Ron Paul’s 2002 Predictions set against later headlines

Posted on January 13, 2012 by | 29 Comments

Is he really that smart or is the US government truly this corrupt?

Uploaded by on Jan 3, 2012

This is Ron Paul’s famous Predictions speech from April 24, 2002. This is the original video compiling recent images and video to give his speech a chilling effect.

“I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5-10 years. Let’s hope and pray that I’m wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.”

Hat Tip Chuck Baldwin

This entry was posted in Constitution, Economy Economics, Human Rights Civil Liberties, Military, War and Peace and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 responses to “Ron Paul’s 2002 Predictions set against later headlines”

  1. Eugenie | January 13, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Reply

    If you are part of the corrupt system, no wonder you can predict the future. You know the agenda, right?

  2. Publius | January 13, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Reply

    The great white hope of Ron Paul who loves Klansmen, the John Birch fringe, and who has a fairy tale view of September 11, 2001 spake: not hard to see the future, fairly obvious, most of the legislation we see was drafted years before September 11, many science fiction writers in the 1960’s articulated the totalitarian future. In fact, well before that, we have the Iron Heel by Jack London, and some years later 1984; and non-fiction studies of Bureaucratic States. In the end it simply is WAR. Mars strides over the rubble and the dead delighting in the slaughter.

    • ginaann | January 13, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Reply

      Ron Paul is not a racist and not living in fairyland. And fiction writers are not psychics. But Paul and classic literary authors have understood the trumping of liberty, unlike the Americans living in fairyland.

  3. Publius | January 13, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Reply

    Yes, Americans like make believe. Ron Paul too.

    Daily Kos: Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, the KKK and Authoritarianism
    Dec 30, 2011 … A photo went viral this last week on Facebook showing Ron Paul posing with White nationalist Don Black who is a former KKK Grand Wizard, …
    http://www.dailykos.com/…/-Ron-Paul,-Ayn-Rand,-the-KKK-and-Authoritarianism – Cached – Similar
    How The New KKK (& Ron Paul’s Southern Secessionists) Were …
    Dec 31, 2011 … How The New KKK (& Ron Paul’s Southern Secessionists) Were Hiding In Plain View All Along… (news.yahoo.com). submitted 23 hours ago by …
    http://www.reddit.com/…/how_the_new_kkk_ron_pauls_southern_secessionists/ – Cached – Similar
    Ron Paul accepting money from the KKK – From WND.Com
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45152 – Similar
    Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke Says He’s Voting For Ron Paul
    Dec 29, 2011 … Ron Paul was a hot topic this week on the talk radio show hosted by prominent white supremacist Don Black and his son Derek. Mr. Black said …
    patdollard.com/…/former-kkk-grand-wizard-david-duke-says-he’s-voting-for -ron-paul/ – Cached – Similar
    Why Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters Didn’t Hurt Him in Texas – Molly …
    Dec 23, 2011 … At the time, the “Ron Paul Political Report” was listed in an online Neo-Nazi Directory that also included publications by the Ku Klux Klan and …
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/…ron-pauls…in…/250427/ – Cached – Similar

    • ginaann | January 13, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Reply

      If Ron Paul was a racist Nazi than he would not uphold the Constitution. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Nazi control is possible only through Corporate control—the opposite of Liberty. Your broken links and logic seem to be the rantings of an Internet Troll.

      • Publius | January 13, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Reply

        I am unsure why links did not work. I am not saying he is a Nazi or a racist. Opportunist, politician, fellow traveller of John Birch, in lock step with the lies of 9/11 yes. As far the Constitution, i am tempted to ask which one. Hmm, pre-Civil War or post?

        ProfileDiaries (list)Stream
        FRI DEC 30, 2011 AT 07:59 AM PST
        Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, the KKK and Authoritarianism
        bybinkFollow
        Share105
        PERMALINK 98 COMMENTS
        I’m trying to figure this out:

        A photo went viral this last week on Facebook showing Ron Paul posing with White nationalist Don Black who is a former KKK Grand Wizard, member of the American Nazi Party and founder of Stormfront.org, which has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and others:

        http://www.facebook.com/…

        So, how does America’s most famous libertarian become a fellow travel of authoritarian figures like Don Black?

        I mean — libertarian means “liberty,” right?

        And that’s the direct opposite of authoritarianism.

