Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ron Paul’

Obama Thanks Americans for Supporting Destruction of the Internet


Posted By Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com On February 27, 2015

Article reblogged from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to the Original Posting Site: http://www.infowars.com/obama-thanks-americans-for-supporting-destruction-of-the-internet/

Obama Thanks Americans for Supporting Destruction of the Internet

Net neutrality is a classic Trojan horse

Imperial President ObamaAs Ron Paul notes today the FCC is a non-elected federal government agency that has arbitrarily decided — without a vote from Congress or permission from the American people — to regulate the internet. Paul characterizes this as “the largest regulatory power grab in recent history” that will undoubtedly have serious consequences for the average internet user, including the possibility of “de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.” In addition, the move will likely force online broadcasters and websites like Infowars.com and Drudge to provide “equal opportunities for political opponents.” The FCC is not shy about announcing this is what it plans to do.Different Free Speech Ideologies

Like the Golden Age of Television, the Golden Age of the Internet will be destroyed by the heavy hand of the federal government. Kennedy’s Federal Communications Commission boss, Newton Minow, was responsible not only for destroying the Golden Age of Television, but also centralizing and placing more power in the hands of the big three television networks, which resulted in “reducing the range of choices in programs” and killing off creativity, as Paul Cantor notes.obama- Marxist tyrant Tyrant Obama Freedom is not dictator friendly

Obama and the federal government have bent over backwards to portray net neutrality as a win for the little guy. In fact, despite all the siren warnings about socialism and the FCC by Obama’s opponents, the agency is in the pocket of the telecommunications industry and always has been. Its current appointed boss, Tom Wheeler, is a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.

“The closer you look at Wheeler’s selection, the more questionable it appears. After being poorly led for more than a decade—particularly under the disastrous tenure of Michael Powell, son of Colin—a strong argument can be made that the last thing the F.C.C. needs is an industry insider with close ties to many of the companies it oversees,” John Cassidy wrote back in 2013 when the White House nominated Wheeler to head up the agency.squeeze into mold

Net neutrality is a classic Trojan horse. It will be used not only to censor speech and marginalize opposition to the political class, but will also deliver the internet to large and forever consolidating media corporations.

 

In the News: Ron Paul says secession is ‘good news’


 

Posted by on February 20, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.conventionofstates.com/news_ron_paul_secession/?recruiter_id=11724

At a Mises Institute meeting in late January, former Republican presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul said secession is happening and it’s “good news.”

He also referenced the nullification movement in which state governments do not to adhere to federal laws they deem unconstitutional.

“I would like to start off by talking about the subject and the subject is secession and, uh, nullification, the breaking up of government, and the good news is it’s gonna happen. It’s happening,” Paul said.

Ron Paul is a true patriot and has done much to advance the cause of freedom in this country. On this point, however, we’d like to point him to Article V of the Constitution, which describes a peaceful, constitutionally-sanction means to limit federal power.

Secession, of course, is not lawful. And if we’ve learned anything from history, we know it can have disastrous results. The federal government abuses its power, true, but if we have any alternatives to civil war, we should take them.

Nullification, while somewhat less extreme than secession, is the first step down that road. And the legality of nullification is equally dubious, as we explain in this document.

Article V, on the other hand, is perfectly legal (it’s in the Constitution), and it doesn’t carry with it the potential for violent results.

An Article V Convention of States can limit the federal government’s power and jurisdiction and stop the abuses of Washington, D.C. It can restore rightful power to the states, and return this country to its federalist roots.

Click here to learn more.

Ron Paul Thinks There Should Be More Secessionist Movements in the U.S.


Obamacare

The former U.S. congressman and perennial presidential candidate tells National Journal that he’s “real pleased” with American secessionist groups.

By Rebecca Nelson

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/ron-paul-thinks-there-should-be-more-secessionist-movements-in-the-u-s-20140930

(Photo by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images)

‘I think what is most important is we have a concrete right to secede,’ said Ron Paul.

Imperial Islamic President ObamaSeptember 30, 2014 Secessionists across the world were inspired by Scotland’s energetic attempt at independence from the United Kingdom earlier this month. Ron Paul, as it turns out, joined them.

In an essay on his eponymous institution’s website Sunday, the former U.S. congressman from Texas wrote that any supporters of freedom should cheer secessionism because it allows for smaller government—a constant mantra for the libertarian and perennial presidential candidate, who didn’t previously realize there were more than a handful of secessionist groups in the United States. 

“I was real pleased with that, and a bit surprised,” Paul told National Journal. “But then, on second thought, you think, ‘Why not? Why not more?’ “

Fringe groups calling for states and regions to secede from the U.S., such as the Second Vermont Republic and the Alaskan Independence Party, gained more publicity in the weeks leading up to the Scottish referendum. As the outsized federal government continues to encroach on individual rights, Paul said, he thinks there will be a groundswell of these movements.

