|
Freeski
|
 |
« Reply #80 on: January 07, 2012, 09:15:21 PM » |
|
There is no question that the PEOPLE are all for Ron Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #81 on: January 07, 2012, 09:17:27 PM » |
|
Just so Santorum and others understand what New Hampshire is all about...just today...(but, of course, the governor is a NWO veto threatener)
NH House Votes To Eliminate Unconstitutional License Requirement For Concealed Guns
3 Other States Don't Require Permitshttp://www.wmur.com/news/30140798/detail.htmlPOSTED: 10:26 am EST January 5, 2012 CONCORD, N.H. -- The House has voted to make New Hampshire the fourth state to eliminate the need for a permit to carry concealed, loaded guns anyplace where gun possession is legal. The House voted 193-122 Thursday to make the permits optional. Gun owners could still get them so they could travel to states with reciprocal permit agreements. The bill also would increase from four to five years the length of time a permit is valid. The bill also would make it legal to transport unlicensed guns. The House passed a similar bill last session, but the Senate postponed action on it until this year. Exemptions in the law, such as for felons carrying weapons, would not change. Vermont, Arizona and Alaska don't require a permit. Gov. John Lynch has promised to veto the bill. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
donnay
|
|
« Reply #82 on: January 07, 2012, 09:25:15 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
|
|
|
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
 Offline
Posts: 9,866
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
|
|
« Reply #83 on: January 07, 2012, 09:26:42 PM » |
|
There all whores... Actually that's an insult to street whores, because at least they're honest about who they are and what they really do for a living. As for presstitutes and establishment politicians, allow me to paraphrase that scene in Full Metal Jacket: "Hey Mr. Rothschild! Me so desperate for money and fame. Me lie for you long time!" People need to start shaming them publically for their actions and complete lack of values. Of course they do. The problem is that, psychologically, most adults are still in high school, and are consequently so TERRIFIED of being ridiculed or laughed at by whoever they've been manipulated by the corporate whore media to perceive as the "in-crowd," that they literally would rather see their own children turned into poverty-stricken, militarily-repressed slaves to a handful of parasitic robber barons than risk being called a " conspiracy theorist" or something similar. The Eight Families and the sociopathic minions who gleefully serve them know this, of course, and so tailor their talking points and propaganda in such a way as will exploit this primitive fear to maximum effectiveness: Establishment shill/intellectual gatekeeper: “You don’t want us to label you a 'crackpot' or a 'conspiracy theorist,’ do you? Cowardly citizen: “No, no, please! Here, take my wallet if you want, rape my wife if you want, torture my children if you want — just don’t call me names! Anything but that!” Establishment shill/intellectual gatekeeper: "Then stop asking questions and stop thinking for yourself! When we tell you to believe something, you do as you're told! Got it, slave?" Cowardly citizen: "Yes, massa! I is your loyal, groveling, TV-watching, cell phone-fondling, flag-waving, authority-worshipping servant! May I crouch down and lick your hand, dear massa? Or at least your boots?"  Until a critical mass of Americans grow up and grow out of that pathetic, arrested development mindset, the Nazification of America will continue unabated. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #84 on: January 07, 2012, 09:26:58 PM » |
|
Great! Thx Donnay! Uploaded in record speed! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #85 on: January 07, 2012, 09:34:21 PM » |
|
Actually that's an insult to street whores, because at least they're honest about who they are and what they really do for a living.
As for presstitutes and establishment politicians, allow me to paraphrase that scene in Full Metal Jacket:
"Hey Mr. Rothschild! Me so desperate for money and fame. Me lie for you long time!"
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa That pretty much sums up Diane Sawyer's 50+ year career perfectly! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #86 on: January 07, 2012, 09:38:21 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
|
|
« Reply #87 on: January 07, 2012, 09:43:25 PM » |
|
Reminder to New Hampshre about Santorum's attack on the 10th Amendment:
Santorum, Federalism, and States’ “Right to Do Wrong” http://volokh.com/2012/01/07/santorum-federalism-and-states-right-to-do-wrong/Ilya Somin • January 7, 2012 1:26 am As co-blogger Jonathan Adler notes, Rick Santorum’s view of constitutional federalism is that the federal government can always override the states when the latter are doing something that is “wrong”: I’m a very strong supporter of the 10th amendment . . . but the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong. Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, states do not have the right to do wrong. And so there are folks, here who said states can do this and I won’t get involved in that. I will get involved in that because the states, as a president I will get involved because the states don’t have a right to undermine the basic fundamental values that hold this country together. Although I’m no fan of Santorum’s, there is a small kernel of truth to his argument. Some evils are so great that we may be justified in violating constitutional limitations on federal power in order to eliminate them. Slavery is probably the best historical example. Even some anti-slavery jurists, including Dred Scott dissenter Justice Benjamin Curtis, thought that Abraham Lincoln had exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which freed all slaves held in the rebel states). But even if Curtis was correct, Lincoln still did the right thing. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter defending the Louisiana Purchase (which he undertook even though he thought it was unconstitutional), “[A] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest.” But there is a big difference between claiming that we are morally justified in violating the Constitution in some extreme cases and concluding, as Santorum did, that the Constitution allows the federal government to “get involved” whenever the states are committing a “wrong.” That would essentially give the feds the power to override the states anytime a national majority or the federal political elite thought state policies were wrong in some way. It would lead us to essentially unlimited federal power. Maybe such unlimited power would not be a bad thing if we were confident that the feds would restrict themselves to overruling the states only when the latter are genuinely “wrong” in some objective sense, while otherwise leaving them alone. In reality, however, an unconstrained power to correct state wrongs is also an unconstrained power to impose federal wrongs. And federally imposed wrongs are often more dangerous than state wrongs. A “wrong” state policy affects fewer people than a similar federal policy does. Moreover, people can often “vote with their feet” to escape harmful state laws, which is much harder in the case of federal laws. Obviously, there are important exceptions to these generalizations, some of which I have written about elsewhere. But there is good reason to reject the view that the federal government should be allowed to override the states anytime the latter do something “wrong.” UPDATE: It’s worth noting another important difference between the view that unconstitutional actions are sometimes justified for the purpose of alleviating truly massive state injustices and Santorum’s claim that the feds can act anytime states do something “wrong.” In the former case, federal officials subject themselves to the risk of legal action, including possible impeachment. If they explicitly admit that they are violating the Constitution (as Jefferson did), they could also face public backlash for it. These dangers will tend to mitigate the risk that federal officials will violate the Constitution anytime they find a state policy they dislike. Such risks are much smaller in a political environment where a Santorumesque interpretation of the Constitution becomes dominant. Santorum's is the consummate globalist view based on the same corporate top down power grabbing "Feds know best" ideas that the founders saw as repugnant and abhorrent in the King, and his policies... Progressives and neo-conservatives are the same two headed royalist beast..... Barack Santorum... the latest mutation... JTCoyoté "The way to secure liberty is to place it
in the people's hands, that is, to give them
the power at all times to defend it in the
legislature and in the courts of justice."
~John Adams |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #88 on: January 07, 2012, 09:43:30 PM » |
|
NH 2012 GOP Primary Presidential Election Official Site http://www.sos.nh.gov/http://www.sos.nh.gov/presprim2012/index.htmAll electronic voting training material is available to any guest: http://nhvotes.sos.nh.gov/login/index.php |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #89 on: January 07, 2012, 09:50:42 PM » |
|
Hot Off The Presses: First News Story Praises Ron Paul
Ron Paul comes out swinging in Republican debatehttp://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120107/romney-debates-new-hampshire-primary-120107/Date: Sat. Jan. 7 2012 11:02 PM ET MANCHESTER, N.H. — The oldest man on the stage had the most fire in his belly on Saturday as the latest Republican presidential debate quickly morphed into a battle for second place as front-runner Mitt Romney, smiling almost beatifically at times, watched his rivals do pitched battle. Ron Paul, the 76-year-old libertarian congressman who's in second place in the New Hampshire polls heading into Tuesday's state primary, came out swinging, taking on Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich using the type of arguments rarely heard springing from the lips of a Republican. He didn't regret calling Gingrich a "chicken hawk" earlier this week, he told the debate moderators. Paul has assailed Gingrich for supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while failing to serve Vietnam; he accused the former speaker of the House of Representatives of getting several deferments to avoid serving in the conflict. "I think people who don't serve when they could ... they have no right to send our kids off to war, and not to even be against the wars we have," he said. When Gingrich objected, denying he had received a deferment but saying he was ineligible to serve because he was married with children, Paul scoffed. "When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went," he said to decisively end the exchange. Paul also praised civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. when asked about 20-year-old newsletters published under his name containing racist and homophobic themes. "One of my heroes is Martin Luther King, because he practiced the libertarian policy of peaceful resistance," Paul said. He then went on a positively leftist rant about how drug laws are enforced in the United States, pointing out that black men are incarcerated at disproportionate rates. "How many times have you seen the white rich person get the electric chair?" he asked. "If we really want to be concerned with racism...we ought to look at the drug laws." Romney, for the most part, was spared any damaging attacks from his rivals. They all made attempts to dismiss him as a mere businessman rather than an inspirational leader, and pointed to his work at an investment company that cost American workers jobs. He brushed off the attacks, barely breaking a sweat as he did so. Bain Capital created 100,000 jobs all told, Romney said, adding that a businessman had a better grasp on how to rejuvenate the economy than lifetime politicians. "I'm very proud of the fact that the two enterprises I led were successful," he said, referring to Bain and another firm. But it was Paul who created some of the debate's most crackling moments, including when he assailed Santorum. The former Pennsylvania senator came within a handful of votes of beating Romney in the recent Iowa caucuses and had increased support in the state in recent days. "You're a big spender, that's all there is to it -- you're a Big Government conservative," Paul told Santorum as Romney stood between them, grinning. "To say you're a conservative is a stretch, but you've convinced a lot of people of it." The verbal showdown in New Hampshire showcased an altered political landscape in the Republican race: Santorum is now enjoying his moment in the sun, while Michele Bachmann -- who revelled in her own surge in August -- is out of the race. In a Suffolk University poll released Saturday, Romney had the support of 39 per cent of the state's primary voters, with Paul in second place at 17 per cent. But the survey suggested that Santorum had peaked in the state as he battled for third place with Gingrich and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, all of them at about nine per cent. The poll suggested Santorum's momentum slowed noticeably following an appearance before a college crowd on Thursday that saw him face tough questions -- as well as jeers and boos -- about his opposition to same-sex marriage and his support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Santorum, however, kept up his attacks on Romney during Saturday's debate. "Being a president is not a CEO. You've got to lead and inspire," he said. With the primary looming, the Republican race has been punctuated by a series of nasty skirmishes among the candidates. Gingrich, in particular, believing he has a score to settle, has spent the days since his distant fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses bitterly maligning Romney. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan referred to him as an "angry little attack muffin" on Saturday. But Gingrich failed to score any knockout punches against Romney on Saturday, despite blaming his rival for a series of attack ads launched against him in Iowa. Gingrich's campaign is fighting back. A 30-minute counter-attack to be released soon portrays the former governor of Massachusetts as a ruthless corporate henchman who trod upon blue-collar workers when he was head of Bain Capital. The campaigns of Paul and Huntsman have also been in an unseemly duel. Huntsman accuses a Paul supporter of posting an offensive video that questioned his loyalty to the United States by featuring clips of him speaking Mandarin with his adopted Chinese daughter. Paul supporters have pushed back, commissioning a web consulting firm that suggested the Huntsman campaign was behind the video in an attempt to spur a backlash against the Texas congressman. Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller scoffed at the accusation. "Their latest conspiracy theory is nothing more than an attempt to cover for one of their racist supporters," he said. "The Paul campaign has botched the response to this shameful video from the beginning. Had they simply condemned the video and their supporter, we would be discussing the important issues facing our country." Paul has been polling well in New Hampshire, where Huntsman has devoted more time than any other candidate attempting to woo its primary voters. The Paul campaign is also taking aim at Santorum with a new ad airing in South Carolina, the scene of the next primary on Jan. 21. "One serial hypocrite exposed," the ad says, showing clips of Gingrich. "Now another has emerged: Rick Santorum, a corporate lobbyist and Washington politician. A record of betrayal." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
pac522
|
|
« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2012, 10:12:03 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".
Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati. ~EvadingGrid
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #91 on: January 07, 2012, 10:40:06 PM » |
|
New Hampshire Debate Observationshttp://www.dailypaul.com/201344/new-hampshire-debateSubmitted by Paul_Johns on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 22:19 First, in the intro to this debate, ABC showed all the candidates longer than Ron Paul. Second, they gave Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and even Jon Hunt softball questions before getting to Ron Paul. Third, when the little man (Stephanopolis) got to Ron Paul, he throws him a question about a negative ad against Santorum, trying to embarrass Dr. Paul. Forth, when Ron Paul started speaking, the audio crew made sure that Ron Paul's microphone had feedback, causing a loud screeching noise. Fifth, it was obvious that Rick Santorum knew that this question was coming to Ron Paul. ABC, like all the other mainstream media outlets, stinks to high heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2012, 10:41:37 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2012, 10:43:41 PM » |
|
Who won the New Hampshire debate?-Ron Paul -Other -The Easter Bunny -Some Globalist Stooge -My dead Uncle Sal
[Note: Author may be a member: pac522]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2012, 10:45:56 PM » |
|
Rick Santorum Tea Party Hypocrite; He publicly opposed the Tea Party on video. This finishes his campaign if viral.http://www.dailypaul.com/201245/rick-santorum-tea-party-hypocrit-he-publically-opposed-the-tea-party-on-video-and-now-says-he-loves-the-tea-partySubmitted by Neverquit on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 16:27 Any bets on how the media will try to defend Rick on this? Rick Santorum tea party hypocrit he publically opposed the tea party on video. It appears that Rick Santorum is just another flip flopper to fit the audience, he now states he is and has always supported the tea party movement while also saying to republican leadership that he is concerned about the tea party movement and how it is trying to refashion conservative views. Like no more bailouts and actually obeying the constitution. http://youtu.be/M3TVoVqvt74
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2012, 10:48:44 PM » |
|
Peter Schiff warns us about a anti-Romney ad in this video:http://www.dailypaul.com/201216/warning-from-peter-schiffSubmitted by Phoenix_Meetup_... on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 14:52 http://youtu.be/8h-a1kKOkNM"The NIA has produced a very professional anti-Mitt Romeny video called "The Romney Con" that the NIA hopes will go viral. DO NOT help make that happen. The NIA is the real con! It is nothing more than a front for penny stock pump and dump scams. The NIA does not really support Ron Paul, they merely pretend to support him so they can steal money from those who do. Spread the truth. Circulated this video to warn Ron Paul supporters and prevent them from being ripped off."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #96 on: January 07, 2012, 10:59:50 PM » |
|
Holy Crap. Please get this everywhere
Lynn de Rothschild's 'special' relationship to Jon Huntsman
