudly and glancing at the expression on my face she quickly quieted down and I was unable to hear the rest of the conversation.

I sat in a dazed confusion for about five minutes trying to figure out what quorum was in this convention of 1347 delegates, which was 674 delegates. Soon after Chairwomen Lowden left, a John McCain staffer, Paul Johnson, came by. I had been gathering signs and information from him all day, and he believed I was a hardcore McCain supporter. He came up to me and got on one knee as if to propose his undying love. He began his conversation with, “They are trying to pull a coup, we are going to leave and quarter the convention.” I responded, “Do we even have the numbers, all they need is a couple hundred to keep Quorum?” He answered back, “The powers that be have the numbers, I am just doing what I was told to do by my boss.” At this moment I knew that they had lost control of the convention and were desperate. About an hour went by before they finally figured out they did not have enough people to pull off this little stunt.

I watched the party officers directly in front of me huddling up with the parliamentarian and trying to come up with something. Soon after this huddle, the party began to filibuster the convention filling it with videos and speakers over a course of 60 minutes. During this time Sue Lowden began barking at Chairman Bob Beers, and I could clearly see Chairmen Beers not agreeing with what she was telling him. First it was just her talking to him, then after going on and off stage to present the next video or speaker, three people gathered around him, by the fourth time he stepped off the stage, eight people were surrounding and pressuring him, which I can only assume was to end the convention, being that was the next thing that happened when he returned to the stage.
When he returned to the stage for the last time, Chairmen Beers ended the convention illegally calling an indefinite recess without a vote of the delegation to do so, at 6 pm. This was not before their first plan of ending the convention was attempted to be put into play by a member that was not informed calling for a Quorum which we would still have had. But Beers interrupted him saying, “I will save you some time”, and called the indefinite recess. Later it was claimed to be the end of the contract of the room. But upon request from the Hotel they gladly gave us three more hours for free.

After five second of pure silence, disbelief, and confusion, a once consistently civil and controlled convention was thrown into ten minutes of anarchy, while the party vacated the room out the back doors. Bob Bears attempted to speak with an angry mob with little to no avail before leaving.

After this occurred we attempted to reconvene the meeting but fell 70 people short of a quorum.
This series of events leaves me with the understanding that the opinions and concerns of how Nevada Republicans want our government to work, do not matter. The only concern is that we fuel the inner party through our donations. Am I to understand that the people of Nevada are to have no representation and take marching orders from the Republican National Committee, that is two thousand miles away? To accept whatever they tell us, even if it is to support a man that never came to Nevada or would even agree to a conference call to discuss local positions on things such as Yucca Mountain. We know nothing about his positions that would affect the state in which we are to represent as delegates. When asked to come and talk before the January Caucasus, his Clark County staffer told us that he was not concerned with Nevada and would pick up delegates in May if he needed them. So we as a state are supposed to bow down and support a man who does not support our state?

We must complete a process of debate and discussion until we complete the National Delegate process. Being dictated to from people two thousand miles away is reminiscent of some of the central causes of the beginning of our great nation. So like a spoiled child the Nevada GOP officers, after being out played and without any other options they just kicked over the table and went home.

Richard Bunce
Las Vegas, NV
output