Ron Paul's Urgent Warning

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


I would like one also! I

But his Austrian school economics just doesn't make a lot of sense but more to the point it just doesn't work in the context of a global economy which, like it or not, is the economy we live in.

Well thats to bad,because i think that the economy should be based around what Ron Paul's economics are,not Ron Pauls economics around the existing economy.
The economy and the way it is and works is part of the problem itself.
Its a war economy,theres no denying that.

I think his "Austrian school economics" or whatever you want to call it,make perfect sense.
Its a pity more people dont see that.

If Ron Paul cant do it,no one can...

when this man speaks, people better listen!

reply to post by David9176

He wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act. There are the Ron Paul newsletters that have rascist rants in them. He is for privatizing social security and medicare.

Those 3 things alone will destroy any election bid.

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and believes RIGHTS belong to the INDIVIDUAL and not to a "Special group" He wants to RETURN power to the states where the people can gain control of it again instead of the K Street lobbyists. This fact is used by the banker owned media to twist his message so it becomes "Racist" when it is actual FOR a small federal government and a sift of power BACK to the states. Not the same thing at all.

It is much harder for the corporate/banker elite to control fifty state governments. That is why the Senate was changed from representing the STATES as semi-sovereign entities to disenfranchised bought and paid for Eunuchs. (States no receive about 50% or more of their funding from the FEDERAL gov't instead of from the citizens directly)

Paul's point of view is if you want to make a state a giant Commune, then fine you go right ahead and convince the other citizens of that state to institute a commune. If they do not want to live in a "Commune" they can move to another state.

THE ACTUAL FACTS: Direct quotes from Ron Paul. Remember Paul supports a small FEDERAL government and the rights of the individual not the Rights of the federal government or "special interest group" I think what he says is consistent with those beliefs and not with "Racism" and it explains why he voted against a FEDERAL Civil Rights bill - emphasis on FEDERAL not civil.

Also Ron Paul got the most support from the BLACK vote of any repub in 2008 and his campaign chest was 97% funds from private individuals.

CIVIL RIGHTS
# Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)
# No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
# No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
# First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007)

# Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987)

# Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

CRIME
# Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008)
# Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography. (Sep 2007)
# Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
# Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)

DRUGS
# War on drugs is out of control; revert control to states. (Dec 2007)
# Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)
# Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
# Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
# Drug War fosters violence at home & breeds resentment abroad. (Oct 2001)
# Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
# War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
# Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

SOCIAL SECURITY
# Abolish Social Security, but not overnight. (Jan 2008)
[Ron Paul is well aware that people depend on SS and you can not just jerk the rug out from under them without getting rid of the leeches called the FED that is impoverishing us. Get rid of the FED and then SS becomes less important over time because people have more wealth. cv]
# Let people get out of Social Security; it’s a failure. (Jan 2008)
# Never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. (Dec 2007)
# Allow young people to get out of the system. (Oct 2007)
# Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one’s future. (Sep 2007)
# Federal government won’t keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007)
# Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
# Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
# Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
# Create personal retirement accounts within Social Security. (Jul 2000)

EDUCATION
# School prayer is not a federal issue. (Apr 2008)
# Private funds for arts work better than government funds. (Apr 2008)
# Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)
# Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax writeoff. (Dec 2007)

FREE TRADE
# Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty. (Apr 2008)
# FactCheck: NAFTA Superhighway not a conspiracy; it’s I-35. (Feb 2008)
# China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007)
# IMF empowers politicians by causing inflation. (Dec 1981)

OTHER
Right to organize; but no special benefits for unions. (Oct 2007)
Just about everything Congress does is unconstitutional. (Jul 2009)
# Reagan ran on limited government, but increased its size. (Dec 2007)
# Called Bush a “bum”; didn’t vote for Bush. (Dec 2007)
# All political action’s goal should be to preserve liberty. (Dec 2007)

www.ontheissues.org...

reply to post by Khurzon

I think most of the people we elect are good, if only they keep sight of a few human principles...

Are you for REAL???

There is EVIL in this world and it walks on two feet. I learned that at an early age when my brother tried to kill me on three separate occasions. When that did not work he beat the crap out of me when my parents were not looking. He is eight years older and 6'6"

Guess what? He is now the President and CEO of a big Corporation!

The sociopaths rise to the top because they do not care WHO they stomp in the ground to get there. They have no morals or ethics just "Street smarts" and a mask. Their goals are MONEY and POWER.

"Sweetness and Light" are masks they hide behind and they are very good at hiding because they are usually of above average intelligence. (Brother's is over 200) My parents were completely unaware of my brother's true character to their dying days.

I have since run into several others of his ilk. Many have charisma and are popular, but they are USERS and see people as things to be used and their charisma as a tool.