        ‘Cuz … cuz … AYN RAND!!!1

        Looking at this photo, I started thinking about the paradox of libertarianism. Why do libertarian goals lead to authoritarian outcomes? Why does libertarianism as a philosophy draw followers both from the economic elite and the far-right political fringes whose goal is not to make people more free?

        Seems kind of strange, doesn’t it?

        And that always brings me around to a quote from Simon Wiesenthal that I read in Robert Kaplan’s great book Balkan Ghosts:

        Simon Wiesenthal told me that any political party in a democratic country … that uses the word ‘freedom’ in its name is either Nazi or Communist.
        Libertarians who, in a democracy, seek to limit the power of government are seeking to break up a central freedom of the people — the freedom to rule themselves. In a democracy, libertarianism isn’t about freedom. It’s about denying people the right to government themselves. It’s an anti-democratic principle.

        Everyone understands the sentiment, “Get government out of my life!”

        But in a democracy, the people are the government — or are supposed to be, depending on how much friction is being created by corruption.

        The anti-democratic principles of libertarianism ultimately make people like Ron Paul ideal fellow travelers for the Klan and the American Nazi Party. And society’s wider embrace of figures like Ayn Rand have perversely made us vulnerable to accepting authoritarianism in our own government.

        • ginaann | January 13, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Reply

          Yes, some parties have twisted the word Freedom–Hitler did it. But America was founded on that word, so let’s not make sweeping generalities about how Libertarians use the word. Our country was founded on limited government–especially limited federal government which can devolve into a police state—-so for you to say limited government takes away freedom of people is sheer nonsense. It makes me believe you are planted here on this site as a troll. Your logic makes it impossible to see what your true politics are, but they are not about freedom I’m sure.

        • Rady | January 13, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Reply

          well, I agree that both ron and dennis are populist hopes and yet digging deeper shows both are tied to the corrupt system.

          but to say that in a democracy any party that uses the term freedom is communist, etc is to assume that the us is a democracy, which it is not.

          we are ruled by corporations and have not been a democracy since JFK was shot.

          • Publius | January 14, 2012 at 12:07 am |

            Rady as you know, rhetoric is persuasive speech. RP rhetoric masks a completely different agenda of dismantling any gains made by working people. This is not a Left position.

            As far as this Republic, I have become persuaded that the Republic was lost in the Civil War with Congress adjourned Sine Die. Note that Lincoln was murdered after the war and his policy of tolerance died with him. The Gilded Age came next with the rise of the corporations. The first corporation being of course USA, Inc in Washington DC. When Congress Adjourned ‘sine die’ in 1861, looks like SOMEONE didn’t want it to Reconvene after the Civil War, so The Republic died… If the following Report …
            http://www.bbsradio.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;..

            Of interest also is the idea that across the pond in the same time frame we see BISMARCK unifying Germany under Prussia. It is not far fetched to suggest that the USA underwent a Prussian unfication with the Civil War. Where Lefties fail is in their Whig reading of history.
            Where Righties fail is in the adoration of a time that never was and never could be, this glorious abstraction called America.

          • Rady | January 14, 2012 at 12:26 am |

            “RP rhetoric masks a completely different agenda of dismantling any gains made by working people. This is not a Left position.”

            That may be true; I have my disagreements with RP.

            As far as the Sine Die, etc., I am wholly ignorant and will have to read up on that.

          • ginaann | January 14, 2012 at 12:46 am |

            If I could live in a safe, healthy home, eat healthy food from healthy soil and wear natural cotton and silk–I would consider myself pretty damn well off. Ron Paul is the only politician I know who talks about those types of values. All the other politicians sell our food rights and resources to big business. We need to start being specific about what we value in life. I am personally sick of having to interrogate my food every time I go out to the store or a restaurant. These conversations are unnecessarily complicated. Seems to me too many people, including the ones on Main Street, remain greedy and unable to look at where real values begin.

