Ron Paul Floor Statement on Assassinations

[sharpsteve2003]

Congressman Paul speaks on the floor about assassinations of Americans by their own government
YouTube - Floor Statement on Assasinations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGktTws2bK0)

[TheEvilDetector]

Congressman Paul speaks on the floor about assassinations of Americans by their own government
YouTube - Floor Statement on Assasinations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGktTws2bK0)

But knowing that your own government has assumed to itself the power to kill you at a time and place of its choosing without due process is to know terror.

Thus the logically sound counter-terrorist policy must surely be for the federal government to bomb its assassination department to firstly eliminate the source of the terror and secondly to deter potential terrorists from joining the cause.

In other words, the federal government's use of preventative surgical bomb strikes against its assassination department, will no doubt reduce the chances of innocent American lives being taken in the future by the assassination czars.

If the tribesmen in the mountains thousands of miles away are deemed worthy of special bomb attention, then the sophisticated terrorists with sophisticated unmanned weaponry on your doorstep, telling you they can kill you whenever they want can be considered also.

On the other hand, we can trust the federal government to handle the domestic killing responsibly. It has always served us well in the past in other areas.

Kind of an interesting irony. You have these safety messages telling you to drink responsibly, and given what the fedgov is going to be doing, we have every right to remind them to kill responsibly.

Orwell should have lived in these times, he would have drawn so much inspiration, his 1984 would be only an episode in a 100 episode series.

[catdd]

It's just that kind of sneaky, diabolical shit that causes people to mistrust them. And then they wonder why people believe in conspiracy theories.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Where is there an article (from a reputable news source) that talks about these supposed assassinations? Common sense tells me that if this were true it would have been all over the news by now. Oh but wait, there's an MSM conspiracy, forgot :rolleyes:

[catdd]

Where is there an article (from a reputable news source) that talks about these supposed assassinations? Common sense tells me that if this were true it would have been all over the news by now. Oh but wait, there's an MSM conspiracy, forgot :rolleyes:

Guess you didn't watch the video, huh?

[purplechoe]

Oh but wait, there's an MSM conspiracy, forgot :rolleyes:

were you born yesterday?

[SamuraisWisdom]

Guess you didn't watch the video, huh?

I did actually. He says it came from a Feb. 3rd hearing, yet I've heard nothing about this in the news. Seems like something that should have made some headlines.

[SamuraisWisdom]

were you born yesterday?

I don't believe that everyone is out to get me.

[catdd]

"I did actually. He says it came from a Feb. 3rd hearing, yet I've heard nothing about this in the news. Seems like something that should have made some headlines."

But somehow he heard about it. You don't think he's lying do you?

[GunnyFreedom]

Where is there an article (from a reputable news source) that talks about these supposed assassinations? Common sense tells me that if this were true it would have been all over the news by now. Oh but wait, there's an MSM conspiracy, forgot :rolleyes:

ABC ran it:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491

[SamuraisWisdom]

ABC ran it:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491

Thanks, that's all I was asking for.

[dannno]

I can't imagine being in congress an ignoring speeches like that.

Who the hell are all these people just sitting back and being bitches for their special interest buddies and not standing up for us?!?!

[GunnyFreedom]

Thanks, that's all I was asking for.

Anytime -- whenever I see something like this, I always have to dig for an M$M source in order to share it to my legion of Republicrat friends on Facebook. For spreading the news to sheeple, it is critical to give them a source which they (however mistakenly) trust.

[specsaregood]

Thanks, that's all I was asking for.

So you are going on record as considering abcnews a "reputable news source"? I don't know if I would do that.

[someperson]

I can't imagine being in congress an ignoring speeches like that.

Who the hell are all these people just sitting back and being bitches for their special interest buddies and not standing up for us?!?!
I've often wondered that, too. The individual who accepts his documents after his speech; the transcriber typing away like it's business as usual; the speaker casually moving forward to the next representative; the next representative just going ahead with their, typically, useless speech. I don't know, sometimes.

[MN Patriot]

Where is there an article (from a reputable news source) that talks about these supposed assassinations? Common sense tells me that if this were true it would have been all over the news by now. Oh but wait, there's an MSM conspiracy, forgot :rolleyes:

Blackwater (now named Xe Services) was allegedly involved in secret assassinations:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/20/cia-secret-assassination-al-qaida

This is probably what Ron was talking about.
National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told representatives that American citizens can be assassinated by the US government when they are oveseas:
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/02/03/blair-us-govt-can-kill-citizens-overseas-as-part-of-defined-policy/

[dannno]

I've often wondered that, too. The individual who accepts his documents after his speech; the transcriber typing away like it's business as usual; the speaker casually moving forward to the next representative; the next representative just going ahead with their, typically, useless speech. I don't know, sometimes.