Please note I am not religious but even I can recognize pure EVIL when it slaps me up side the head. (Brother dear has "Assisted" several relatives into their grave a few days after writing a will leaving everything to him, my last count was seven including his own Father.)

reply to post by EagleTalonZ

I would love to see Dr. Paul in the White House but I have no doubt in my mind TPTB would take him out faster than JFK. This too would in my opinion lead to chaos in the streets which leads to the question we should all be asking: Is it intentional? Isn't the Illuminati motto - "Order through chaos"?? What better way to cause depopulation than to start a war of epic proportions and watch the people kill each other from the safety of your hidden bunker?

If TPTB takes Ron Paul out they have a BIG problem. Dan Estulin has ALREADY made it public that assassinating Paul was discussed in their meeting during 2007.


Also made public is WHO those in the Bilderberg organization are. HERE is the list of names, keep it in a safe place.

The London Connection with Family names has also been made public: LINKY

There is a heck of a lot of difference between riots and chaos and targeted assassinations...... POST

Bilderberg tracker Daniel Estulin says he has received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community suggesting that people from the highest levels of government are discussing “eliminating” Rep. Ron Paul because its controlled political system is threatened by Paul’s exploding popularity.....

Estulin’s past predictions about global events were accurate because of the solid information provided to him from within the Bilderberg organization....

Estulin, an award-winning investigative journalist, said that he was given the information from a source that has been reliable for over a decade in providing accurate projections of future events based on what the elite were discussing in their own circles and that assassination was a serious option should the Ron Paul Revolution continue to grow.

Retired FBI Special-Agent-in-Charge Ted Gunderson, 78, has been a whistleblower since his retirement nearly 30 years ago. He said “Yes, absolutely, they won’t hesitate to do it.”

Rather than shooting Paul, a more sophisticated silent attack such as poisoning or the provocation of a heart attack via exotic electronic technology would be more likely, he said....

reply to post by the owlbear

15% tax on a purchase of $100 is more of a pinch to a family that makes less than $100,000 than it is to a family that makes $10 million. Sounds fair to me.

YES! you have got it!

15% is MUCH MUCH fairer than the 50% or more in HIDDEN taxes they are already paying.


"A third of the cost of a gallon of gas is tax, half the cost of a pack of cigarettes and last I checked (20 years ago), there were 109 different taxes on a loaf of bread before you paid sales tax on the loaf and carried it home.' - JB Williams

"If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread — it accounts for more than half the cost of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat..." - President Ronald Reagan

Depending on how you do the calculations you can get anywhere from 30% and up on that loaf of bread. I noticed that no one ever bothers to include Monsanto who sold the seed, or John Deere who sold the tractor and implements or the grain elevators where the grain is stored, or the grain traders who bought the wheat and sold it to the milling company, or all the tax on the hauling companies that moved the seed and grain and the farmers equipment around. Or the mining company or the steel foundry... gets real complicated doesn't it
(Remember the cost of the PAYROLL taxes as well as corporate tax is passed to the customer)

TAX IMPORTS NOT WAGES!

Tax on imports = excise tax, see graph:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a762eced0ec.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by jude11


Thank you Jude for your post! S&F

I have watched the video 3 times now, and something about it does not sit well with me, and I cant put my finger on it............

Part of it makes me feel like he is fear mongering, another makes me feel like he is speaking out trying to awaken the masses and another part of me thinks he is trying to bring on social unrest just by speaking it......I dont know, Im confused with how I feel......

reply to post by Starwise

...Part of it makes me feel like he is fear mongering, another makes me feel like he is speaking out trying to awaken the masses and another part of me thinks he is trying to bring on social unrest just by speaking it......I dont know, Im confused with how I feel......

I do not consider it "Fear Mongering" when you yell FIRE and there actually IS a FIRE.

Also it is not "Fear Mongering" when you yell FIRE and then try to provide solutions.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by ontarff

 

Further more, if you read on Ron Paul, he does not want to abolish taxes. He wants to abolish the IRS (Unlawful anyways) and resort to a flat/fair tax. All will pay, all will pay the same percentage amount.

edit on 28-7-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

Wrong! He wants to abolish income taxes period. Income taxes are theft. He did out forth a hypothetical on a flat tax once to get people to think but if you really do read him he wants to do away with taxes.

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.” www.ronpaul.com...

edit on 29-7-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Income taxes, yes, TAXES as a whole, no, because he does understand taxes (minimal) will be needed. But, all will pay the same percentage, not just the wealthy.

reply to post by macman

Income taxes, yes, TAXES as a whole, no, because he does understand taxes (minimal) will be needed. But, all will pay the same percentage, not just the wealthy.

Nonsense, all taxation is theft.

How can you take someones money against their will and not consider that theft?