      • Publius | January 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Reply

        This is the one from reddit: Daily Beast piece

        n hidden in plain view all year.
        The explosive material that is fueling the negative coverage of Ron Paul, from his isolationist foreign policy to the racist newsletters published in his name, has been readily available to journalists. There was no need to assemble an investigative team to meet sources in parking garages; all that was required was a simple database search.
        But in a stunning dereliction of duty, the vast majority of the press corps couldn’t be bothered.
        We all know the media can’t walk, chew gum and cover more than two presidential candidates at a time. All too often, journalists are like lemmings, marching in lockstep after whoever has gotten a bump in the polls. That’s why the news business has lurched from Trump to Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Newt to Paul (and perhaps now Santorum, who’s blipped up to third in Iowa in a CNN/Time survey).
        But it’s not as though Paul had some hidden past that could be excavated only through dusty court records. He says stuff every day—eliminate aid to Israel, abolish the Fed, get rid of the income tax, bring American soldiers home from around the world—that would create a firestorm around any other candidate.
        And yet he skated, because the press, in its infinite wisdom, decreed that the Texas congressman was a fringe figure, not a serious Republican contender, so the normal rules of coverage need not apply. He was relegated to sideshow status, treated as an eccentric uncle.
        Then, a couple of weeks ago, the media establishment woke up to the notion that Paul might win Iowa—this after belatedly realizing that Gingrich, also left for dead by the media, was a serious contender in the caucuses as well.
        Suddenly, Paul’s views mattered. Suddenly, Paul’s record mattered. Suddenly, hard questions were being asked.
        Which brings us to the newsletters.
        For an ordinary politician aspiring to the presidency, it would be radioactive for his old newsletters to have opined that order was restored after the L.A. riots “when it became time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Or that the Martin Luther King holiday was “Hate Whitey Day.” Or that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” Or that “jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”
        But the story was already written during the 2008 campaign by James Kirchick in the New Republic. Did any reporter ask Paul about the newsletters before the last two weeks? Did any moderator quote the offensive language in one of the endless debates? Uh-uh.
        Not until Kirchick essentially rewrote his piece for the Weekly Standard, and the New York Times picked it up, did the press examine this devastating paper trial.
        To be sure, Paul says he never read most of what was published in the Ron Paul Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report and other similarly named journals. But even if we take him at his word, the questions are obvious: Why didn’t you know? What does this say about your management skills? Why would you associate with people who would put out this filth?
        That these questions are just now starting to be asked, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, is an embarrassment for the media. And Paul’s testy responses make clear that he did not expect to have to explain these incendiary words that he now dismisses as old news.
        What about talking to people who worked for the libertarian lawmaker? Had any journalists tried reaching Eric Dondero, a longtime and now disaffected Paul aide? In a blog post carried on Right Wing News, Dondero said his ex-boss is no racist or anti-Semite.
        “He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”
        Paul is not anti-gay, says Dondero, but is “personally uncomfortable around homosexuals,” once even going to considerable lengths to avoid using a gay supporter’s bathroom.
        And Paul is most definitely an isolationist: “He strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that ‘saving the Jews,’ was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just ‘blowback,’ for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.”
        Even now, Dondero’s indictment has received scant coverage. Imagine if a former aide had leveled even a fraction of such criticism against Mitt Romney?
        The Paul campaign says Dondero is disgruntled because he was fired in 2003. “That is a complete and utter lie,” Dondero told CNN. “And there’s an e-mail out from the former chief of staff, Tom Lazar, that says that that is not true.” Dondero says he quit because of Paul’s opposition to the Iraq war.
        None of this is to argue that the media had a duty to “expose” Paul long before the primaries began. The voters are perfectly capable of deciding whether this man is a plausible president.
        But the press does have a responsibility to examine the public record of each candidate in the race, rather than deciding in advance that a congressman who ran a plausible campaign last time is nonetheless a certified loser unworthy of even a cursory examination. The pattern was established with Herman Cain, who might still have a shot at the nomination had the sexual misconduct allegations not surfaced, and with Newt Gingrich, whose business record (Freddie Mac advocacy and the rest) came under scrutiny only after he resurrected his struggling campaign.
        With Paul neck and neck with Romney in Iowa, the kind of basic reporting that is just starting to surface is long overdue.

        • ginaann | January 13, 2012 at 7:02 pm | Reply

          You guys are missing the point. Just because a racist agrees with his politics doesn’t mean he has racist politics. Ron Paul’s politics protect gays, blacks and whites, unlike the Corporate politics of most runners who are allowing your Constitutional liberties to be whittled away at alarming speed. Wake up. The bottom line is the man’s politics are in line with Constitutional rights for every person regardless of whether he agrees with gay marriage or any other issue. No other politician upholds the basic Constitution like him. You are missing the main message and spending way too much energy on long posts.