Richest family on the planet (21 trillion) behind Americans Elect push http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/12/06/lady-lynn-forester-de-rothschild-jon-huntsman-americans-elect-and-no-labels-the-connections/“A not-for-profit organization, called Americans Elect is establishing ballot access in all 50 states for the candidates for president and vice president in 2012 who will be nominated directly by the people in an online nominating process. The sophisticated website of Americans Elect allows registered voters a revolutionary new way to nominate a bipartisan ticket to occupy the White House.” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, December 5 2011 “Americans Elect is the real deal….I hope all will go to AmericansElect.org and sign us as a delegate….it is free and it is freedom.” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, November 12 2011 “I sit on the Leadership Board for Americans Elect” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, December 5 2011 “Board of Advisors: Lynn Forester de Rothschild” — Americans Elect, July 26 2011 “As for the missing middle, next year will see an innovation. In June 2012, well before the Republican convention in Florida and the Democratic convention in North Carolina, an organisation calling itself “Americans Elect” will hold an online nominating convention of its own. Its plan is not to create a third party but to use the internet to choose a presidential candidate from any party (who will in turn have to pick a running-mate from a different one) and put this non-partisan ticket on the ballot in every state. The outfit has already collected more than 2m of 3m or so signatures it will need to satisfy every state’s ballot requirements.” — The Economist, December 3 2011 ““Just for this week, indulge in a fantasy,” writes The Economist. “Everything you think you know about next year’s presidential election in America might be wrong.” — Americans Elect, December 2 2011 “Lady de Rothschild is a director of The Economist Newspaper Limited” — Forbes business profile “Since June 2002, Lady de Rothschild has been the Chief Executive of E.L. Rothschild LLC, a private investment company with investments in media, information technology, agriculture and real estate. Holdings include The Economist Group” — Bloomberg Link Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman identified as one of Americans Elect’s Top 4 “National Matches” with public opinion following opaque methodology — November 14 2011 “Huntsman is the Only Electable Republican” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, December 3 2011 “@JonHuntsman only candidate to seriously consider financial reform and other hard issues RT @Timodc #Q4Jon trending worldwide. Cool stuff!” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, November 29 2011 “As the dust settles, people are finally realizing Jon Huntsman is the only electable GOP candidate.” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, November 8 2011 “I still believe we can get America back to its manufacturing glory, @JonHuntsman shows how” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, November 8 2011 “@JonHuntsman @Jon2012girls picking up steam, will be the only one standing at the end of day watch him on @meetthepress on Sunday” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, November 4 2011 “I voted for Jon Huntsman in the #POLITICOprimary” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, October 10 2011 “Vote for Jon Huntsman, the only pragmatic candidate running for President in 2012!” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, October 10 2011 “$1057 to Jon Huntsman for President Inc” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, June 29 2011 “Jon M. Huntsman Jr. opened his day on Tuesday by formally declaring his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. He closed it by accomplishing an equally important task: collecting $1.2 million for his campaign. A dinner in Manhattan, hosted by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, was the venue to kickoff Mr. Huntsman’s fund-raising effort.” — New York Times, June 22 2011 “$5000 to HPAC” [Jon Huntsman leadership committee] — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, June 16 2011 “$0″ — contributions to any other political candidate by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, 2011 “Many other bipartisan organizations have emerged over the past three years to give support and strength to any qualified independent candidate. No Labels is a political organization of Republicans, Democrats and Independents working on the grassroots level to support bipartisan and pragmatic politicians and polices. The group has 180,000 members and on December 13th is holding an open meeting at the Capital to unveil a comprehensive congressional action plan. Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, is leading a movement of business leaders and political donors to end the hyper-partisanship in Washington that could be the bedrock of financing for a viable independent, bipartisan, ticket for 2012.” — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, December 5 2011 “…a fantastic presentation given by No Labels and the Comeback America Initiative… — Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, October 5 2011 “No labels, just wealth and power. There is strong speculation that Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, married to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, head of the richest family on the planet ($21 trillion, former head of NM Rothschild & Sons, the Rothschild bank, and one time director at diamond industry monopolist De Beers), is behind the ‘No Labels’ campaign.” — Thom Hartmann message boards, January 16 2011
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #97 on: January 07, 2012, 11:28:08 PM » |
|
Huntsmans' family fortunes tied up in global supply side logistics cybernetics
Huntsman Family worked the deal with Dubai to sell portsWhy? Huntsman family controls shipping container security operations Supply Side Cybernetics and Simulators http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/411658/new_focus_on_port_security_could_be_good_for_business/March 1, 2006 By Linda Fantin, The Salt Lake Tribune Mar. 1–DRAPER — As Congress clamors about security risks at U.S. shipping terminals, two small technology firms in Draper are quietly doing their part to improve seaport safety. One is creating a transmitter chip that could help authorities track and identify the contents of the 9 million containers loaded and unloaded at U.S. ports each year. The other builds computerized simulators for training portside crane operators, one of only five companies worldwide to do so. Executives at each company have their own thoughts on whether the U.S. government should permit an Arab nation to manage American terminals, but on this they agree: The controversy could be good for business. David Carter is CEO of S5 Wireless, where engineers have developed a chip whose signal, unlike global positioning systems, doesn’t rely on line-of-sight. It can penetrate steel containers stacked three deep and still be picked up more than a mile away, Carter said. Kidnapping’s role: S5′s research, funded by Homeland Security grants, is part of a larger Marine Asset Tag and Tracking system under development. Yet the impetus for S5′s foray into tracking technology had nothing to do with Sept. 11, 2001, and everything to do with June 5, 2002. That’s the day Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped from her Salt Lake City home, sparking