“It’s something that I think is going to grow, because the failure of the federal government is going to get much worse,” he said. “When the bankruptcy evolves, and maybe some of these pension funds are confiscated, and the wars never end, and bankruptcy comes forth, people [will say], ‘Hey, we’re getting a bad deal from this. Why don’t we leave?’ “

He added: “I think it’s inevitable people wanting to leave will be there, and the numbers will grow.”

Realistically, though, Paul said he doesn’t think any of these groups could actually succeed. Despite the founders’ own deep belief in secession—they gained America’s independence from Europe, after all—he said the Civil War set the precedent that secession would carry “very, very bad” results.

“By our history, the heavy hand of the federal government would come down,” Paul told National Journal. “They’d probably shoot ’em.”Comming Soon 02

In typical fashion, Paul argued that the principle of secession was more important than what could actually happen in reality. It’s the threat, he said, that’s important to keep the federal government in check. 

“I think what is most important is we have a concrete right to secede,” Paul said. “Even if we never had any secession, or any state declare independence, we would be so much better off, because there would always be this threat. Once the threat of a state leaving was removed, it was just open-door policy for the federal government to expand itself and run roughshod out over the states because the states couldn’t do much.”

Given that his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will likely run for president in 2016 with a much better chance of winning than his father ever had, the elder Paul’s willingness to share his reasonably radical views seem imprudent, if not unexpected. In an election cycle that has often equated the politics of Ron and Rand, this latest remark is sure to annoy the potential 2016-er’s supporters.

For Rand’s sake, it’s fortunate that Ron didn’t express his support for the Texas Nationalist Movement or any other secessionist groups in the U.S. Before he’d back Texan independence, he joked, “I better check out and see who’s running Austin before we decide about that.”

Article collective closing

Celebrate Independence Day By Opposing Government Tyranny


http://www.infowars.com/celebrate-independence-day-by-opposing-government-tyranny/

The mainstream media and opportunistic politicians have turned Independence Day into the opposite of what was intended

 by Ron Paul | Infowars | June 30, 2014

ron

This week Americans will enjoy Independence Day with family cookouts and fireworks. Flags will be displayed in abundance. Sadly, Trigger the Votehowever, what should be a celebration of the courage of those who risked so much to oppose tyranny will instead be turned into a celebration of government, not liberty. The mainstream media and opportunistic politicians have turned Independence Day into the opposite of what was intended.

The idea of opposing — by force if necessary — a tyrannical government has been turned into a celebration of tyrannical government itself!

The evidence is all around us.

How would the signers of the Declaration of Independence have viewed, for example, the Obama Administration’s “drone memo,” finally released last week, which claims to justify the president’s killing American citizens without charge, judge, jury, or oversight? Is this not a tyranny similar to that which our Founders opposed? And was such power concentrated in one branch of government not what inspired the rebellion against the English king in the first place?

“In care you haven’t read the Declaration of Independence recently, I’ve provided a copy for you below.” Jerry Broussard

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

 

The “drone memo,” released after an ACLU freedom of information request, purports to establish the president alone as the arbiter of who is or is not a terrorist subject to execution by the US government. There is no due process involved, just the determination of the president. Thus far the only American citizens killed by the president are Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenaged son, but the precedent has been established, according to the memo, that the president has the authority to kill Americans he believes are terrorists.

Even the New York Times, which generally backs whatever US administration is in power, is troubled by the White House’s legal justification to claim the authority to kill Americans. A Times editorial last week concluded that:

…the memo turns out to be a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result.

I agree with the New York Times’ conclusion that, “[t]his memo should never have taken so long to be released, and more documents must be made public. The public is still in the dark on too many vital questions.”

Coincidentally, in addition to the “drone memo” released last week, a broader study of the US use of drones was also released by the Stimson Center. The study, co-chaired by Gen. John Abizaid, former U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander, concluded that contrary to claims that drones help prevent wider conflicts by targeting specific individuals, the use of drones “may create a slippery slope leading to continual or wider wars.”

In fact, the study concluded, the use of drones overseas is likely counterproductive. “Civilian casualties, even if relatively few, can anger whole communities, increase anti-US sentiment and become a potent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations,” the study found.

Seven years ago I wrote in an Independence Day column:

Only the safe-guards and limitations that are enshrined in a constitutionally-limited republic can prohibit a nation from lurching toward empire…I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the spirit of independence can we ensure our government never resembles the one from which the American States declared their separation.

On Independence Day we should remember the spirit of rebellion against tyranny that inspired our Founding Fathers to set out our experiment in liberty. We should ourselves celebrate and continue that struggle if we are to keep our republic. 