          • Publius | January 13, 2012 at 7:12 pm |

            This is the propaganda Ron Paul uses to sway votes. My position is none of the above. Not one candidate in either party deserves election. Here is a bit more on Mr. Paul and his Constitution.

            Molly Ivins, God bless her big heart, warned us about Ron Paul over a decade ago. Her coverage of this 1996 Texas congressional races included this prescient precis:
            Dallas’ 5th District, East Texas’ 2nd District and the amazing 14th District,which runs all over everywhere, are also in play. In the amazing 14th, Democrat Lefty Morris (his slogan is ”Lefty is Right!”) faces the Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul, who is himself so far right that he’s sometimes left, as happens with your Libertarians. I think my favorite issue here is Paul’s 1993 newsletter advising ”Frightened Americans” on how to get their money out of the country. He advised that Peruvian citizenship could be purchased for a mere 25 grand. That we should all become Peruvians is one of the more innovative suggestions of this festive campaign season. But what will the Peruvians think of it?
            Molly, with her usual insight, laid out the essential struggle we’re having with Paul. As a libertarian leftist, I understand viscerally the charm of Paul’s message. Who wouldn’t be charmed? He’s anti-war, anti-torture, anti-drug war, and anti-corporation — a real progressive dream date. Until you reflect on the fact that he’s also anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-sane immigration policy, and apparently, anti-separation of church and state as well:

            “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.”

            — From a “War on Religion” article Ron Paul wrote in December 2003 (found at Lew Rockwell.com):
            And that’s the trouble we’re having with Ron. There’s just a whole lot going on under that affable exterior that deserves a hard second look before we clutch the man to our collective bosom. The political writers in Texas back in that ’96 campaign knew quite a bit about this, and their writing survives to tell some interesting tales. Here, for example, is Clay Robison, writing in the Houston Chronicle the same week Molly wrote the above:
            [Democratic candidate] Morris recently distributed copies of political newsletters written by Paul in 1992 in which the Surfside physician endorsed the concept of secession, defended cross burning as an act of free speech and expressed sympathy for a man sentenced to prison for bombing an IRS building.
            Cross-burning as free speech? (And sympathy for domestic terrorist bombers?) Um, yeah. Two months later, the Austin American-Statesman let Paul share his views in his own words:
            Not all officials express alarm when discussing cross burnings. U.S.Rep.-elect Ron Paul, a Texas Republican from Surfside, described such activity as a form of free speech in some situations.

            “Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody’s property rights,” he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it’s on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police.”
            See, here’s that problem again. When Paul explains it, it sounds all nice and reasonable. What you do on your property absolutely should be your business, and nobody should be able to tell you what you can and can’t put on your Saturday night bonfire. But Texas was having a huge upswing in cross-burnings that year, which were part of an (all-too-successful) effort to terrorize its African-American community. There’s plenty of legal precedent that one person’s right to free speech ends when it begins to terrorize others into silence — and, because of this, cross-burning is recognized as a hate crime in many jurisdictions across the country. But Ron Paul, for all his libertarian talk, apparently doesn’t believe in putting any restrictions on speech, even when it damages other individuals and the overall level of civil behavior in society.

            And then there’s the company he keeps. Dave is going to have more on this soon; but if you want to know someone’s character, look at the people he surrounds himself with. (Most of us wish we’d understood more about Bush’s friends before the 2000 election — let’s not repeat that mistake here.)

            First, there’s Tom DeLay. Paul may be loudly anti-corporate and anti-GOP establishment; but that didn’t stop him from taking $6,000 from DeLay’s ARMPAC. According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Paul returned the favor by voting to weaken House ethics rules when DeLay proposed doing so as GOP Majority Leader; and to allow DeLay to continue to serve after an indictment. Since DeLay is easily the biggest corporate whore Washington has seen since Mark Hanna, we’re not wrong to wonder about Paul’s true enthusiasm for curbing corporate excess.

            Then, there’s the 100% legislative ranking Paul got from Cannabis Culture magazine — a fact that lifts liberal spirits everywhere, and is very consistent with his libertarian views. But we shouldn’t let that blind us to the fact that he also got 100% rankings from both the Christian Coalition and the John Birch Society — two entities far more powerful and serious than Cannabis Culture,, and which actively wish ill on people like us. Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson actively helped midwife Paul’s budding political career: according to the New York Times, his political teams were circulating campaign letters promoting Paul over Bush I as a presidential candidate all the way back in 1988.