Ya this isn't the first time he's gotten up there and made speeches like this. In fact it has been done hundreds of times. It really does bother me.

Do you think everybody gets up for bathroom break and snacks when it's his turn or something?

[GunnyFreedom]

So you are going on record as considering abcnews a "reputable news source"? I don't know if I would do that.

If you want a sheeple to be awakened and alarmed about this, then sharing an infowars story is not going to help. :rolleyes: How is this not obvious? Most of us have large groups of people we share political stuff with who are not a part of our movement, who are sheeple whom we are trying to woo over to waking up. The proper tools to awaken sheeple are ABC, CBS, MCNBC, CNN, FOX, etc etc. If you share an infowars story with a sheeple you will drive them away more than you will wake them up.

Know your audience, and use the correct strategy. This should be obvious.

For instance, my share-group are mostly Republicans, therefore I avoided using Salon and HuffPo as my source for this article when sharing it, I used ABC.

[SamuraisWisdom]

If you want a sheeple to be awakened and alarmed about this, then sharing an infowars story is not going to help. :rolleyes: How is this not obvious? Most of us have large groups of people we share political stuff with who are not a part of our movement, who are sheeple whom we are trying to woo over to waking up. The proper tools to awaken sheeple are ABC, CBS, MCNBC, CNN, FOX, etc etc. If you share an infowars story with a sheeple you will drive them away more than you will wake them up.

Know your audience, and use the correct strategy. This should be obvious.

For instance, my share-group are mostly Republicans, therefore I avoided using Salon and HuffPo as my source for this article when sharing it, I used ABC.

Thank you! Someone gets it :cool:

[specsaregood]

If you want a sheeple to be awakened and alarmed about this, then sharing an infowars story is not going to help. :rolleyes: How is this not obvious?
I don't disagree. BUT the person I was replying to and quoted, originally made a snarky comment about it. See here:


Where is there an article (from a reputable news source) that talks about these supposed assassinations? Common sense tells me that if this were true it would have been all over the news by now. Oh but wait, there's an MSM conspiracy, forgot :rolleyes:

Then he made a quick acceptance of your abcnews link. Thus implying that he personally considers abcnews a "reputable news source". This has nothing to do with sharing it with "sheeple" --On a side note, I hate that term, but I digress -- this has everything to with his initial reaction to dismiss it and belittle it by making fun of the supposed "msm conspiracy".

Now I don't expect SamuraisWisdom to remember it, but I do expect you (Gunny) to remember that ABCnews was one of the first media outlets to blatently censor Ron Paul supporters. So no, I personally would NOT consider them a "reputable news source".

[catdd]

I don't disagree. BUT the person I was replying to and quoted, originally made a snarky comment about it. See here:



Then he made a quick acceptance of your abcnews link. Thus implying that he personally considers abcnews a "reputable news source". This has nothing to do with sharing it with "sheeple" --On a side note, I hate that term, but I digress -- this has everything to with his initial reaction to dismiss it and belittle it by making fun of the supposed "msm conspiracy".

Now I don't expect SamuraisWisdom to remember it, but I do expect you (Gunny) to remember that ABCnews was one of the first media outlets to blatently censor Ron Paul supporters. So no, I personally would NOT consider them a "reputable news source".

I watched that with keen interest.

[Carson]

USA! USA!


What a farking joke.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't disagree. BUT the person I was replying to and quoted, originally made a snarky comment about it. See here:



Then he made a quick acceptance of your abcnews link. Thus implying that he personally considers abcnews a "reputable news source". This has nothing to do with sharing it with "sheeple" --On a side note, I hate that term, but I digress -- this has everything to with his initial reaction to dismiss it and belittle it by making fun of the supposed "msm conspiracy".

Now I don't expect SamuraisWisdom to remember it, but I do expect you (Gunny) to remember that ABCnews was one of the first media outlets to blatently censor Ron Paul supporters. So no, I personally would NOT consider them a "reputable news source".

Of course I remember it, but remember that "reputable" does not mean good, fair, or honest, it means "having a good reputation." It speaks specifically to what other people think of them, and not to the nature of their performance at all. For better or worse, the drooling masses look at ABC News as 'having a good reputation' and thus they are by dictionary-definition "reputable," quite regardless of how deeply biased they are, or how badly they suck.