All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. -Ron Paul

Taxation is force.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by macman

 

Income taxes, yes, TAXES as a whole, no, because he does understand taxes (minimal) will be needed. But, all will pay the same percentage, not just the wealthy.

Nonsense, all taxation is theft.

How can you take someones money against their will and not consider that theft?

All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. -Ron Paul

Taxation is force.

A tax on goods is not forced, as in all theory, you don't have to purchase the item.

But I do not like taxes, but also understand some are a necessary evil.

Originally posted by tnhiker
I like how he not only explains the problem, gives possible/probable outcomes, then outlines a plan. He doesnt just blame everything and cry doom without giving a roadmap to reversal.

Yeah it would be nice if they all did that wouldn't it...

Too bad they are more worried about how they look on camera than the condition the country is in...

They care about votes and agendas not the American people..

Ron Paul on the other hand has been on our side for a long long time now.

reply to post by macman

A tax on goods is not forced, as in all theory, you don't have to purchase the item.

It is force, since I don't have the option to decline to pay the consumption tax.

But I do not like taxes, but also understand some are a necessary evil.

A necessary evil is a contradiction in terms.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by macman

 

It is force, since I don't have the option to decline to pay the consumption tax.

But, you don't have to purchase the product either.

Look, I am with you, I think taxes are slavery.

reply to post by macman

But, you don't have to purchase the product either.

Look, I am with you, I think taxes are slavery.

An excise tax or tariff on imported goods also serves to protect the citizen from low prices due to currency exchange manipulation.

...Each day, representatives of four other London banking firms meet in the offices of N.M. Rothschild Company in London to fix the price of gold for that day....

Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I, until it was surpassed by income taxes. Tariffs are import tax rates and the collected income is called customs or custom duties....

Responding to an urgent need for revenue following the American Revolutionary War, after passage of the U.S. Constitution the First United States Congress passed, and

President George Washington, signed the Tariff Act of July 4, 1789, which authorized the collection of duties on imported goods. Customs duties as set by tariff rates up to 1860 were usually about 80-95% of all federal revenue.....

The U.S. Constitution of 1789 gave the federal government authority to tax, stating that Congress has the power to "... lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Tariffs between states is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and all domestically made products can be imported or shipped to another state tax free.... en.wikipedia.org...

...Each day, representatives of four other London banking firms meet in the offices of N.M. Rothschild Company in London to fix the price of gold for that day....

TAX IMPORTS NOT WAGES!

Tax on imports = excise tax, see graph:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a762eced0ec.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by macman

 

But, you don't have to purchase the product either.

Look, I am with you, I think taxes are slavery.

An excise tax or tariff on imported goods also serves to protect the citizen from low prices due to currency exchange manipulation.

...Each day, representatives of four other London banking firms meet in the offices of N.M. Rothschild Company in London to fix the price of gold for that day....

Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I, until it was surpassed by income taxes. Tariffs are import tax rates and the collected income is called customs or custom duties....

Responding to an urgent need for revenue following the American Revolutionary War, after passage of the U.S. Constitution the First United States Congress passed, and

President George Washington, signed the Tariff Act of July 4, 1789, which authorized the collection of duties on imported goods. Customs duties as set by tariff rates up to 1860 were usually about 80-95% of all federal revenue.....

The U.S. Constitution of 1789 gave the federal government authority to tax, stating that Congress has the power to "... lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Tariffs between states is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and all domestically made products can be imported or shipped to another state tax free.... en.wikipedia.org...

...Each day, representatives of four other London banking firms meet in the offices of N.M. Rothschild Company in London to fix the price of gold for that day....

TAX IMPORTS NOT WAGES!

Tax on imports = excise tax, see graph:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a762eced0ec.gif[/atsimg]

You do understand that creating tariffs and taxes on imports usually create a condition where the opposing country does the same to our exported goods?
It ends up being a tit for tat.
Not saying it is bad, good, right or wrong, just that it happens.

reply to post by macman

But, you don't have to purchase the product either.

You don't have to work and earn an income either, do you not see what's wrong with this reasoning?

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by macman

 

But, you don't have to purchase the product either.

You don't have to work and earn an income either, do you not see what's wrong with this reasoning?

Not arguing theory, stating fact.

reply to post by crimvelvet

A trade war with China would be a horrible idea and it would probably lead to WW3. On top of that I've never understood why so many people are hell bent on not receiving all this free stuff from China anyways. Historically protectionism [fascism] only impoverishes.

From what I understand from your [the protectionist] argument, the Chinese are lowering the value of their currency. Meaning, for every dollar that goes to China, the Chinese govt is giving us 2 times as we should be receiving. Meaning, all Chinese goods cost half as much as they should.

You [the protectionist] see this as bad, because you see cheap prices as bad -- In fact, those cheap prices are the main reason the U.S economy is suffering. If only U.S consumers had to pay more for everything, we would all be rich.