            More serious are the friends on the farthest right edges — the tax patriots, “sovereign citizens,” and proto-fascists who have supported him from the beginning and are supporting him still. It’s been quite a while since the militia fever of the early 90s acquainted us all the permutations of these loony-right movements (if you can’t tell the players without a scorecard, the ADL provides a very good one here); but commenter Hume’s Ghost pointed us to this excellent summary:
            Many commentators have portrayed the Patriot and militia movements as fascist. We believe it is more accurate to describe them as right-wing populist movements with important fascistic tendencies-thus they are quasifascist or protofascist. Like the America First movement of the early 1940s, the Patriot movement and the militias represented a large-scale convergence of committed fascists with nonfascist activists. Such coalitions enable fascists to gain new recruits, increase their legitimacy among millions of people, and repackage their doctrines for mass consumption.

            Mary Rupert dubbed the Patriot movement “A Seedbed for Fascism” and suggested that the “major missing piece in looking at the Patriot Movement in relation to fascism is that it does not overtly advance an authoritarian scheme of government. In fact, its emphasis seems to be on protecting individual rights.” According to Rupert, there are two “portents of possibility” that could shift this situation: “First is the below-the-surface disposition of the Patriot Movement towards authoritarianism, and second is the way in which Patrick Buchanan…picked up and played out the Patriots’ grievances.” We would add that “individual rights,” like states’ rights, can also be a cover for the sort of decentralized social totalitarianism promoted by the neofascists of the Posse Comitatus and Christian Reconstructionism — both of which helped lay the groundwork for the Patriot movement itself.
            This puts a new context around Paul’s relationship with The Patriot Network, a South Carolina-based group that’s part of the “tax resistance” movement. This crew threw a 2004 banquet in Ron Paul’s honor, as I mentioned in an earlier post (their newsletter noted that “most of the state’s leading nationalist figures attended,”).

            Groups like this one aren’t just a bunch of Howard Jarvis-type disgruntled taxpayers. The Patriot Network, like others going all the way back to the Posse Comitatus of the 70s, coaches members on how to avoid taxes, bilking them of thousands of dollars by selling them “untax” packages that will enable them — under their own bizarre theory of government — to exempt themselves from taxation. These “untax” theories have been repeatedly refuted by the courts across the country over the past couple decades; and several leaders of previous organizations offering similar services have been convicted and jailed for tax fraud. As noted above, the Patriot movement overlaps strongly with a variety of Christian Identity, militia, “sovereign citizen,” and other ideologies dear to the heart of the far-right domestic terrorist agenda.

            Another site that’s endorsed Paul is the Dixie Daily News, a neo-Confederate website full of articles on states’ rights, gold-backed currency, and how the South was right all along. Paul writes for this site frequently — as does his friend and former legislative aide Gary North, who is also R.J. Rushdooney’s son-in-law and a leading light of the Christian Reconstructionist movement. At the moment, the headline at the site is promoting Ron Paul’s appearance at the group’s “FreedomFest” in Las Vegas next month.

            If Paul is making public appearances for this group, we need to be asking: why is he running for office in a government he clearly doesn’t believe in?

            If you doubt that Paul has the support of our proto-fascists, don’t take my word for it — take theirs. This endorsement, for example, recently appeared on national KKK leader David Duke’s website. And I’ll let an anonymous commenter from Stormfront, the far right’s favorite Web watering hole, have the final word:
            Anyone who doesn’t vote for Paul on this site is an assclown. Sure he doesn’t come right out and say he is a WN [white nationalist], who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we “get there” without having to raise hell, who cares; aslong as we finally get what we want. I don’t understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.

            Pat Buchanan’s book “Where the Right Went Wrong” is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a BarMitzvah, but he doesn’t have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.

            Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Stormfront, for God’s sake David Duke is behind this guy!
            Bill Maher and Jon Stewart may love the ratings Ron Paul brings in. But the growing pile of evidence is proving that Paul, for all his freedom-loving talk, is in the pocket of the very people this blog has spent the past four years warning about. His links to the murderous brownshirt fringe that brought us the Freemen standoff and the Oklahoma City bombing are too strong to be ignored.

            If America ever becomes a fascist state, it will be Ron Paul’s long-time followers who bring it about. And we — progressives, miniorities, feminists, gays, “intellectuals,” and Jews like Maher and Stewart — with be the first ones to feel their genocidal rage. We cannot overlook his long association with far-right extremists just because he agrees with us that the war is wrong and pot should be legal. If Bush has taught us anything, it’s that we need to hold ourselves and our candidates to much higher standards than that. What we choose to overlook now, we will live to regret later.

            Valuable research assistance for this piece was provided by Hume’s Ghost, librarian Dan Harms, and our commenters. — SR

          • ginaann | January 13, 2012 at 7:24 pm |

            My God do you cut and paste this all over the Internet? So much is taken out of context. Just because far right nut groups endorse him doesn’t mean a thing. Isn’t it ironic that he is the only candidate who sticks to the Constitution, yet so-called good people think he’s crazy? We’ve abandoned our own Constitution in exchange for suckling off of the Corporations who represent your so-called Fascist schemes.

            People throw around words like Fascism and Nazism, which have multiple meanings on a spectrum of history. Your examples are not sophisticated theories or exposes–these are all out of context jabs. There is one document that should consistently guide America’s conversation–and that is the Constitution. Regardless of what you think of Paul’s pals, he is right about that.

          • Publius | January 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm |

            He is not pro-anything but Ron Paul. Dig a bit under the surface and you see a man from the farthest right, in an election year of lunatics. He wishes gut the FDR safety net. He is unelectable anyway since voting machines count the vote. I post simply because I am nauseated by Hopium of Left or Right. I understand the desire for good governance, but that is an oxymoron. There is no one running for President today who represents anything except their interest group and Ron Paul’s is not the Constitution, but his rather peculiar interpretation of it.

  4. Eugenie | January 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Reply

    Publius, links are not working…

  5. Rady | January 13, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Reply

    I agree with more than half of what Ron Paul says, based on what you posted above. Israel is a criminal state. Its very existence was made possible by stealing Palestinian land and genociding them — which goes on to this very day.

    I agree we had no business getting into WW2; but the military industrial complex wanted it so there we went. Let’s not forget that Pearl Harbor was a false flag op just like 911.

    He opposes war and supports a smaller government; you betcha.

    There are plenty of lefties who like his message, along with the right, because he’s a Constitutionalist. He’s absolutely the best choice, imo.

    However, voting on electronic machines that can be hacked without detection means that US elections are a complete fraud. So all this debate about candidates is just a fun distraction.

    Meanwhile, his words are inspiring and, in the above video, prescient.

  6. ginaann | January 14, 2012 at 12:48 am | Reply

    Publius, I would be frightened as hell to see your interpretation of the Constitution. I have a feeling you are a Corporatist who would like to see the Constitution shredded.

    • Publius | January 14, 2012 at 1:07 am | Reply

      We can disagree. Constitution was shredded in Civil War. Just check it out sine die on google with Civil War. When i take the political test i come out Anarchist-Libertarian. Seemingly this is because I have no liking for authoritarians. I also have issues with recreational cross burning-even on private property- interesting quandry, however, in that I support free speech-even up to the point of handing out leaflets to oppose military recruitment.

      • ginaann | January 14, 2012 at 1:38 am | Reply

        Despite crimes against the Constitution, it lives and must be defended. The biggest crime now would be for the monumental genius of Jefferson and the forefathers to be edited out of existence either by regimes or by “people” who allow those regimes to run amok over natural freedoms.

        (And I have plenty of problems irgnorant people who revel in hate-filled behaviors, but I also know a healthy government structure allows for the cream to rise to the top–where those idiots naturally fall away. As long as you bring up your problems with behaviors, I am sickened by pharmaceutical commercials, which brainwash millions to kill themselves. It looks less innocuous, but it’s every bit as insidious.)

        • Publius | January 14, 2012 at 2:04 am | Reply

          I am not in disagreement. I do not think corporations are legal human beings with rights like free speech. However, my understanding of Constitutional law is that once the Congress adjourned Sine Die the Republic ended. In a nutshell, see-
          http://www.kansasrepublic.info/home/learn/dejure/

          The de jure (original) government for the united States of America was founded as a Constitutional Republic 1789. A Republic is a form of government that adheres to the Rule of Law and protecting Individual Rights (not Public Policy Rules that protect corporations). Before the Civil War actually started (in 1860), the then President of America was forced to close down the original de jure congress “Sine Die” because 11 of the Southern States of the time wanted to secede from the union, thereby diluting the needed 2/3 quorum to pass anything in that de jure Congress. The country was run from 1861 till 1871 unlawfully/unconstitutionally under a state of martial law.