a nationwide search — and the imagination of a few engineers determined to provide a mechanism for parents to keep tabs on their kids. “GPS wouldn’t work indoors and required too much battery power, and using a cell phone was too expensive,” Carter said. “So we developed something that could fit around a child’s neck like in a lanyard or something.” Many months later, when the government went looking to fund research on container tracking, S5 had a jump on the competition. Already, the chip has been tested at a Salt Lake City container storage yard. It is Carter’s hope that all this talk about port security will push it even higher on the Department of Homeland Security’s priority list. “The size of the container tracking market is huge,” said Carter. “Eventually, this could represent a substantial piece of our business.” And because a substantial part of the port management business is owned by Dubai Ports World, it is understandable that Carter doesn’t comment on the Persian Gulf company’s deal to take over London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company, or P&O. Arab company controversy: The $6.8 billion buyout would make DP World, owned by the United Arab Emirates, the third-largest container terminal operator in the world, and put the company in charge of ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans. Although U.S. companies long ago ceded control of the shipping market to foreign companies, including some owned by foreign governments, the DP World deal — or, rather, the Bush administration’s approval of it — has enraged American lawmakers, port operators and everyday citizens who fear that terrorists could exploit the arrangement. Even the U.S. Coast Guard, in charge of reviewing security at Dubai-owned ports, warned the Bush administration it could not rule out that the company’s assets could be used for terrorist operations, according to a document released Monday by a Senate committee. Despite those concerns, the U.S. Treasury Department’s foreign investment committee, which includes representatives from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security, unanimously found no national security concerns that would activate a 45-day national security review required by the law that established the panel. DP World has agreed to additional review and to temporarily segregate the U.S. operations in the meantime. Still, protests erupted at ports and, on Friday, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit to stop the Persian Gulf company from taking over management of its container terminal at Port Newark in New Jersey. Training crane operators: The deal does pose a threat, says Scott Huntsman, president and CEO of GlobalSim Inc. But it has nothing to do with national security. “The scary thing is that Dubai massively overpaid and they will have to charge a lot more for containers going through ports or this will be a big money loser,” said Huntsman, a first cousin to Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. To be clear, GlobalSim isn’t in the business of catching drug smugglers or stopping the illegal transport of nuclear weapons, although the company does a lot of work for the U.S. government, some of it top secret. Rather, the Draper company builds training simulators for shipping crane operators. GlobalSim employees have been paying close attention to Dubai’s expansion plans — much more so, it would seem, than President Bush, who has said he didn’t know about the sale until it was complete, and members of Congress, who blasted the administration for not consulting with them before sanctioning the deal. Huntsman says the news media have under-reported the scope of the deal, focusing only on the six largest U.S. ports involved. P&O has seven facilities in Texas, three in Louisiana, plus operations in Boston, Maryland, Mississippi, Delaware, Maine and Virginia, according to its Web site. In all, the buyout encompasses 30 terminals in 18 countries. “I find it silly that members of Congress and the president himself are claiming that they found out about this just days ago,” said Huntsman, noting that he has been reading about the deal in trade journals since November. As for the security issue, Huntsman said he isn’t the least bit worried. “It’s not going to make a difference at all when it comes to security. In order for [terrorists] to infiltrate something, they would have to indoctrinate all the people running the ports or fire them . . . and that would never happen.”
GlobalSim just finished building a simulator for the Port of Marseilles and has signed contracts to deliver similar systems to Le Havre, France, and the New York Shipping Association at Port Elizabeth, N.J. Next month, at a trade show in Pusan, South Korea, Huntsman and other GlobalSim executives will meet with DP World officials, as they have done several times during the past three years. Only this time, they have another selling point.
“We may tell them that by buying our systems, they are buying American,” and that could help build good will with Dubai’s U.S. skeptics, Huntsman said.
“I know all the senior guys at Dubai World, and though they’re not super friendly, they’re not anti-American by any means.”
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
|
|
« Reply #98 on: January 08, 2012, 12:12:29 AM » |
|
Remember, there are 2 America's... first, the Progressive-Neo-Conservative purveyors of no-win preemptive wars, concentration camps, and soldiers on the streets here at home, all furthering a foreign global agenda.
They hate our freedoms and everything about us as they are gutting and destroying the TRUE America which is comprised of the Free American People, the Constitution and the sovereign states, the Real America!
The globalist George W. Bush warned us of their intention when he said, "They attacked America because they hate your freedoms, your prosperity, and your way of life." He should know, he represented that enemy here within the halls of government right under our nose, within our own borders and shores... Traitor!
Oldyoti
"No constitution, no court, no law
can save liberty when it dies in the
hearts and minds of men."
~John Perkins
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pac522
|
|
« Reply #99 on: January 08, 2012, 12:52:50 AM » |
|
Let's not forget what Rockefeller said about China and Chairman Mao.
"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history." David Rockefeller, statement in 1973 about Mao Tse-tung: (NY Times 8-10-73)
Who is a better student of what that post revolution China looks like but climate change nutter, globalist stooge, former ambassador to China, and Rothschild's lap boy, Jon Huntsman.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".
Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati. ~EvadingGrid
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
|
|
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 9,866
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
|
|
« Reply #100 on: January 08, 2012, 01:21:17 AM » |
|
Remember, there are 2 America's... first, the Progressive-Neo-Conservative purveyors of no-win preemptive wars, concentration camps, and soldiers on the streets here at home, all furthering a foreign global agenda. If that's "progressive," then is the opposite of that " regressive"? Or is this just another illustration of how American English is degenerating more and more each year into Orwellian newspeak? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MonkeyPuppet
|
|
« Reply #101 on: January 08, 2012, 01:26:41 AM » |
|
If that's "progressive," then is the opposite of that " regressive"? Or is this just another illustration of how American English is degenerating more and more each year into Orwellian newspeak? Yes, and because saying "Hamiltonian" would be lost on most people. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 9,866
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
|
|
« Reply #102 on: January 08, 2012, 01:58:42 AM » |
|
Yes, and because saying "Hamiltonian" would be lost on most people. I've always understood "progressive" -- when used in a political context -- to mean advancing towards what most people would rightly regard as a better state of society. Thus, in my view, and I suspect in the view of the vast majority of Americans, abolishing chattel slavery, recognizing women's right to vote, and eliminating Jim Crow laws were all "progressive" policy reforms. The problem, of course, is that there are some issues where it's not nearly so clear to most people whether a given policy will make, or has made, society better or worse. But should those grey areas be allowed to justify turning the very meaning of the word "progressive" on its head? In other words, does the mere fact that there's widespread division over social wedge issues such as gay marriage -- or over the question of what the best or " least bad" tax is -- justify characterizing the abolition of slavery as regressive rather than progressive? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
larsonstdoc
|
|
« Reply #103 on: January 08, 2012, 08:30:58 AM » |
|
Hot Off The Presses: First News Story Praises Ron Paul
Ron Paul comes out swinging in Republican debatehttp://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120107/romney-debates-new-hampshire-primary-120107/Date: Sat. Jan. 7 2012 11:02 PM ET MANCHESTER, N.H. — The oldest man on the stage had the most fire in his belly on Saturday as the latest Republican presidential debate quickly morphed into a battle for second place as front-runner Mitt Romney, smiling almost beatifically at times, watched his rivals do pitched battle. Ron Paul, the 76-year-old libertarian congressman who's in second place in the New Hampshire polls heading into Tuesday's state primary, came out swinging, taking on Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich using the type of arguments rarely heard springing from the lips of a Republican. He didn't regret calling Gingrich a "chicken hawk" earlier this week, he told the debate moderators. Paul has assailed Gingrich for supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while failing to serve Vietnam; he accused the former speaker of the House of Representatives of getting several deferments to avoid serving in the conflict. "I think people who don't serve when they could ... they have no right to send our kids off to war, and not to even be against the wars we have," he said. When Gingrich objected, denying he had received a deferment but saying he was ineligible to serve because he was married with children, Paul scoffed. "When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went," he said to decisively end the exchange. Paul also praised civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. when asked about 20-year-old newsletters published under his name containing racist and homophobic themes. "One of my heroes is Martin Luther King, because he practiced the libertarian policy of peaceful resistance," Paul said. He then went on a positively leftist rant about how drug laws are enforced in the United States, pointing out that black men are incarcerated at disproportionate rates. "How many times have you seen the white rich person get the electric chair?" he asked. "If we really want to be concerned with racism...we ought to look at the drug laws." Romney, for the most part, was spared any damaging attacks from his rivals. They all made attempts to dismiss him as a mere businessman rather than an inspirational leader, and pointed to his work at an investment company that cost American workers jobs. He brushed off the attacks, barely breaking a sweat as he did so. Bain Capital created 100,000 jobs all told, Romney said, adding that a businessman had a better grasp on how to rejuvenate the economy than lifetime politicians. "I'm very proud of the fact that the two enterprises I led were successful," he said, referring to Bain and another firm. But it was Paul who created some of the debate's most crackling moments, including when he assailed Santorum. The former Pennsylvania senator came within a handful of votes of beating Romney in the recent Iowa caucuses and had increased support in the state in recent days. "You're a big spender, that's all there is to it -- you're a Big Government conservative," Paul told Santorum as Romney stood between them, grinning. "To say you're a conservative is a stretch, but you've convinced a lot of people of it." The verbal showdown in New Hampshire showcased an altered political landscape in the Republican race: Santorum is now enjoying his moment in the sun, while Michele Bachmann -- who revelled in her own surge in August -- is out of the race. In a Suffolk University poll released Saturday, Romney had the support of 39 per cent of the state's primary voters, with Paul in second place at 17 per cent. But the survey suggested that Santorum had peaked in the state as he battled for third place with Gingrich and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, all of them at about nine per cent. The poll suggested Santorum's momentum slowed noticeably following an appearance before a college crowd on Thursday that saw him face tough questions -- as well as jeers and boos -- about his opposition to same-sex marriage and his support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Santorum, however, kept up his attacks on Romney during Saturday's debate. "Being a president is not a CEO. You've got to lead and inspire," he said. With the primary looming, the Republican race has been punctuated by a series of nasty skirmishes among the candidates. Gingrich, in particular, believing he has a score to settle, has spent the days since his distant fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses bitterly maligning Romney. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan referred to him as an "angry little attack muffin" on Saturday. But Gingrich failed to score any knockout punches against Romney on Saturday, despite blaming his rival for a series of attack ads launched against him in Iowa. Gingrich's campaign is fighting back. A 30-minute counter-attack to be released soon portrays the former governor of Massachusetts as a ruthless corporate henchman who trod upon blue-collar workers when he was head of Bain Capital. The campaigns of Paul and Huntsman have also been in an unseemly duel. Huntsman accuses a Paul supporter of posting an offensive video that questioned his loyalty to the United States by featuring clips of him speaking Mandarin with his adopted Chinese daughter. Paul supporters have pushed back, commissioning a web consulting firm that suggested the Huntsman campaign was behind the video in an attempt to spur a backlash against the Texas congressman. Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller scoffed at the accusation. "Their latest conspiracy theory is nothing more than an attempt to cover for one of their racist supporters," he said. "The Paul campaign has botched the response to this shameful video from the beginning. Had they simply condemned the video and their supporter, we would be discussing the important issues facing our country." Paul has been polling well in New Hampshire, where Huntsman has devoted more time than any other candidate attempting to woo its primary voters. The Paul campaign is also taking aim at Santorum with a new ad airing in South Carolina, the scene of the next primary on Jan. 21. "One serial hypocrite exposed," the ad says, showing clips of Gingrich. "Now another has emerged: Rick Santorum, a corporate lobbyist and Washington politician. A record of betrayal." Bravo Dr. Paul The debates---5 globalists vs 1 true American Dr. Paul looks better in every debate. All these serial liars. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MonkeyPuppet
|
|
« Reply #104 on: January 08, 2012, 08:53:17 AM » |
|
I've always understood "progressive" -- when used in a political context -- to mean advancing towards what most people would rightly regard as a better state of society. Thus, in my view, and I suspect in the view of the vast majority of Americans, abolishing chattel slavery, recognizing women's right to vote, and eliminating Jim Crow laws were all "progressive" policy reforms. The problem, of course, is that there are some issues where it's not nearly so clear to most people whether a given policy will make, or has made, society better or worse. But should those grey areas be allowed to justify turning the very meaning of the word "progressive" on its head? In other words, does the mere fact that there's widespread division over social wedge issues such as gay marriage -- or over the question of what the best or " least bad" tax is -- justify characterizing the abolition of slavery as regressive rather than progressive? In the political arena, words have the meanings that either most benefit those trumpeting their ideas under the auspices of the actual meaning, or damage the opposition for how the term can be twisted. There's another caveat as well. Sometimes an otherwise worthy goal, politically, is used as a vehicle for other things don't fit... regardless of the definition... yet still get lumped in... by both sides! Heck, the "progressive era" is a great example. Were there some laudable social reforms? Sure. Were there some despicable social ist goals achieved? You bet. How does that taint the phrase, politically speaking, from that point forward? Quite horribly, imo. I hate that language is co-opted this way and used to divide the People. I think the use of language in this way should be a clear sign to those deciding who is right for leading this Republic that such tactics are indicative of a snake-oil peddler. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 9,866
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
|
|
« Reply #105 on: January 08, 2012, 11:09:07 AM » |
|
Sometimes an otherwise worthy goal, politically, is used as a vehicle for other things don't fit... regardless of the definition... yet still get lumped in... by both sides! Heck, the "progressive era" is a great example. Were there some laudable social reforms? Sure. Were there some despicable socialist goals achieved? You bet. How does that taint the phrase, politically speaking, from that point forward? Quite horribly, imo. Granted, but doesn't that merely underscore my point that we shouldn't make matters worse by contributing to the tainting process ourselves? For instance, authoritarian control-freaks from both major parties have made a virtual religion out of wrapping what are clearly anti-American policy measures in the American flag. Does that mean we should acquiesce to their redefinition of the term "American" by calling the recently enacted "indefinite detention" bill an American-style police state measure instead of what it really is -- a Nazi-style police state measure? I hate that language is co-opted this way and used to divide the People. I think the use of language in this way should be a clear sign to those deciding who is right for leading this Republic that such tactics are indicative of a snake-oil peddler. Agreed. But, again, isn't that all the more reason not to let them rewrite the dictionary whenever they please, lest we find ourselves unable to use any term to describe our own policy positions? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pac522
|
|
« Reply #106 on: January 08, 2012, 12:17:18 PM » |
|
Diane Sawyer is CFR. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall4.htmAnyone doubting what CFR's intentions are only need to read this quote. "The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship." Former Congressman John Rarick 1971 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".
Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati. ~EvadingGrid
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #107 on: January 08, 2012, 12:50:55 PM » |
|
Diane Sawyer is CFR.
Anyone doubting what CFR's intentions are only need to read this quote.
"The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship." Former Congressman John Rarick 1971
Listen to Hillary admit the CFR tells her what to do:http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=6851CFR Member List - Here's Walters:http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=W |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #108 on: January 08, 2012, 01:07:12 PM » |
|
Huge Victory for Ron Paul in New Hampshire DebateManchester, N.H. - Congressman Ron Paul scores a huge debate victory, hammering away at Gingrich's hypocrisy and pummeling Santorum over corruption. http://www.nolanchart.com/article9246-huge-victory-for-ron-paul-in-new-hampshire-debate.htmlby Jake Morphonios (libertarian) Sunday, January 8, 2012 Republican presidential candidates met in New Hampshire in the ABC WMUR Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Last week, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul placed first, second and third, respectively, in the first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucuses, while other presidential hopefuls fell into further obscurity. Michelle Bachmann called it quits after finishing a distant 6th place in Iowa. Her fall from the top tier followed a disappointing Iowa debate in which she challenged Congressman Ron Paul on Iran. The Texas Congressman handily defeated Bachmann in the exchange. Bachmann never recovered. Texas Governor Rick Perry also nearly found himself a casualty following an exchange with Ron Paul over the number of