[Carson]

"I did actually. He says it came from a Feb. 3rd hearing, yet I've heard nothing about this in the news. Seems like something that should have made some headlines."

But somehow he heard about it. You don't think he's lying do you?

Ron Paul mentioned on the business channel while he was on the other morning. I think it was on Squawk Box.

I could be sadly mistaken. I think I've seen him on a couple of channels the last couple of mornings.

The news hit everyone like a bunch of drugged zombies. The only thing I remember him saying that got a rise was when he mentioned something about how if we keep invading other peoples homelands and killing them and calling the people defending their countries names they would continue to visit us... or something like that.

At least one was appalled... appalled I say!

[GunnyFreedom]

So you are going on record as considering abcnews a "reputable news source"? I don't know if I would do that.

The problem here would seem to be in the definition of the word "reputable"


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reputable

Main Entry: rep·u·ta·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈre-pyə-tə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1662

1 : enjoying good repute : held in esteem
2 : employed widely or sanctioned by good writers

— rep·u·ta·bil·i·ty \ˌre-pyə-tə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun

— rep·u·ta·bly \ˈre-pyə-tə-blē\ adverb

"reputable." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010.
Merriam-Webster Online. 24 February 2010
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reputable>


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reputably

rep·u·ta·ble
   /ˈrɛpyətəbəl/ Show Spelled[rep-yuh-tuh-buhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
held in good repute; honorable; respectable; estimable: a reputable organization.
2.
considered to be good or acceptable usage; standard: reputable speech.

"reputably." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 24 Feb. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reputably>.

Maybe it's just me, but I distinguish between 'reputable' and 'trustworthy,' and I expected most people to do likewise. A source can be reputable, byt not trustworthy, while another source can be trustworthy, but not reputable.

Trustworthiness speaks to whether the source has integrity and generally aligns with facts and truth. Repute speaks to whether the public at large credits them with a good reputation quite aside from whether they happen to be worthy of trust or not.

Looking at the thread in context, it seems to me that Samurai is using the word in the same way that I use it, and indeed, the same way that Merriam-Webster seems to frame it.

As for the M$M conspiracy dig, I ignored it -- but then I don't think there is a vast media-wing conspiracy either, just a bunch of disparate interests most of each opposed to the rise of liberty and Constitutionalism in our era. I am, however, more than capable of participating in a discussion on M$M conspiracy, as in that case I will frame the notion as a "conspiracy of ideas."

[specsaregood]

The problem here would seem to be in the definition of the word "reputable"

Gunny, I think you misunderstood my comments. I have no problem with how you used an abcnews source or that you share such links with others. I wasn't really addressing you at all in fact. I'd attempt to clarify myself but its really not worth it at this point and I don't want to derail the thread any further.

I think you are awesome despite the misunderstanding.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, I think you misunderstood my comments. I have no problem with how you used an abcnews source or that you share such links with others. I wasn't really addressing you at all in fact. I'd attempt to clarify myself but its really not worth it at this point and I don't want to derail the thread any further.

I think you are awesome despite the misunderstanding.

Not sure you understood my point either, but it's all good! I've always respected your posting as well.

But the larger point here (to the point of this thread) is W T F !!!

Where is the outrage?? I am shocked and appalled at this -- I am not surprised that it is happening, I am not surprised that the CIA is now hitlisting Americans, I am not surprised that the DNI is now so brazen about it as to openly tell Congress that it's happening. Horrified yes, but surprised -- sadly, not even a little bit.

But I am literally shocked and appalled at the....apathy....being displayed on this subject by the public at large. Just when I could not possibly imagine the apathy being any thicker than it already was, now we have:

American citizens, are being openly assassinated and hitlisted, by the American government, as reported to Congress by the hitlister in charge, and nobody fucking cares!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

(obviously I don't mean Paulers, clearly Paulers do care, or this wouldn't even be an issue here...)

I posted this in depth on Facebook, and other than one person who seemed awfully surprised to find an ally, all I got was chirping crickets...

[purplechoe]

give me a break, even the Judge calls the media forth branch of the government... there's about as much intelectually stimulating discussion in the "fringe" media as there is on the Senate floor...

[GunnyFreedom]

Why is this not more outrageous even than the USA PATRIOT Act? Why is this not issue #1 across all of America, much less the liberty movement?? WTF am I missing? :mad: :mad: :confused: :confused: :( :(

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Thanks, that's all I was asking for.