          After the Civil War on February 21, 1871, the forty-first congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia” or the “Act of 1871”. By passing this act, they, under no constitutional authority, formed a private corporation called “The District of Columbia”, which is a ten square mile parcel of land located between Maryland and Virginia. The names “THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, “United States”, “U.S.”, “U.S.A”, “USA” and “America” were trademarked. In essence, this Act formed the corporation we now know today as the “UNITED STATES”. This newly formed corporation was owned and operated by the new post war government that was covertly reconstructed for the purpose of carrying out its business under martial law declared by President Abraham Lincoln.

          The original organic Constitution was called: “The Constitution for the united states of America”. In 1871, this was changed to “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” and the original 13th Amendment “The Titles of Nobility Amendment”, was covertly dropped from most archives. This original amendment banned individuals holding titles of nobility from holding office (attorneys). This newly fabricated corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity essentially placing commerce above individual American sovereign unalienable rights.

          It gave the newly reconstructed congress the unconstitutional authority to make corporate laws, but only within the ten square mile District of Columbia. This is not the same document that governs the de jure Republic forms of government under which this nation was founded. Today under the de facto (acting as) corporate version governments, people are considered “citizens” and/or “residents”, and are granted “inalienable rights” and “governmental privileges” (thus noting differences in spellings of unalienable vs. inalienable), establishing a new form of indentured servant (subject to the government) through the quantification of their labor, productivity, and facility, into an artificial abstraction, in instruments called Federal Reserve Notes (and statutory Legal Law), more commonly known today as “legal money” not lawful tender under the original de jure 1789 Constitution. This fiat currency (un-backed by lawful tender 1789 Constitutional silver and gold) is owned and issued by the private creditors of the U.S. government. These paper notes which are backed by nothing and cannot be redeemed for any hard or tangible asset, are used to pay taxes to fund the U.S. government corporation which in turn funds its creditors, thus creating a pyramidal, top down, hierarchical, system of control which places The People at the bottom of this structure and a few individuals operating at the top clandestinely. Those seated in de jure government offices are sworn to uphold and support the 1789 Constitutional Supreme Law (a republican form of Government) of the land and to serve in Trust, ensuring authority comes only from the people themselves and not the government. In our original Republic not only were the people recognized as sovereign right citizens, but the states were also independent Republics-foreign to the national government. Today under the corporate governments, the States are merely sub-servent corporate subsidiaries (a democracy since 1871) of The District of Columbia. The organic 1789 Constitution enumerated a simple Federal government (a republic) to serve a unified nation of limited sovereign right republic states directed by and comprised by American sovereign right Citizens serving each other for the greater good.

          • ginaann | January 14, 2012 at 2:41 am |

            Thanks for sharing all that. I’ve learned it in varying degrees in the past. Jefferson warned the U.S. government over and over about Bank inflation and Corporate infiltration. But the fact is, we still have the original Constitution to defer to. Please keep education people. And we need more honest passionate lawyers to exhume the true Constitution.

  7. nik7d | January 25, 2012 at 3:22 am | Reply

    rady,
    it is easy to love paul given the rhetoric.
    then again, who were the two presidents before wwI and wwII?
    didn’t they run and win on antiwar platforms?
    how hard is it to sound pro constitution today?
    obama sounded pro constitution too.
    publius makes some excellent points.

    given the history directors’ agenda, it is looking more and more like obama will become their whipping boy if not the sacrificial lamb.
    either obusha or the bum after him will probably be tasked by the history directors to close this society down the way fascists have done for centuries.

    you and publius are right on target concerning the vote. it is done.

    look at the currencies, our resources and the controllers. paul is obviously as corrupt as obusha. rove put rand in place. look at how rand changed his tune immediately when rove came out publicly helping rand get elected. hitler said nice things too.

    a fascist is almost certainly coming. we are arguing about which flavor and who we think is or is not one. the argument is more accurately about who will and will not be one.

    it hardly matters. what non-fascist leader will have enough power to stand up to the history directors? without ending as jfk did?

    it takes controlling the currency. that prospect is already gone. converting to a currency backed by real assets and resources would be a wonderful idea, if not for the fact that resources are peaked and dropping fast.

    thank you for all this though.
    it clarifies much.
    had been wondering how it is possible that the pauls get their messages across so well given such a contrary media.
    also curiouser as to how they criticize the punks in tsa and the rest of government so openly and get treated by media so well.
    when progressives like kucinich call our govt out for trashing the constitution, (any constitution), they get slam dunked as crazy america haters.
    pauls get patted on their heads and called crazy in love with their country. ironic that this was also hitler’s excuse.

    even more ironic that hitler was used so well by the banking cartel families – the same families responsible and profitting from apartheid in africa and now the middle east.

    if anyone can, please do send more info on the pauls’ stance on past obvious false flags. 9/11 and 7/7.
    thank you
    nd

  8. nik7d | January 25, 2012 at 3:28 am | Reply

    ps
    anyone remember the australian actor producing excellent youtubes on all more accurate versions of history? not a holocaust denier. simply a holocaust detailer. great videos on 911 mythology too.
    nd

  9. ginastestblog | January 25, 2012 at 3:36 am | Reply

    Ron Paul’s has built his entire career as a Constitutionalist….And if you think the mainstream media loves Paul then why is his strong following ignored in the Republican race in favor of Romney and Gingrich? And why is he called a radical by so many? Paul is rightfully known for having spoken consistently over many decades. The difference between him and the other truthful “radicals” is that he speaks with even diplomacy and understands protocol.

  10. nik7d | January 25, 2012 at 4:09 am | Reply

    gina,
    people were this sold on the constitutional expert currently in the whitehouse before 2008 too. in point of fact obusha’s first, strongest and still current mentor is joe leiberman. his other ties to and actions for immanuels, goldman, jpmc and on speak far stronger than his hope and change rhetoric

    rand and ron have just as beautiful rhetoric. beautifuller in fact.

    perhaps it sounds too jaded or too condi like but perhaps the irony of it will drive the point home. who could have predicted…. that obusha would protect the bush regime past the statutes of limitations,… continue drone attacks,… execute american citizens without a trial,… sign into law executive power to suspend the right to fair speedy trials (ndaa),… continue and protect torture,… continue to funnel money to war profiteers on a larger scale than bush,…. continue gitmo,.. prosecute honest and accurate whistleblowers while ignoring their truths more aggressively than all other presidencies combined,… continue and worsen no child left behind,… continue and worsen tsa,… run wars for profit executing foreign leaders and violating other nations’ soveriegnty,… funnel all the middle class wealth, savings, pensions, resources to the wealthiest 0.1%,… protect pirate corporate greedsters in all industries (BP, fracking, nukes, AIG, goldman, jpmc,….),….

    this list is fairly long and growing fast. the point is that it is going to be just as easy to rant about who could have predicted such thinks about rand or ron, whichever the directors of history decide to follow on obusha.

    how about we let the who could have predicted line to those dumb enough to fall for further false flags?
    nd

    • ginaann | January 25, 2012 at 4:18 am | Reply

      My friend, it must be understood that any president in office inherits the awful legacy of being under the throttle of Corporate control. Unfortunately, our Government sold out to big Fed Banking and Corporations almost from the beginning–against the vehement warnings of Thomas Jefferson. The president either plays by their rules or gets wiped out. So he has to choose his battles carefully. Until the people wake up and quit propping up Big Money–we continue to spin in this insanity.

  11. Publius | January 25, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Reply

    Americans, like people everywhere, love to be entertained, and so Odysseus is also story teller with a curious story. He is among the survivors of a shipwreck but not a registered passenger. He was hiding in the dining room as servile busser and lived to tell this tale “In the period immediately after the Costa Concordia hit a rock off the coast of Tuscany, the behaviour of the passengers and crew has given us all sorts of insights into the eternal glories and failings of human nature. Perhaps the most symbolically pregnant gesture took place in the dining room. When the crockery started to slide from the tables, as the ship began to list, the waiters just picked it up and put it back. “It is nothing!” they said soothingly. “It is an electrical fault. Tutto va bene and what would madame like for the antipasto?”…

Leave a comment