federal agencies he would eliminate. Hoping to one-up Paul in the debate, Perry forgot his talking point, resulting in the infamous “Oops Heard Round the World”. After a poor showing in Iowa, Perry announced he was returning to Texas to reassess his campaign prospects. Tensions were high going into Saturday night’s New Hampshire debate. While Mitt Romney enjoys a solid lead, the margin is slipping as Ron Paul surges. It is Rick Santorum, however, who has found himself in Paul’s crosshairs. The former senator from Pennsylvania finds himself on the defensive as Paul released a blistering attack ad accusing Santorum of “betrayal” and “serial hypocrisy”. The ad, scheduled to begin airing next week in South Carolina, is already an internet sensation. It calls into question Santorum’s ethics and honesty. Paul came out swinging in the opening round of the New Hampshire debate, saying of Santorum: “In a survey he was voted one of the most corrupt in Washington because he took so much money from the lobbyists. What really counts is his record. He’s a big government, big spending individual. He preached that he wanted a balanced budget amendment but then voted to raise the debt limit five times.” Paul went on to list a string of big government programs which Santorum voted to support in the senate. Dr. Paul continued his answer by pointing out that not only did Santorum take a large amount of money from Washington lobbyists, but that the senator became a lobbyist himself after he lost his senate seat. Without pausing, Congressman Paul also took a jab at Newt Gingrich for taking money from lobbyists - suggesting, “I think we ought to find out how much money he’s made from lobbyists as well.” Santorum tried to counter the attack by explaining that he is a “cause guy.” He said that after he left the senate he ‘got involved’ with a health care company because he believed in their cause. (Santorum did not mention is that he profited to the tune of over one million dollars from his support of various corporate ‘causes’ in 2010 alone.) Paul was unfazed. He followed up with a sharp rebuke of Santorum, stating: “You’re a big government spender and that’s all there is to it. To say you’re a conservative, I think, is a stretch. But you’ve convinced a lot of people of it, so somebody has to point out your record.” Gingrich was asked to respond to a statement by Ron Paul earlier in the week that Gingrich was a “chicken-hawk.” The former Speaker tried to steer the conversation away from avoidance of the draft by highlighting what his life was like living with family members who had served in the military. The moderator turned to Ron Paul and asked if he would still choose to describe Gingrich as a chicken-hawk – sparking a sharp exchange between the two candidates. Referring to Gingrich’s avoidance of military duty, Paul said: “I think that people who don’t serve when they could – when they get three or four or even five deferments – have no right to send our kids off to war. I’m trying to stop the wars - but at least I went when they called me up.” He then gave a passionate defense of his position on bringing troops back home to America. “The veterans’ problem is a big one. We have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared and unnecessary – they haven’t been won because they’re unwinnable. And we have these thousands of veterans coming home looking for care. There is an epidemic of suicide among them as they are coming back. When you add them all up, we’ve lost over 8,500 Americans [in Iraq and Afghanistan] and 40,000 more have had severe injuries in these undeclared wars.” Referring to Newt Gingrich, Paul said: “And I don’t like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars by people who say they didn’t go [to war] themselves because ‘one person wouldn’t have made a difference’. I have a pet peeve that annoys me a great deal - because when I see these young men come back my heart weeps for them.” In his rebuttal, Gingrich said that he didn’t qualify for the draft himself because he had a wife and a family. Paul’s immediate response was sizzling. “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids. But I went.” Later in the debate, a question regarding Rick Santorum’s position on banning contraception was directed to Mitt Romney. Moderator George Stephanopoulos pointed to a Supreme Court decision on the right to privacy and asked Romney about the constitutionality of the Court’s decision. Romney stumbled, unable to provide a coherent response. After minutes of futile effort to answer the question, Romney pointed to Congressman Paul and said, “If you’re asking if something constitutionally could be done, we could ask our constitutionalist here.” Stephanopoulos would not let Romney off so easy. He asked again if, under the Constitution, US states had the power to ban the use of contraceptives. Romney could not answer the question. Congressman Paul finally chimed in, giving a masterful explanation of the right to privacy as guaranteed by the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Further, he explained the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and how it related to the specific Supreme Court decision brought up by Stephanopoulos. Romney further demonstrated his lack of knowledge on the Constitution when he claimed that it was written by John Adams. It was clear that no other candidate on the stage could match Paul’s breadth of knowledge of the fundamentals of the Constitution – the supreme law of the land that each president swears to uphold. It is reasonable to wonder how Mitt Romney can preserve, protect, defend or uphold the US Constitution when he knows almost nothing about it. In post debate analysis, ABC News pundits raved over Paul’s performance. ABC News senior political correspondent Jonathan Karl said, “It’s an amazing thing… Ron Paul has been a one-man wrecking crew in this whole process. He took out Rick Perry. He took out Newt Gingrich in Iowa. And now he was the most effective against Santorum.” Ron Paul has once again demonstrated that he is a force that must be reckoned with. And he's just getting started.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
hardrain77
|
|
« Reply #109 on: January 08, 2012, 01:07:51 PM » |
|
Diane Sawyer never even leaves the house without soft lighting to hide her NWO wrinkles.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so pervasive, they had better not speak above their breath."
Woodrow Wilson
|
|
|
|
MonkeyPuppet
|
|
« Reply #110 on: January 08, 2012, 02:18:30 PM » |
|
Granted, but doesn't that merely underscore my point that we shouldn't make matters worse by contributing to the tainting process ourselves? For instance, authoritarian control-freaks from both major parties have made a virtual religion out of wrapping what are clearly anti-American policy measures in the American flag. Does that mean we should acquiesce to their redefinition of the term "American" by calling the recently enacted "indefinite detention" bill an American-style police state measure instead of what it really is -- a Nazi-style police state measure?
Agreed. But, again, isn't that all the more reason not to let them rewrite the dictionary whenever they please, lest we find ourselves unable to use any term to describe our own policy positions?
You're absolutely right, Geo. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