Actually you were being a condescending asshole. Instead of acting like you have absolute knowledge and thereby calling everyone who says anything "bad" or "against" whatever public perception is, as a conspiracy theorist (Everyone knows the connotation here), perhaps you should do more independant research?

After looking through history there is one common theme. States always ultimately kill their own subjects, when their power increases (Can't have those pesky people around to challenge your authority). Always. To deny this, is to deny fact.

[TheEvilDetector]

Why is this not more outrageous even than the USA PATRIOT Act? Why is this not issue #1 across all of America, much less the liberty movement?? WTF am I missing? :mad: :mad: :confused: :confused: :( :(

I suppose many harbour private outrage, but just don't know what should be done about it.

However, considering that the liberty movement is gaining steam and that it seems that once in the liberty movement majority of people do not go back, I think this may be solved politically.

The status quo will crack eventually one would think.

Bottom line is that ordinary people very heavily outnumber the elite, and when the elite can no longer keep up the charade (due to loss of popular and political support and financial means), the ordinary people will react accordingly
and overwhelmingly.

In any case, best bet is to illustrate these liberty principles to as many of these ordinary people as possible in time for the crisis or better still for a peaceful adjustment made before it.

If this Paul inspired revolution can successfully capture a large enough mind share of the american public, particularly the young generation, some very meaningful changes will come about.

Question those not familiar with liberty principles whether they would like to be left alone to lead their life as they see fit, whether they would like to keep all that they earn, whether its appropriate to respect the rights of others..

Note: In the unfortunate event of national civil unrest, imo US Military will ultimately not take up arms against the citizens, because it goes against every principle.

Once it dawns on those trying that they are killing their own or friend's relatives and friends, further orders will be disobeyed on constitutional grounds.

There will be a leadership crisis, and hopefully elections can be held, with the 50 state's governors and representatives getting together to figure this mess out.

[GunnyFreedom]

This seems more appropriate than ever:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niemöller 1892-1984

[AmericaFyeah92]

Glenn Greenwald has some great stuff about this.

http://salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html


I agree with everyone asking how this isn't front-page news. I felt a deep sinking feeling reading it.

[GunnyFreedom]

I suppose many harbour private outrage, but just don't know what should be done about it.

However, considering that the liberty movement is gaining steam and that what seems to be a majority of people once in the liberty movement do not go back, I think this may be solved politically.

The status quo will crack eventually one would think.

Bottom line is that ordinary people very heavily outnumber the elite, and when the elite can no longer keep up the charade (due to loss of popular and political support and financial means), the ordinary people will react accordingly
and overwhelmingly.

In any case, best bet is to illustrate these liberty principles to as many of these ordinary people as possible in time for the crisis or better still for a peaceful adjustment made before it.

If this Paul inspired revolution can successfully capture a large enough mind share of the american public, particularly the young generation, some very meaningful changes will come about.

Question those not familiar with liberty principles whether they would like to be left alone to lead their life as they see fit, whether they would like to keep all that they earn, whether its appropriate to respect the rights of others..

Note: In the unfortunate event of national civil unrest, imo US Military will ultimately not take up arms against the citizens, because it goes against every principle.

Once it dawns on those trying that they are killing their own or friend's relatives and friends, further orders will be disobeyed on constitutional grounds.

There will be a leadership crisis, and hopefully elections can be held, with the 50 state's governors and representatives getting together to figure this mess out.

It always starts with killing those who are deemed 'unworthy' and that makes it easier to move on to the "less obvious enemies" :mad:

[johngr]

I suppose many harbour private outrage, but just don't know what should be done about it.

I smell an entirely morally sound tax protest argument.

[TheEvilDetector]

I smell an entirely morally sound tax protest argument.

Yep, something along the lines of:

"I refuse to fund citizen assassination"

[johngr]

Yep, something along the lines of:

"I refuse to fund citizen assassination"

That's a declaration, not an argument.

It goes something like this.

I, and my compatriots have a right to life.
The government has assumed the power to take the life any of us at any time without due process.
Therefore, paying taxes violates such right to life by funding the violation of other citizens' (and potentially my) rights to life.

[TheEvilDetector]

That's a declaration, not an argument.

It goes something like this.

I, and my compatriots have a right to life.
The government has assumed the power to take the life any of us at any time without due process.
Therefore, paying taxes violates such right to life by funding the violation of other citizens' (and potentially my) rights to life.

Yes, I would like to see this play out in court.

One possible defence on the government side against this argument would be for the court to redefine what due process is, which would be interesting..

My current understanding falls in line with what is written in the wikipedia article on due process, specifically the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

"Procedural due process

In the United States, criminal prosecutions and civil cases are generally governed by explicit guarantees of procedural rights under the Bill of Rights. Most of these rights have been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. Among those rights is the constitutional right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. In criminal cases, many of these due process protections overlap with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees reliable procedures that protect innocent people from being executed, which would be tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.[26]

At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental".[27] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[28]

Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."[29]

Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it whatsoever. A significant portion of U.S. constitutional law is therefore directed to what kinds of connections to a state are enough for that state's assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident to comport with procedural due process.

The requirement of a neutral judge has introduced a constitutional dimension into the question of whether a judge should recuse himself or herself from a case. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself on account of a potential or actual conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia could not participate in a case involving a major donor to his election to that court.["

[Texan4Life]

whats up with RP having like a paragraph per page?

Maybe so he ran read it without his glasses?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, I would like to see this play out in court.

One possible defence on the government side against this argument would be for the court to redefine what due process is, which would be interesting..

My current understanding falls in line with what is written in the wikipedia article on due process, specifically the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

"Procedural due process

In the United States, criminal prosecutions and civil cases are generally governed by explicit guarantees of procedural rights under the Bill of Rights. Most of these rights have been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. Among those rights is the constitutional right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. In criminal cases, many of these due process protections overlap with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees reliable procedures that protect innocent people from being executed, which would be tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.[26]

At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental".[27] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[28]

Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."[29]

Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it whatsoever. A significant portion of U.S. constitutional law is therefore directed to what kinds of connections to a state are enough for that state's assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident to comport with procedural due process.

The requirement of a neutral judge has introduced a constitutional dimension into the question of whether a judge should recuse himself or herself from a case. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself on account of a potential or actual conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia could not participate in a case involving a major donor to his election to that court.["

Both of you are assuming that Government doesn't rule by political fiat. This is a dangerous error you are making. Even the most air-tight logical argument will get thrown out or ruled against. The law is arbitrary in this country, and in every one in the world. It is what the politicians and the court jesters say it is. You cannot appeal higher than the State. Their decision is final.

Liberty will not be won in a court room, indeed, liberty is lost in the court-room and in the palaces of the politicians. Obama, and Congress are no different than King George III. They both rule by fiat (Their word is law).

[squarepusher]

Note: In the unfortunate event of national civil unrest, imo US Military will ultimately not take up arms against the citizens, because it goes against every principle.

Once it dawns on those trying that they are killing their own or friend's relatives and friends, further orders will be disobeyed on constitutional grounds.

There will be a leadership crisis, and hopefully elections can be held, with the 50 state's governors and representatives getting together to figure this mess out.

actually, not quite the case. They will have mercenary forces and private security contracted to handle that busniess to bypass the guilt/constitution

[TheEvilDetector]

Both of you are assuming that Government doesn't rule by political fiat. This is a dangerous error you are making. Even the most air-tight logical argument will get thrown out or ruled against. The law is arbitrary in this country, and in every one in the world. It is what the politicians and the court jesters say it is. You cannot appeal higher than the State. Their decision is final.

Liberty will not be won in a court room, indeed, liberty is lost in the court-room and in the palaces of the politicians. Obama, and Congress are no different than King George III. They both rule by fiat (Their word is law).

Yes, evidence suggests that the government is ignoring the basic rules governing its activity. However, I personally would prefer political solution rather than the violent alternative. Since the public is generally more open to alternatives to status quo now than in the past due to the gross mismanagement and negligence of the political class, perhaps there is a light at the end of the political tunnel after all..

[TheEvilDetector]

actually, not quite the case. They will have mercenary forces and private security contracted to handle that busniess to bypass the guilt/constitution

If those mercernary forces and private security contractors are american citizens, then they still have to bypass the guilt of killing their own friends and relatives. It is not difficult to present the argument to Bob of Security Inc that overall his colleague John is essentially killing his friends and family, while Bob is tasked with killing John's. That what they are doing, is in fact going against their own interests. This approach works on those who have some conscience left.

If these people are armed foreign nationals roaming the streets and killing citizens, then this argument won't work, however, the citizens would then be perfectly entitled to organise militias to respond to the foreign ground invasion as a matter of immediate self defence. The same would apply if the security forces are comprised mainly of psychopaths to whom empathy is a foreign notion.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, evidence suggests that the government is ignoring the basic rules governing its activity. However, I personally would prefer political solution rather than the violent alternative. Since the public is generally more open to alternatives to status quo now than in the past due to the gross mismanagement and negligence of the political class, perhaps there is a light at the end of the political tunnel after all..

How long have we been working on a political solution? This has been going on since at least the 1920s and 1930s. In 80 years what have the political "solution" accomplished? How many people were jailed, killed, robbed, and who knows what else, before you resist? Anti-War protesters at Kent State get killed and things keep on a' truckin. Illegal detainments and surveillance increase exponentially. Taxation keeps on getting higher and higher, deficits expanding, and debt exploding. Why do people even believe they can change a fiat power system? I think we have tried long enough. I think it is crystally evident that the only other solution left is divorcement and secession. To live as free individuals, as peaceful individuals. I wish not to fight the State, but if they bring the fight to me, then damn well I will give them one.

It is not I who is violent. It is the State.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If those mercernary forces and private security contractors are american citizens, then they still have to bypass the guilt of killing their own friends and relatives. It is not difficult to present the argument to Bob of Security Inc that overall his colleague John is essentially killing his friends and family, while Bob is tasked with killing John's. That what they are doing, is in fact going against their own interests. This approach works on those who have some conscience left.

If these people are armed foreign nationals roaming the streets and killing citizens, then this argument won't work, however, the citizens would then be perfectly entitled to organise militias to respond to the foreign ground invasion as a matter of immediate self defence. The same would apply if the security forces are comprised mainly of psychopaths to whom empathy is a foreign notion.

War of Northern Aggression. Families will kill families. Brothers will kill brothers. When there is a struggle over a power structure (To keep it intact), all bets are off. I however, don't see mercenaries being used much. I think within the Military things will go on as normal. Jack boots will continue being jack boots. Police will be the local enforcers of the power structure, and the Military will take over the cities, slowly creeping into the rural areas where fights will be a lot tougher and where casualties will be staggeringly high. Overall, most people in the Military are sheep. Drones. Never question orders, never question authority. They are taught this.

I could see at most a 20% defection in the Military, but even then conscription will take place to fill that void. Most people are cowards. They will not fight. Hence why only 3% fought in the American Revolution.

[TheEvilDetector]

How long have we been working on a political solution? This has been going on since at least the 1920s and 1930s. In 80 years what have the political "solution" accomplished? How many people were jailed, killed, robbed, and who knows what else, before you resist? Anti-War protesters at Kent State get killed and things keep on a' truckin. Illegal detainments and surveillance increase exponentially. Taxation keeps on getting higher and higher, deficits expanding, and debt exploding. Why do people even believe they can change a fiat power system? I think we have tried long enough. I think it is crystally evident that the only other solution left is divorcement and secession. To live as free individuals, as peaceful individuals. I wish not to fight the State, but if they bring the fight to me, then damn well I will give them one.

It is not I who is violent. It is the State.

Secession is a political move. Perhaps it is the right one after all. I don't know.

[TheEvilDetector]

War of Northern Aggression. Families will kill families. Brothers will kill brothers. When there is a struggle over a power structure (To keep it intact), all bets are off. I however, don't see mercenaries being used much. I think within the Military things will go on as normal. Jack boots will continue being jack boots. Police will be the local enforcers of the power structure, and the Military will take over the cities, slowly creeping into the rural areas where fights will be a lot tougher and where casualties will be staggeringly high. Overall, most people in the Military are sheep. Drones. Never question orders, never question authority. They are taught this.

I could see at most a 20% defection in the Military, but even then conscription will take place to fill that void. Most people are cowards. They will not fight. Hence why only 3% fought in the American Revolution.

You illustrate some of the reasons why I don't want to see a violent conflict.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Secession is a political move. Perhaps it is the right one after all. I don't know.

I don't think secession is political. I see secession as Civil Disobedience, and rejection of a coercive central authority. If we do have a second American Revolution I will not fight just to restore another State. If that comes to be, then I will remain divorced. If you come after me after the war is won (I have high hopes :p), I will defend myself and my liberties. I reject all arbitrary rule. Anyone who seeks to rule over me arbitrarily is no different than the current system we have now.

My question to you is: Would you let me live as a free individual free of State coercion and violence?

Note: This is all a hypothetical situation.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You illustrate some of the reasons why I don't want to see a violent conflict.

I don't want to see it either, but as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams illustrated, it is not I who bring this fight on, but those who seek arbitrary rule and violent tyrannies. Some things in life are necessary, and self-defense and liberty are two of those things.

[TheEvilDetector]

I don't think secession is political. I see secession as Civil Disobedience, and rejection of a coercive central authority. If we do have a second American Revolution I will not fight just to restore another State. If that comes to be, then I will remain divorced. If you come after me after the war is won (I have high hopes :p), I will defend myself and my liberties. I reject all arbitrary rule. Anyone who seeks to rule over me arbitrarily is no different than the current system we have now.

My question to you is: Would you let me live as a free individual free of State coercion and violence?

Note: This is all a hypothetical situation.

Civil Disobedience can be viewed as a political action. It is a form of political protest after all. Secession can be carried out without bloodshed in theory.

However, I personally do not know whether secession will achieve the goals of the liberty movement better than the struggle to re-animate the liberty spirit in the USA as a whole via the downsizing of the federal government.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Civil Disobedience can be viewed as a political action. It is a form of political protest after all. Secession can be carried out without bloodshed in theory.

However, I personally do not know whether secession will achieve the goals of the liberty movement better than the struggle to re-animate the liberty spirit in the USA as a whole via the downsizing of the federal government.

I have history to help me guide my thoughts. Working within the system? Never worked (Perhaps TSR can be an exception). Secession. History is riddled with this. It is clear to me which scenario is more akin to success. It begs the question though...are people ready to defend their liberties and not rely on trying to take over an arbitrary power system that inherently grows and destroys liberty?

[TheEvilDetector]

I don't want to see it either, but as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams illustrated, it is not I who bring this fight on, but those who seek arbitrary rule and violent tyrannies. Some things in life are necessary, and self-defense and liberty are two of those things.

I can't say I disagree.

I just see violence as a very primitive method of solving disagreements, to be used when diplomatic means have utterly failed.

I don't quite see that the diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.

What makes this different is the speed of idea/information sharing due to the internet.

I think the internet should be given the benefit of the doubt. It has proven itself very valuable and effective has it not?

Bottom line, constructive approach rather than the destructive approach may be more effective and that's all we want at the end of the day. Effectiveness that is.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I can't say I disagree.

I just see violence as a very primitive method of solving disagreements, to be used when diplomatic means have utterly failed.

I don't quite see that the diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.

What makes this different is the speed of idea/information sharing due to the internet.

I think the internet should be given the benefit of the doubt. It has proven itself very valuable and effective has it not?

Bottom line, constructive approach rather than the destructive approach may be more effective and that's all we want at the end of the day. Effectiveness that is.

People have been fighting for liberty through political venues for 80 years now. No appreciable gains have been made, and on the contrary, we have lost ever more liberty increasingly faster. Even under so-called limited Government rulers, the State still increased rapidly and unabated! I think 80 years is enough time to adequately say we have tried political means, and they will not allow change through this process.

The fight has been going on a LONG time. I assume you are young as am I, and we are somewhat new to this fight, but this fight isn't new. Hell Bob Schulz has enough documentation over the last 20 years to easily prove this, let alone going back even further. Look at Karl Hess. That was damn near 45+ years ago.

[TheEvilDetector]

I have history to help me guide my thoughts. Working within the system? Never worked (Perhaps TSR can be an exception). Secession. History is riddled with this. It is clear to me which scenario is more akin to success. It begs the question though...are people ready to defend their liberties and not rely on trying to take over an arbitrary power system that inherently grows and destroys liberty?

Power Systems rely more than anything on consent, which can only be given when the consenting party believes on the balance of things that Power System is working to their advantage.

State cannot possibly fight every citizen and doesn't need to, because of the consent.

So once consent has been withdrawn it is natural for the people to want to adjust the state so consent can be given again.

Here then, we are presented with 2 avenues, working with guns, or working with internet. I prefer the latter approach because I think in the information age, it is more effective.

I could be wrong of course, but I don't want to physically hurt people to demonstrate to them that I have a better solution for their lives than what they currently believe in.

It is too hypocritical an act to me.

As far as pure anarchy is concerned, despite all the shortcomings of the state, I am still not sufficiently convinced that overall a stateless society will protect my life and property better than a minarchy.

I understand that theoretically this may be self evident, but communism also looked good theoretically to those who prefer to live in shared property environment with like minded people and we know
what can happen when theoretical utopias meat real world practical limitations ie. violence, suffering etc.

I realise also, that for the sake of consistency, I have to add that a constitutional republic is another form of utopia.

It is a system better suited theoretically for those people who value their own liberty due to the values, principles and safeguards in the foundation and user manual documents (ie. DOI and Constitution).

As with other political systems, practical limitations introduce some bloodshed and suffering.

I remain optimistic that this particular system allows for adjustments to be made to rein in the deviations from the intended operation.

It is hopefully possible to achieve constitutional compliance without resorting to the most primitive of methods.

[Baptist]

Where is there an article (from a reputable news source) that talks about these supposed assassinations? Common sense tells me that if this were true it would have been all over the news by now. Oh but wait, there's an MSM conspiracy, forgot :rolleyes:

It was in the news last week. Just Google "Dennis Blair assassinate citizen." I first heard it on NPR and they reported that the U.S. has already assassinated 3 Americans. All three of them were outside of the country when assassinated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303968_pf.html

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/02/03/blair-us-govt-can-kill-citizens-overseas-as-part-of-defined-policy/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491

[nathanmn]

Spread this around. Write letters to your representatives. Don't let this issue get swept under the rug.

[Aratus]

representative ron paul is a deeply moral and honest man...

[jmdrake]

Best quote of the speech: Yes I know that artificially generated fear makes a large number of Americans inclined to applaud this effort which supposedly will make us safe

Gunny: You asked where is the outrage? Where was the outrage about torture? These stories get dribbled out a little at a time with sketchy details (yes, there is control of the MSM even if some people don't want to admit that) and people either pretend they aren't true unless confronted with the evidence directly, or they dismiss it as "necessary for our safety". How many times have we heard the scenario "If you had a terrorist that had knowledge of the location of a nuke, wouldn't you torture him to get it?" These same people pretend the torture is limited to "stress positions" or waterboarding (which is itself bad enough) and ignore the John Yoo memos authorizing torture of somebody's children. But the underpinning of all of this is fear. If the government can get the average person fearful enough, that person will go along with almost anything. We as a movement have to do more to undercut the power of fear.

[jmdrake]

Where is there an article (from a reputable news source) that talks about these supposed assassinations? Common sense tells me that if this were true it would have been all over the news by now. Oh but wait, there's an MSM conspiracy, forgot :rolleyes:

In the time it took you to write your snarky answer you could have found the information for yourself. There is all kinds of information that has been dribbled out in the MSM, but for some odd reason the MSM chooses NOT to be all over the story. You'd think the MSM would be all over the fact that Pakistani nuclear scientists once met with Al Qaeda, but it wasn't. You'd think the MSM would be all over the fact that the head of the Pakistani ISI wired 100K to Mohammed Atta, but it wasn't. You'd think the MSM would be all over the fact that Iran helped the U.S. oust the Taliban from power, but it wasn't. Everything I've mentioned has been reported in the MSM, but none of it gets the intensive scrutiny that it deserves! If you just listen to what the MSM harps on you'd think the extent of the torture done in our name was waterboarding and naked human pyramids. (The army's own report mentions prisoners being raped with broom handles). How often are we reminded of Ahmadinejad's words against Israel which were probably misinterpreted? (Almost daily). Contrast that with how often we are reminded that the president of Iran has no power over its armed forces. (Almost never). If all you are looking for is MSM verification of something, all you have to say is "Do you have a MSM link for that"? People are usually happy to oblige.

[nathanmn]

Bump again. I'm sorry, but I think I'm going to keep bumping this until there are investigations in Congress and criminal charges of conspiracy to commit murder brought against the criminals who are doing this.

[puppetmaster]

War of Northern Aggression. Families will kill families. Brothers will kill brothers. When there is a struggle over a power structure (To keep it intact), all bets are off. I however, don't see mercenaries being used much. I think within the Military things will go on as normal. Jack boots will continue being jack boots. Police will be the local enforcers of the power structure, and the Military will take over the cities, slowly creeping into the rural areas where fights will be a lot tougher and where casualties will be staggeringly high. Overall, most people in the Military are sheep. Drones. Never question orders, never question authority. They are taught this.

I could see at most a 20% defection in the Military, but even then conscription will take place to fill that void. Most people are cowards. They will not fight. Hence why only 3% fought in the American Revolution.

This sounds like our current wars .....;)

[puppetmaster]

Don't Assassinate Me Bro'

my new bumper sticker.
We will have to see who wins the battle of assassinations