Tree of Liberty 03

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
  • For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1 Georgia:    Button Gwinnett    Lyman Hall    George Walton

Column 2 North Carolina:    William Hooper    Joseph Hewes    John Penn South Carolina:    Edward Rutledge    Thomas Heyward, Jr.    Thomas Lynch, Jr.    Arthur Middleton

Column 3 Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

Column 4 Pennsylvania:    Robert Morris    Benjamin Rush    Benjamin Franklin    John Morton    George Clymer    James Smith    George Taylor    James Wilson    George Ross Delaware:    Caesar Rodney    George Read    Thomas McKean

Column 5 New York:    William Floyd    Philip Livingston    Francis Lewis    Lewis Morris New Jersey:    Richard Stockton    John Witherspoon    Francis Hopkinson    John Hart    Abraham Clark

Column 6 New Hampshire:    Josiah Bartlett    William Whipple Massachusetts:    Samuel Adams    John Adams    Robert Treat Paine    Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island:    Stephen Hopkins    William Ellery Connecticut:    Roger Sherman    Samuel Huntington    William Williams    Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire:    Matthew Thornton

Reprinted from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Article collective closing

 

 

Ron Paul: Syria Intervention Would be “Reckless and Immoral” – The Last Resistance


by

It’s striking how much the media control people’s political opinions without people realizing it. Just a few years ago, only an “isolationist” would be opposed to U.S. military intervention in a foreign country for the sole purpose of “humanitarianism.”

Way back in 2007, this is one of the very few interviews Sean Hannity did with Ron Paul. This particular exchange took place after one of the presidential debates:

Hannity: Are you saying then that the world has no moral obligation, like in the first Gulf War, when an innocent country’s being pillaged, and people are being raped and murdered and slaughtered, or in the case of Saddam, he’s gassing his own people, are you suggesting we have no moral obligation there? Do you stand by and let that immorality happen?

Paul: We have, on numerous occasions.

Hannity: You support that?

Paul: We have, on numerous occasions. If we feel strongly about it, why don’t we declare war —

Hannity: If a woman’s being raped do you stand by and do nothing there either?

Alan Colmes: We’re almost out of time, but the fact is the Reagan administration stood by while the Kurds were being gassed, it happened in 1988, we didn’t do anything —

Hannity: We didn’t do anything about it, for how many years?

Paul: And what did we do with Pol Pot, what did we do with Moscow, what did we do at the time? We stood by while they did it to their people.

Hannity: We got it, Ron, you would stand by and do that, I would not.

Paul: No, you —

Hannity: I think that’s immoral.

Hannity’s of course singing a much different tune nowadays, since being opposed to unconstitutional military interventions is kind of “cool” now. But Ron Paul was opposed to such interventions long before it was cool, and he’s remained steadfast for decades in his opposition.

A couple days ago, on his Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website, he wrote that intervening in Syria would be a reckless and immoral use of the military:

“President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way. Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing. The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented ‘a serious danger to our national security.’ I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor, and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.”

He hasn’t changed one bit. But people’s foreign policy views change depending on what their media channel of choice is feeding them. And the media narratives are written depending on which party holds the White House.

If Bush had decided to attack Syria because the leader was gassing his own people, then conservatives, fed by Fox News, would be all for it; and the liberals, fed by all the other networks, would be denouncing it.

I’m glad that conservatives are coming out in opposition to a war with Syria. What concerns me is that people don’t have any discernment, and that they’ll believe whatever their favorite media network tells them.

What if a Republican becomes president next, and he’s no better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy or the preservation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments (and all the rest) here at home? Will conservatives see through the propaganda that will most certainly be used by the media to sell tyranny to us? They’ll use the same excuses of “security and safety.” And I fear that most people who identify themselves as conservatives will swallow it, hook, line and sinker.

The sooner people get away from this phony “republican vs. democrat” dichotomy, the better off we’ll all be. We should be electing people who want to do the right thing, not the “Republican” thing. Think Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Justin Amash. Sure, they’re Republicans. But to them, party affiliation is secondary to the Constitution.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My 2 Cents – Jerry Broussard

  • Who decided that the United States of America is the world’s police?
  • If we are going to come to the rescue of a people, what didn’t we go to the aid of the Christians in the Sudan?
  • The evidence is confirmed many times that those responsible for the gas attack was the accidental mishandling of the chemical weapons give to the Syrian rebels by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, who also was instrumental in confirming the false evidence of Saddam Hussein‘s weapons of mass destruction? Why can’t we see that Saudi Arabia is culpable in the entire mess in the Mid East?
  • The Obama Administration is buying into the same lies the were fed to the Bush Administration. Why aren’t we acknowledging that fact? What does Saudi Arabia have on our government that they always end up with “clean-hands”?
  • Fact: Russia, China and others have stated that they will defend Syria and will retaliate if America uses any military force against the Assad regime. That will cause a larger war American Military is NOT prepared to fight because the Obama Administration has decimated our military.
  • Fact: The only winner is such a conflict would be Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and China.
  • Fact: We cannot afford another war.
  • Fact: 2014 Mid Term Elections are growing in importance every day.
  • Fact: America is in desperate need of a Spiritual revival that will change the spirits, hearts and minds of the people of the United States to use what means are moral and necessary to rid our country of the evil that has such a death-grip on our Federal, State and Local governments.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: