PDA

View Full Version : Conspiracy nut Henry Makow smears Ron Paul




randomname
04-26-2012, 11:43 AM
This doesn't even make sense. LOL


Ron Paul, Freemasonry & the Gold Standard

Alex Jones and Ron Paul promote the Illuminati's gold standard.

Letter from Glenn:

Ron Paul's family are members of Freemasonry and the Order of the Eastern Star, according to someone who should know--Penny Freeman, his Congressional campaign political director and district volunteer coordinator for 10 years: (Penny Freeman's husband, Dr. Gerald Freeman, belongs to the Freeman Illuminati bloodline.)

Some interesting information vis a vis Ron Paul:

Ron Paul's family are members of Freemasonry and the Order of the Eastern Star, according to someone who should know--Penny Freeman, his Congressional campaign political director and district volunteer coordinator for 10 years : (Penny Freeman's husband, Dr. Gerald Freeman, belongs to the Freeman bloodline which Fritz Springmeier has shown to be an Illuminati bloodline in his book, The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines.)

On April 20th, 2008 the oak says:

Liberty Oak Ranch

Quit using Ron Paul as a forum for your bigotted beliefs. You don't know anything about him or his ideals obviously. You also know nothing about the Freemason or Eastern Star organizations.

1. Ron Paul's father was a Freemason and Dr. Paul has said himself many times that he respects the organization and has been to many of the open meetings in his district. I should know, I was his scheduler for ten years.

2. His wife, Carol is a member of the Velasco Order of the Eastern Star and maintains her membership in the Freeport area lodge.

3. Their daughters, Lori and Joy, were both Rainbow girls, another organization associated with Freemasonry.

http://watch.pair.com/synarchy-6.html


Alex Jones revealed "The New Pearl Harbor" document from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" as part of the New World Order's agenda. Alex Jones fails to mention the other PNAC document, written by PNAC board member Lewis Lehrman, called "Money and the Coming World Order: The Creation of International Monetary Order". The document is hosted on web site called, "Gold Standard Now," which is a project for the Lehrman Institute. The title is quite revealing that PNAC wants a New World Order based on the gold standard. According to Lewis Lehrman, we'll be on the New World Order's gold standard in five years.
Lewis Lehrman also partnered with Ron Paul to write The Case for Gold. Alex Jones is a dedicated promoter of Ron Paul and a return to the gold standard. Alex Jones and Ron Paul also both have significant investments in gold, with the producer of the Alex Jones show being a gold trader. It seems that Alex Jones knows a lot about the endgame of the New World Order and the blueprint for global enslavement. What Alex Jones does not tell you is that the gold standard is part of the endgame and blueprint for global enslavement, and that Ron Paul and Alex Jones are heavily invested into it. Since they actively promote a gold standard, they are not merely invested in gold just because they fear a new world gold standard. They are complicit in that agenda.

Ron Paul also gave public support for globalization and a one world currency, gold, in the public record.

"There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.... "

http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/pnac-infowars-com-and-ron-paul-partner-for-a-new-pearl-harbor/


(Ed Griffin appears to be part of this Ron Paul cabal along with Peter Schiff- unfortunately I can't find Schiff's direct connection with the Illuminati given his surname):

Fred Koch founded the John Birch Society in 1958. Ed Griffin was educated there. He later wrote a famous book, "the Creature of Jekyll Island". This was a rehash of Eustace Mullins' brilliant 'Secrets of the Federal Reserve', with one exception: it left out all Mullins' analysis of the Gold Standard as a Banker operation and how Britain's demand for taxes payed in Gold were the cause of the war of Independence. Instead it called for the reinstatement of a Gold Standard. This is a key part of the story how Austrian Economics managed to take over the 'Truth Movement'.


HOW THE MONEY POWER CREATED LIBERTARIANISM & AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS

http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/how-the-money-power-created-libertarianism-and-austrian-economics/

-------
Comment from JB-

I've been asking Ron Paul fans for some time - and it always falls on deaf ears... "How does a gold standard benefit the people when the elite have hoarded most of the gold?".

In effect, a gold standard would leave the elite as the only ones holding any significant amount of "real money". Its just handing them the world on a platter. Which would perhaps explain why Ron Paul is allowed to live.

If RP was an enemy of the elite, the media would not be promoting him so heavily. I know that its a popular idea that they suppress Ron Paul. But that is based on viewing things from a child-like simple perspective. What they do, in fact, is use the "stiffs" on the news to diss him while using the "cool" guys to promote him. Guys like Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, Bill Maher, etc have well promoted Ron Paul. Of course the media know what the public perception of their players are. They realize that the kind of people who are likely to identify with Ron Paul are repulsed by the stiffs on the networks - Whereas the audience for the stiffs is the common sheep. They also know that when the stiffs diss Ron Paul that the RP supporters will react strongly and it affirms in their minds that RP must be on their side since the big bad establishment is trying so hard to stop him. Its an underdog effect. Its so laughable and yet so tragic.

The irony is almost too much for me when I see people talking about having "woken up" and speaking with disdain about the common sheeple and then to realize that not only are the "woken up" people being used as tools and still dreaming - but that more than anyone else, they are being used as the point men in helping bring about this agenda.

But for the vast majority of his supporters, there is no convincing them. Ron Paul has become a religion for many.Its a fallacy that facts carry any weight when dealing with human beings. Feelings are king and always have been. The elite are indeed experts at human psychology and have outsmarted the truthers.

jmdrake
04-26-2012, 01:43 PM
Ron Paul also gave public support for globalization and a one world currency, gold, in the public record.

"There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.... "

Hmmmm.....the above in context.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=425&Itemid=60

Not sure what to make of that. I'm no fan of globalism and one world currency under any circumstances. Ron Paul has talked before about "competing currencies" though.

The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money PDF Print E-mail

March 13, 2001

The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money

The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money

The golden new Era of the 1990s has been welcomed and praised by many observers. But I'm afraid a different type of new era is arriving-a dangerous one- heralding the end of 30 years of fiat money. If so, it's a serious matter that deserves close attention by Congress.

There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency. But a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism, and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.

Efforts to achieve peaceful globalist goals are quickly abandoned when the standard of living drops, unemployment rises, stock markets crash and artificially high wages are challenged by market forces. When tight budgets threaten spending cuts, cries for expanding the welfare state drown out any expression of concern for rising deficits.

The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.

Great emphasis in the last six years has been placed on so-called productivity increases that gave us the new-era economy. Its defenders proclaimed that a new paradigm had arrived. Though productivity increases have surely helped our economy, many astute observers have challenged the extent to which improvements in productivity have actually given us a distinctly unique new era. A case can be made that the great surge in new technology of the 1920's far surpassed the current age of fast computers, and we all know what happened in after 1929.

A truly new era may well be upon us-but one quite different than what is generally accepted today.

The biggest error in interpreting today's events is totally ignoring how monetary policy in a fiat system affects the entire economy.

Politicians and economists are very familiar with business cycles with most assuming that slumps erupt as: 1.) A natural consequence of capitalism, 2.) An act of God, 3.) Or as a result of Fed driven high interest rates. That is to say, the Fed did not engage in enough monetary debasement, becomes the most common complaint by Wall Street pundits and politicians.

But today's economy is unlike anything the world has ever known. The world economy is more integrated than ever before. Indeed, the effort by international agencies to expand world trade has had results- some good. Labor costs have been held in check, industrial producers have moved to less regulated, low cost, and low tax countries while world mobility has aided these trends with all being helped with advances in computer technology.

But the artificial nature of today's world trade and finance being systematically managed by the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, and driven by a worldwide fiat monetary system, has produced imbalances that have already prompted many sudden adjustments. There have been eight major crisis in the past six years requiring a worldwide effort, led by the Fed, to keep the system afloat, all being done with more monetary inflation and bailouts.

The lynch pin to the outstanding growth of the 1990s has been the US dollar. Although it too is totally fiat, its special status has permitted a bigger bonus to the United States while it has been used to prop up other world economies. The gift bequeathed to us by owning the world reserve currency, allows us to create dollars at will- and Alan Greenspan has not hesitated to accommodate everyone despite his reputation as an inflation fighter. This has dramatically raised our standard of living, and significantly contributed to the new era psychology that has been welcomed by so many naive enough to believe that perpetual prosperity had arrived and the bills would never have to be paid.

One day it will become known that technological advances and improvements in productivity also have a downside. This technology hid the ill effects of the monetary mischief the Fed had enthusiastically engaged in over the past decade. Technological improvements, while keeping the CPI and the PPI prices in check, led many, including Greenspan, to victoriously declare that no inflation existed and that a new era had indeed arrived. Finally, it's declared that the day has arrived that printing money is equivalent to producing wealth and without a downside. Counterfeiting works!

But the excess credit created by the Fed found its way into the stock market- especially the NASDAQ, and was ignored. This set the stage for the stock market collapse, now ongoing. Likewise ignored has been the excess capacity, mal-investment, and debt that permeates the world economy.

Could we indeed be facing a truly New Era, but one unanticipated by all the authorities and one much more dangerous?

The collapse of the Soviet system and the emergence of United States military and economic preeminence, throughout the world, have permitted the dollar-driven financial bubble to last longer than anticipated. But instead of a glorious New Era, as promised, we ended up with a huge financial bubble and an artificially integrated world economy dominated by an unstable dollar. But instead of a single commodity currency driving a healthy world economy, we have an economy that has numerous imbalances generated by the US dollar, unsustainable trade agreements and total instability in the currency markets.

Sure we have enjoyed cheap imports and they have raised our standard of living and our foreign debt. We have on the short run benefited from our trade and current account deficits since the world has been only too eager to gobble up our inflated dollars and loan them back to us. But soon the countries of the world will decide that enough is enough and they will recognize the bad deal it is for them to continue to accept our dollars. The mal-investment, already becoming apparent, will prompt even more radical adjustments in all markets.

There are many countries only too anxious to get back at the United States for our military and economic aggressiveness, and some unknown economic or military event will one day knock us off our pedestal and a dangerous New Era will be upon us, instead of the golden one dreamed about.

For thirty years the world has operated on a pure fiat monetary system and all the ill effects of such a system are now becoming apparent. Current adjustments will be different than all other previous currency adjustments, which were local or regional. This one is worldwide and may well be the biggest economic event in modern history.

It's reasonable to assume a worldwide slump will ensue as a result of the worldwide monetary mischief our authorities have engaged in the past 30 years. Never before has the world gone so long without money having some tangible value attached to it. Trust in politicians and Central Bankers may have been a benefit in the inflationary part of the cycle but this trust will quickly dissipate in the corrected phase. Monetary heroes can quickly become villains as the price is paid for previous excesses and extravagance.

However, hope springs eternal, so no effort will soon be made to restore sound money. A giant worldwide slump will merely prompt massive monetary inflation and deficit financing. The Congress and the American people should anticipate this will happen even though it should not.

Conditions today could easily lead to rampant price inflation as the dollar depreciates. Trade chaos, already apparent, considering the number of complaints pending before the WTO, will surely worsen, leading to a greater cry for protectionism and militant nationalism which will then jeopardize international trade even more.

The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation. Real free trade without barriers or tariffs and a single sound currency is the best way to achieve international peace and prosperity.

When that day comes we will have a true New Era, unlike the fictitious New Era of Greenspan's dreams and certainly opposite of the dangerous New Era that stares us in the face as the world fiat monetary system falters.

Lishy
04-26-2012, 05:51 PM
Where's Jessie Ventura when ya need him to slap the living daylights out of this guy?

DerailingDaTrain
04-28-2012, 04:54 PM
I've heard this before. I've also seen videos proclaiming that Ron Paul and Peter Thiel both attend Bilderberg meetings but in the same video they claim that the Bilderberg group is a fake name thought up by Alex Jones who is a member of the Illuminati along with Ron Paul and is brainwashing everyone to not hate Jews. I stopped watching it about 30 seconds in. Horrible video.

mearow
04-30-2012, 08:25 AM
The Penny Freeman quote is "copied and pasted" on blogs all over the internet, as fact. The fact has never been proven. Anyone could sign up on dailypaul (where the post was originally posted) and make that claim. Has it ever been proven that Mrs. Paul is in Eastern Star or the daughters being in Rainbows? Or that Penny Freeman was the original author of the post?

WilliamC
04-30-2012, 08:36 AM
Funny thing is Ron Paul doesn't advocate a strict gold standard whereby the government and the bankers fix the price of gold in some secret meetings and force everyone else to use gold at the fixed rate.

Ron Paul advocates a free-market gold standard whereby governments have the legal authority to enforce contracts, including the authority to establish honest weights and measures for coinage. But the free-market (itself reliant on some form of government to enforce property rights and contracts) would set the actual value of gold in relation to other commodities via open, global trade.

While it is almost certain that gold would become the de facto monetary standard, based on it's history, it would not be a de jure monetary standard because there would be no legal tender laws mandating payment of taxes in gold at some arbitrary, fixed government rate.

I can't seem to figure out if some of Ron Pauls critics are simply not understanding this difference or if they understand it and deliberately lie in order to spread FUD and to block progress towards restoring a sound money system. I suspect it's a mixture of both.

DerailingDaTrain
04-30-2012, 12:16 PM
Funny thing is Ron Paul doesn't advocate a strict gold standard whereby the government and the bankers fix the price of gold in some secret meetings and force everyone else to use gold at the fixed rate.

Ron Paul advocates a free-market gold standard whereby governments have the legal authority to enforce contracts, including the authority to establish honest weights and measures for coinage. But the free-market (itself reliant on some form of government to enforce property rights and contracts) would set the actual value of gold in relation to other commodities via open, global trade.

While it is almost certain that gold would become the de facto monetary standard, based on it's history, it would not be a de jure monetary standard because there would be no legal tender laws mandating payment of taxes in gold at some arbitrary, fixed government rate.

I can't seem to figure out if some of Ron Pauls critics are simply not understanding this difference or if they understand it and deliberately lie in order to spread FUD and to block progress towards restoring a sound money system. I suspect it's a mixture of both.

Some conspiracy theorists are just so far out there they'll believe in anything. For instance there is a conspiracy theory that Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange is a member of the Mossad and killed another member of the group Dan Wallace by injecting him with a drug to induce a heart attack:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4DE-kVBvfM

I've seen people on the internet perpetuate this myth for some strange reason and even though that video is so badly made and there is no evidence to support their claim at all they believe it.

These people also believe that Ron Paul is in the Illuminati and make horrible videos of him speaking backwards:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnfjMxDcClM

kro
04-30-2012, 01:15 PM
I've heard a few "Ron Paul conspiracies", seen a few "Ron Paul conspiracy" videos on youtube, etc., and one common theme is the lack of real evidence. For example, saying that Ron Paul is a member of the New World Order, "the system", etc., because he gives the "I love you" hand sign (which one video said was a secret society gesture) is not what I consider to be hard evidence.


What does "the system" want, in general?

1. Perpetual war
2. Central banking
3. Bigger government
4. Less freedom
5. People to think that they're weak and must depend on the government for everything

What has Ron Paul been advocating for the last few decades?

1. Less war
2. A distrust/an end to central banking
3. Smaller government
4. More freedom
5. People should be strong and not depend on the government for everything

Not to mention, that many people who are very strong Libertarians, as well as Anarchists, were introduced to the message of liberty by Dr. Paul. So the puppet master would let a puppet preach the message of liberty for decades, to the point of converting millions of people to the liberty message, which will make it harder for "the system" to control the population, which is the opposite of what "the system" wants? At the end of the day, people need to have a little common sense. And yes, I've heard the, "Yeah but there was a movement based around President Obama, so it's the same thing". Was Obama talking about smaller government and more freedom for decades? No. I don't even think I've heard the words, "We need smaller government" out of Obama's mouth. Was the media (in general) trying to black out and discredit then unelected presidential candidate Barack Obama? No. Was the media (in general) pushing then unelected presidential candidate Barack Obama? Yes. Does Ron Paul give teleprompter-like answers to questions? No. Is Ron Paul a slick speaker? No. I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

JebSanderson
04-30-2012, 01:22 PM
Never thought I'd see the day when RPF woukd use "conspiracy nut" in a derogatory way.

BlackTerrel
04-30-2012, 01:29 PM
These people also believe that Ron Paul is in the Illuminati and make horrible videos of him speaking backwards:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnfjMxDcClM

A big part of many conspiracy theories is that anyone who has success is part of a conspiracy and achieved their gains by ill means. Even many current Ron Paul supporters of the conspiracy variety will turn on him if he becomes President. I truly believe that. What will Alex Jones do if Ron Paul becomes President? Will he say that the US President is a good guy? I doubt it. That doesn't fit his view of the way the world works and people don't go to his site to read about how the President is going good things. He'll turn on him and so will others.

Here's a video with 3.5 million views. Read some of the comments - people actually believe this shit. They want to believe that these guys achieve their success through ill means rather than hard work and talent:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhSOjrHcec

NoOneButPaul
04-30-2012, 01:34 PM
hahahaha... they're only conspiracy "nuts" when they don't agree with us... gotta love it.

jmdrake
04-30-2012, 01:38 PM
A big part of many conspiracy theories is that anyone who has success is part of a conspiracy and achieved their gains by ill means. Even many current Ron Paul supporters of the conspiracy variety will turn on him if he becomes President. I truly believe that. What will Alex Jones do if Ron Paul becomes President? Will he say that the US President is a good guy? I doubt it. That doesn't fit his view of the way the world works and people don't go to his site to read about how the President is going good things. He'll turn on him and so will others.

Here's a video with 3.5 million views. Read some of the comments - people actually believe this shit. They want to believe that these guys achieve their success through ill means rather than hard work and talent:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhSOjrHcec

:rolleyes: Ridiculous argument is ridiculous. Alex Jones is successful himself. Do you expect him to turn on himself? Just because some folks have the good sense to know that a government that admitted overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran and installed a brutal dictatorship, and admitted to supplying the explosives for the first WTC bombing plot in 1993 that killed 7 Americans might continue to do nefarious things and then lie about it, doesn't mean they are just hating on people for being "successful". Has Alex Jones ever accused Ghandi of being a part of a conspiracy? If yes then provide a link. If no then admit you're just making crap up as you go along.

NoOneButPaul
04-30-2012, 01:38 PM
Also if any conspiracy actually existed it would involve Ron running 3rd party and essentially handing Obama all 50 states...

jmdrake
04-30-2012, 01:48 PM
Also if any conspiracy actually existed it would involve Ron running 3rd party and essentially handing Obama all 50 states...

If Ron Paul doesn't run 3rd party and Romney wins, what's the difference? If Ron doesn't win the presidency in 2012, our last best hope is Rand winning in 2016. Romney winning in 2012 might put the brakes on that. It would require Rand challenging an incumbent republican president in a primary. Really hard to do.

BlackTerrel
04-30-2012, 02:08 PM
:rolleyes: Ridiculous argument is ridiculous. Alex Jones is successful himself. Do you expect him to turn on himself?

How successful? His audience is less than 1% of the population. He makes a good living and that's enough to have other conspiracists turn on him. If Ron was President I don't think Alex's audience would appreciate him saying "you can trust the President now". It for damn sure wouldn't be good for his ratings.


Just because some folks have the good sense to know that a government that admitted overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran and installed a brutal dictatorship, and admitted to supplying the explosives for the first WTC bombing plot in 1993 that killed 7 Americans might continue to do nefarious things and then lie about it, doesn't mean they are just hating on people for being "successful".

Alex Jones audience comes to his site for conspiracy theories and to hear that things are the opposite of what is being reported. Alex will never sell you that anything on the news is accurate. Let's do a hypothetical: let's say for the first time in the history of the world a Muslim committed a crime and decided to blow up an NYC subway and killed a bunch of people. Let's say this actually happens and is 100% accurate. Do you really think the headline on infowars would be "Government and media say lone terrorist blows himself up in NYC and kills 100 people - and they are telling the truth". This would never in a million years happen. His audience would be fucking pissed because that is not what they go to his site for. His site would say that reports were wrong and that it was a false flag and the work of many people - that's what his audience wants.


Has Alex Jones ever accused Ghandi of being a part of a conspiracy? If yes then provide a link. If no then admit you're just making crap up as you go along.

This seems like a bit of a strawman.

jmdrake
04-30-2012, 02:20 PM
How successful? His audience is less than 1% of the population. He makes a good living and that's enough to have other conspiracists turn on him. If Ron was President I don't think Alex's audience would appreciate him saying "you can trust the President now". It for damn sure wouldn't be good for his ratings.

So you honestly think that if members of the Paul administration went on the Alex Jones show that wouldn't be good for ratings? :rolleyes: All you've proven is that you "damn sure" know nothing about the media business.




Alex Jones audience comes to his site for conspiracy theories and to hear that things are the opposite of what is being reported. Alex will never sell you that anything on the news is accurate.


Just yesterday he was quoting the New York Times as accurate for pointing out that the FBI has been hatching terror plots. He also quoted CBS as accurate for pointing out that the republicans are seeking to hold Eric Holder in contempt over Fast and Furious. In fact he often quotes mainstream media as being accurate...when it is. For instance he'll quote the New York Times report that shows that the FBI provided the explosives for the 1993 WTC bombing and demanded that real explosives be used even though the informant wanted to use fake explosives. You really don't know what you are talking about.



Let's do a hypothetical: let's say for the first time in the history of the world a Muslim committed a crime and decided to blow up an NYC subway and killed a bunch of people. Let's say this actually happens and is 100% accurate. Do you really think the headline on infowars would be "Government and media say lone terrorist blows himself up in NYC and kills 100 people - and they are telling the truth". This would never in a million years happen. His audience would be fucking pissed because that is not what they go to his site for. His site would say that reports were wrong and that it was a false flag and the work of many people - that's what his audience wants.


In that situation he would reserve judgement long enough to see if the story held up. If there were holes in the story he would be the first to point it out. But he's not above saying that Muslims can be terrorists. In fact he's pointed out that John Doe # 2 from the Oklahoma City bombing looked middle eastern. Again you don't know what you are talking about.

Further it was Alex Jones that pointed out the mainstream media reports that Al Qaeda was in the forefront of the Libya uprising. That was a MSM report that you had trouble believing if I recall correctly. So who's the conspiracy theorist?




This seems like a bit of a strawman.

:rolleyes: How so? You said that Alex Jones is the type that says if anyone is successful they must be part of the conspiracy. Well Ghandi was successful. Admit it, you just make this crap up as you go along.

NoOneButPaul
04-30-2012, 02:24 PM
If Ron Paul doesn't run 3rd party and Romney wins, what's the difference? If Ron doesn't win the presidency in 2012, our last best hope is Rand winning in 2016. Romney winning in 2012 might put the brakes on that. It would require Rand challenging an incumbent republican president in a primary. Really hard to do.

You guys really have to get over this Robamney thing... Romney sucks, I'll never vote for him, period. Romney and Obama are essentially the same (about 95%) but they are not the same.

I can guarantee 2 things... 1- Romney would not make a good President and 2- he would make a better President than Obama and wouldn't spend 1trillion a month.

Electing Romney gives this country a considerably greater amount of time even if he wouldn't offer up any real change.


As for the 3rd party stuff... Ron can't get 270 electoral votes that way or win the POTUS in any way imaginable so as you ask "what's the difference?" the difference is a guaranteed Obama victory versus a very-sure Obama victory... that's a huge difference. Romney cannot win with 20% of the country going another way.

jmdrake
04-30-2012, 02:32 PM
You guys really have to get over this Robamney thing... Romney sucks, I'll never vote for him, period. Romney and Obama are essentially the same (about 95%) but they are not the same.

Yeah that's true. In some ways Romney would be worse.



I can guarantee 2 things... 1- Romney would not make a good President and 2- he would make a better President than Obama and wouldn't spend 1trillion a month.


And you can guarantee that because..........? :confused: Romney at one point endorsed Obama's stimulus plan.



Electing Romney gives this country a considerably greater amount of time even if he wouldn't offer up any real change.

That's your opinion and you're free to have it. I disagree. I'm not sure why people disagreeing with you is a problem for you. One thing you can't deny though. Romney as president means getting someone in there who'll actually fix anything by 2016 will be very difficult.

Regardless, since you've already said you won't vote for Romney anyway, then why do you even care? Most folks are smarter than you give them credit for. There's not a lot of people who are considering voting for Romney who will run out and vote third party for Paul. Folks who who vote 3rd party for Paul wouldn't vote for Romney anyway. The idea of Paul "pulling" votes from Romney is a total fabrication. If Paul is on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate that just means that a lot of folks who, like you, would just stay home in November might go out and register a protest vote.

BlackTerrel
04-30-2012, 04:13 PM
So you honestly think that if members of the Paul administration went on the Alex Jones show that wouldn't be good for ratings? :rolleyes: All you've proven is that you "damn sure" know nothing about the media business.

What's he going to talk about for four hours a day? "Our government is good and honest and our President consistently does the right thing". Yeah that will go over well.


Just yesterday he was quoting the New York Times as accurate for pointing out that the FBI has been hatching terror plots. He also quoted CBS as accurate for pointing out that the republicans are seeking to hold Eric Holder in contempt over Fast and Furious. In fact he often quotes mainstream media as being accurate...when it is.

He'll quote mainstream media when mainstream media promotes news that is similar to his view. Not based on accuracy.


In that situation he would reserve judgement long enough to see if the story held up. If there were holes in the story he would be the first to point it out.

Really? 10 minutes into the VA Tech shooting he was saying conspiracy.


Further it was Alex Jones that pointed out the mainstream media reports that Al Qaeda was in the forefront of the Libya uprising. That was a MSM report that you had trouble believing if I recall correctly. So who's the conspiracy theorist?

I don't recall the specific post you're referring to but if you quote it I'm happy to respond. It's very likely I was wrong. I'm wrong many times. I change my views based on additional information. Conspiracy theorists will claim that additional information is fake and part of the conspiracy. It's a nice way to live life because all data against your world view is false data.


:rolleyes: How so? You said that Alex Jones is the type that says if anyone is successful they must be part of the conspiracy. Well Ghandi was successful. Admit it, you just make this crap up as you go along.

I said that a big part of conspiracy theories is claiming that successful people are part of a conspiracy. I don't believe that Alex Jones dedicates his particular brand of conspiracy to every single successful person in the history of the world - particularly he does not spend much time covering Indian leaders from 80 years ago.

Success is what drives this stuff. Is it a coincidence that there is a YouTube video with 3.5 million views claiming the two best American athletes of the past 10 years are part of the illuminati and have received their skills and success by evil dealings? It has to do with success. No one would make a video about Flip Murray being a part of the illuminati because no one would care.

NewRightLibertarian
04-30-2012, 06:34 PM
If Ron Paul were to become President, there will still be plenty of fucked up shit going on in the world to fill a radio show

jmdrake
04-30-2012, 07:01 PM
What's he going to talk about for four hours a day? "Our government is good and honest and our President consistently does the right thing". Yeah that will go over well.


1) If you think that just by Ron Paul getting elected the entire U.S. government including the House, Senate, judiciary, and unelected bureaucrats will all magically fall in line and follow Dr. Paul's dictates then you are more naive than I ever could have imagined.

2) Even if the entire U.S. government automatically fell in line behind liberty, there's still the U.N. to deal with as well as a host of treaties and alliances we would need to disentangle ourselves from.

3) There would be the ever present worry of "Will the globalists try to off Ron Paul".

4) If everything goes right, that means that on a daily basis Ron Paul would be reviewing and seeking to overturn unconstitutional laws and executive orders from the past fifty years. That would give Alex Jones more than enough to talk about for 4 hours a day.



He'll quote mainstream media when mainstream media promotes news that is similar to his view. Not based on accuracy.


:rolleyes: You said he didn't use MSM. You were wrong. Just admit you were wrong and move on. And for the record he will quote the MSM when he disagrees with them as well for the sake of pointing out why he disagrees with them. Any other news commentator does the same thing. I'm not even sure what you are expecting or where you're trying to go with this line.



Really? 10 minutes into the VA Tech shooting he was saying conspiracy.


Were you actually listening that day? Somehow I doubt that. If you were then you aren't reporting accurately what he said. He said it was suspicious. And it turns out....it was suspicious. VA Tech was the home of the CIA's admitted MK Ultra program. (Google it). That said, that wasn't the only angle AJ covered or even the bigger angle. The bigger angles was the effect of psychotropic drugs, (he predicted as soon as the shooting happened that the shooter would be on psychotropics...and he turned out to be right), and the fact that the media would use the to push gun control, even though gun control was really part of the problem. (The only reason the shooter could kill so many is because universities are largely victim disarmament zones).




I don't recall the specific post you're referring to but if you quote it I'm happy to respond. It's very likely I was wrong. I'm wrong many times. I change my views based on additional information. Conspiracy theorists will claim that additional information is fake and part of the conspiracy. It's a nice way to live life because all data against your world view is false data.


I'm glad you can admit you were wrong. Now if you could also admit you are wrong about so called "conspiracy theorists" you would be a more reasonable person. Additional information is "fake" only if it is actually shown to be fake. Let's take the Trayvon Martin case. When additional information came out showing that Zimmerman actually did have a bloody head, did I say "That's probably just ketchup"? No. I was more than willing to concede that point. Now that I've seen video demonstrations that someone can scan a document into Acrobat and it might automatically create layers I'm not talking about the birth certificate issue. When I had reason to think the online version was fake I voiced it. But you will jump at the flimsiest piece of "evidence" that "confirms" the comforting story you want to believe and cling to it for dear life. Oh Iran says it's got video of the compound the Navy SEALs raided. Without any direct quote from any Iranian you assume that must mean that the Osama narrative, in it's 10th form after the government finally settled on a story, must be true.



I said that a big part of conspiracy theories is claiming that successful people are part of a conspiracy. I don't believe that Alex Jones dedicates his particular brand of conspiracy to every single successful person in the history of the world - particularly he does not spend much time covering Indian leaders from 80 years ago.


He actually covers Ghandi quite a bit as an example to follow. Here's someone else Alex Jones has covered quite a bit. Peter Schiff. Do you think Alex Jones thinks Peter Schiff is part of some conspiracy? Because AJ has never said that. You want another example? How Lord Monckton, the British member of the House of Lords who's been debunking man made global warming? Has Alex Jones said "This guy is so high up he must be one of them"? No? Then your making stuff up as you go along.



Success is what drives this stuff. Is it a coincidence that there is a YouTube video with 3.5 million views claiming the two best American athletes of the past 10 years are part of the illuminati and have received their skills and success by evil dealings? It has to do with success. No one would make a video about Flip Murray being a part of the illuminati because no one would care.

Has Alex Jones ever accused Kobe Bryant or LeBrawn James as being part of the illuminati? NO! Come up. Don't be ridiculous. Just because somebody somewhere makes a YouTube like that doesn't mean that's par for the course for who conspiracy reporting works. You're being like the racist who says that a black person robbing a convenience store means black people rob convenience stores. Alex Jones works by putting together pieces of reporting that other people have overlooked together with his own sources to paint a picture of the world as he sees it. That's the way journalism works in general. Is he high strung at times? Yep. Does he get it wrong sometimes? Sure. And he's said it. Does he just say someone is part of some conspiracy because they are "successful"? No. That's a ridiculous assertion.

jmdrake
04-30-2012, 07:02 PM
If Ron Paul were to become President, there will still be plenty of fucked up shit going on in the world to fill a radio show

Exactly!

Elwar
04-30-2012, 07:10 PM
Ron Paul was asked via a letter, I believe by a forum member, if he was a freemason. He responded and signed it saying he has never been a freemason.

Elwar
04-30-2012, 07:18 PM
Ron Paul also advocates competition in currencies.

This would allow for something like Bitcoins, which is not the gold standard.

Okie RP fan
05-01-2012, 12:05 AM
I tend to like A.J. and the Infowars team.

However, they have some visitors on that site who are beyond insane, there have been many posters in the comments section Ron Paul is a free mason and who wants world domination. I've also seen people say that "libertarianism is the end game for the N.W.O" I mean, really, people?

NewRightLibertarian
05-01-2012, 10:46 AM
I tend to like A.J. and the Infowars team.

However, they have some visitors on that site who are beyond insane, there have been many posters in the comments section Ron Paul is a free mason and who wants world domination. I've also seen people say that "libertarianism is the end game for the N.W.O" I mean, really, people?

Those people might be paid trolls spewing ridiculous disinformation. You never know these days

Feeding the Abscess
05-01-2012, 12:59 PM
You guys really have to get over this Robamney thing... Romney sucks, I'll never vote for him, period. Romney and Obama are essentially the same (about 95%) but they are not the same.

I can guarantee 2 things... 1- Romney would not make a good President and 2- he would make a better President than Obama and wouldn't spend 1trillion a month.

Electing Romney gives this country a considerably greater amount of time even if he wouldn't offer up any real change.


As for the 3rd party stuff... Ron can't get 270 electoral votes that way or win the POTUS in any way imaginable so as you ask "what's the difference?" the difference is a guaranteed Obama victory versus a very-sure Obama victory... that's a huge difference. Romney cannot win with 20% of the country going another way.

Romney would be worse than Obama. Romney won't cut a damn thing domestically, and wants to increase military spending.

That math equals greater deficits and greater debt.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 09:50 AM
I like Alex Jones when he talks about the police state.

BlackTerrel
05-02-2012, 08:46 PM
1) If you think that just by Ron Paul getting elected the entire U.S. government including the House, Senate, judiciary, and unelected bureaucrats will all magically fall in line and follow Dr. Paul's dictates then you are more naive than I ever could have imagined.

2) Even if the entire U.S. government automatically fell in line behind liberty, there's still the U.N. to deal with as well as a host of treaties and alliances we would need to disentangle ourselves from.

3) There would be the ever present worry of "Will the globalists try to off Ron Paul".

4) If everything goes right, that means that on a daily basis Ron Paul would be reviewing and seeking to overturn unconstitutional laws and executive orders from the past fifty years. That would give Alex Jones more than enough to talk about for 4 hours a day.

But what if there's a terror attack and suddenly Ron Paul is the one calling the shots? I don't believe he'll stand behind him for long. He'll do business by attacking "the man" not supporting him. I saw it with a select few with Obama as well.


:rolleyes: You said he didn't use MSM. You were wrong. Just admit you were wrong and move on. And for the record he will quote the MSM when he disagrees with them as well for the sake of pointing out why he disagrees with them. Any other news commentator does the same thing. I'm not even sure what you are expecting or where you're trying to go with this line.

What I'm saying is that his general tone is "the MSM and the powers that be are lying but I'm here to give you the truth".


Were you actually listening that day[VA Tech shooting]? Somehow I doubt that. If you were then you aren't reporting accurately what he said. He said it was suspicious. And it turns out....it was suspicious. VA Tech was the home of the CIA's admitted MK Ultra program. (Google it).

That's it. MK Ultra according to Google took place at more than 30 universities. You could play 6 degrees with Kevin Bacon with anything if you want to push the conspiracy angle. That's why it's so hard to debate it.


That said, that wasn't the only angle AJ covered or even the bigger angle. The bigger angles was the effect of psychotropic drugs, (he predicted as soon as the shooting happened that the shooter would be on psychotropics...and he turned out to be right),

Of course. I'm sure he also listened to fucked out music and wore a lot of gray and black and not so much bright colored clothing. That's what crazy people do. Correlation doesn't equal causation. What % of people that shoot up their schools do you think like to wear black vs like to wear yellow? Does that mean black clothing causes school shootings?


and the fact that the media would use the to push gun control, even though gun control was really part of the problem. (The only reason the shooter could kill so many is because universities are largely victim disarmament zones).

Of course. EVERY TIME there is a big shooting gun control advocates push it to say there should be less guns and gun rights advocates say there should be more guns. That's what people with an agenda do. Both sides. It never changes public opinion. People have made up their mind.


I'm glad you can admit you were wrong. Now if you could also admit you are wrong about so called "conspiracy theorists" you would be a more reasonable person. Additional information is "fake" only if it is actually shown to be fake. Let's take the Trayvon Martin case. When additional information came out showing that Zimmerman actually did have a bloody head, did I say "That's probably just ketchup"? No. I was more than willing to concede that point. Now that I've seen video demonstrations that someone can scan a document into Acrobat and it might automatically create layers I'm not talking about the birth certificate issue.

Did Alex Jones admit he was wrong?

http://www.infowars.com/new-obama-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

Our investigation of the purported Obama birth certificate released by Hawaiian authorities today reveals the document is a shoddily contrived hoax. Infowars.com computer specialists dismissed the document as a fraud soon after examining it.

Who were these experts who were so easily able to dismiss this thing as fraud so quick after examining it? These guys are experts and they don't know about scanning a document into Acrobat? Why didn't they take a few more hours to do some research given that they are "experts" and this is supposed to be their job?

The answer is people don't go to Alex Jones' site to hear "yep turns out he's actually a citizen". They go to get their fix of conspiracy theories and his "experts" will back him up because that's what they WANT to find.

Indy Vidual
05-02-2012, 09:07 PM
Ron Paul also advocates competition in currencies.

This would allow for something like Bitcoins, which is not the gold standard.

Sounds great.

Indy Vidual
05-02-2012, 09:09 PM
This doesn't even make sense. LOL

Crazy thread is crazy.
Your source forgot to mention both Ron and Rand are shape-shifting lizards. :eek:
:p

jmdrake
05-02-2012, 09:12 PM
But what if there's a terror attack and suddenly Ron Paul is the one calling the shots? I don't believe he'll stand behind him for long. He'll do business by attacking "the man" not supporting him. I saw it with a select few with Obama as well.

You know what? The Bible says answer not a fool according to his folly. So I'll let you have the last word. You have absolutely no intelligent reason to claim Alex Jones would attack a president Paul. You're just trolling. Have fun doing it by yourself.

mport1
05-02-2012, 09:19 PM
Nice, the more conspiracy nuts that are against Ron Paul instead of supporting him, the better.

kill the banks
05-02-2012, 09:25 PM
actually Henry is a very intelligent guy ... I've tried to back him off this angle as I feel he has gone too far IMO ... still he offers much good information and is is fighting the fight as he sees it ... my hope is he gets back to his original purpose and focus

BlackTerrel
05-02-2012, 10:02 PM
You know what? The Bible says answer not a fool according to his folly. So I'll let you have the last word. You have absolutely no intelligent reason to claim Alex Jones would attack a president Paul. You're just trolling. Have fun doing it by yourself.

One more thing. Could you address if Jones ever corrected himself about the birth certificate that you admitted there was no evidence it was fake. And why did his site and his "computer specialists" dismiss it as a fake so soon after seeing it?I'm really interested in your response.


I'm glad you can admit you were wrong. Now if you could also admit you are wrong about so called "conspiracy theorists" you would be a more reasonable person. Additional information is "fake" only if it is actually shown to be fake. Let's take the Trayvon Martin case. When additional information came out showing that Zimmerman actually did have a bloody head, did I say "That's probably just ketchup"? No. I was more than willing to concede that point. Now that I've seen video demonstrations that someone can scan a document into Acrobat and it might automatically create layers I'm not talking about the birth certificate issue.

Did Alex Jones admit he was wrong?

http://www.infowars.com/new-obama-bi...-is-a-forgery/

Our investigation of the purported Obama birth certificate released by Hawaiian authorities today reveals the document is a shoddily contrived hoax. Infowars.com computer specialists dismissed the document as a fraud soon after examining it.

Who were these experts who were so easily able to dismiss this thing as fraud so quick after examining it? These guys are experts and they don't know about scanning a document into Acrobat? Why didn't they take a few more hours to do some research given that they are "experts" and this is supposed to be their job?

The answer is people don't go to Alex Jones' site to hear "yep turns out he's actually a citizen". They go to get their fix of conspiracy theories and his "experts" will back him up because that's what they WANT to find.

jmdrake
05-02-2012, 10:08 PM
One more thing. Could you address if Jones ever corrected himself about the birth certificate that you admitted there was no evidence it was fake. And why did his site and his "computer specialists" dismiss it as a fake so soon after seeing it?I'm really interested in your response.


Lot's of people dismissed the birth certificate as fake after first seeing it. I'm not 100% sure it's not fake. I just have an explanation for the layers thing. Maybe AJ didn't see that video. I just saw it myself. There were other problems with the birth certificate though. I've heard AJ admit he was wrong before, though an example doesn't immediately come to mind. You can either believe me or think I'm lying and frankly I don't care. Now here's a question for you. If Ron Paul comes out full bore conspiracy theorist after the election will you stop supporting him? I don't think that will happen because he still has Rand to think about. But Ron did come out recently and warn that there might be a "false flag" operation where "one of our ships go to the bottom". Since you are sooooo out to malign conspiracy theorists are you going to malign and slander Ron now? Frankly I don't care about that either. You're closer to Santorum on foreign policy than Ron anyway.

Edit: And have you admitted you were wrong about Zimmerman's injuries? Really, you're trying to play "admit you were wrong" gestapo and I have yet to see you do that about anything.

Edit 2: Actually thanks for the link. Alex Jones actually answers the "automatic layers" question.

Nathan Goulding, writing for the National Review, tells us anybody can open the White House released PDF in Illustrator and it will break out into layers. “I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home,” he writes.

Indeed, but this does not answer the question why in the Obama birth certificate PDF the layers or elements contain dates – which appear to be modified – and the signature of the state registrar. If the document was acquired from state records in whole, why was it necessary to add elements? Goulding and Brooks do not address this issue.

I guess I have to admit I was wrong for thinking Alex Jones was wrong. ;)

Indy Vidual
05-03-2012, 12:25 AM
Not speaking for Alex.
Here is a fact:

...
Who were these experts who were so easily able to dismiss this thing as fraud so quick after examining it? ...

A real-world document would never have layers when you scan it into an image program.
period/case closed...
Obvious fake, why don't more people know by now?

BlackTerrel
05-04-2012, 07:31 PM
Lot's of people dismissed the birth certificate as fake after first seeing it. I'm not 100% sure it's not fake. I just have an explanation for the layers thing. Maybe AJ didn't see that video. I just saw it myself.

Why did his "experts" dismiss it so quickly? You'd think experts would want to examine it for a bit.


There were other problems with the birth certificate though. I've heard AJ admit he was wrong before, though an example doesn't immediately come to mind. You can either believe me or think I'm lying and frankly I don't care. Now here's a question for you. If Ron Paul comes out full bore conspiracy theorist after the election will you stop supporting him?

I think it depends which one. The "official story" of JFK is that the CIA got him - I don't believe that either. I disagree with Ron on some issues now ( Civil Rights Act, how to deal with the poor etc..) but I agree with him enough on the big issues that I support him over everyone else. If he came out and said "US did 9/11", "Obama is a Muslim", "US moon landing was fake", etc... yeah I'd stop supporting him.


Edit: And have you admitted you were wrong about Zimmerman's injuries? Really, you're trying to play "admit you were wrong" gestapo and I have yet to see you do that about anything.

I have not changed my mind on Zimmerman. I think the evidence points to him being guilty of killing an unarmed kid.

As far as admitting I'm wrong. I have no problem doing that. Here's the first example I could remember. I argued a bunch in support of JoePa out of a sense of loyalty for what he did for one of my good friends. But when the facts became too much to bear I admitted I was wrong and left the thread. Sad case.


I take back my previous comments in this thread and others. I'm wrong about this.

If someone is doing "something of a sexual nature with a 10 year old boy" you stop it. This is so fucked :(

I'm much more personally connected to JoePa than I am 9/11 or Obama's birth certificate. I'll admit when I'm wrong. And that case still makes me extremely sad when I think about it.


Edit 2: Actually thanks for the link. Alex Jones actually answers the "automatic layers" question.

Nathan Goulding, writing for the National Review, tells us anybody can open the White House released PDF in Illustrator and it will break out into layers. “I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home,” he writes.

Indeed, but this does not answer the question why in the Obama birth certificate PDF the layers or elements contain dates – which appear to be modified – and the signature of the state registrar. If the document was acquired from state records in whole, why was it necessary to add elements? Goulding and Brooks do not address this issue.

I guess I have to admit I was wrong for thinking Alex Jones was wrong. ;)

Wait what? So now you actually think Obama's birth certificate is fake again? Jones' "rebuttal" is based on nothing. It's just enough to satisfy people who don't want to admit they're wrong.

henrygeorge
05-15-2012, 09:29 PM
Mason Gaffney and Fred Harrison did write the Corruption of Economics. Mason Gaffney's "The Strategem Against Henry George" is available on-line. David Nolan is a noted Georgist. Einstein admits to learning a lot from Henry George. You might want to stop listening to kooks and start listening to some respected members of the Libertarian Party, like Dan Sullivan, in regards to the corruption of Libertarianism by neoclassical economics.

Peter Thiel is a Bilderberg and contributes significantly to Ron Paul. Ron Paul is heavily invested in gold and is quite the feudal land baron as well. It seems Ron Paul believes in stealing the profit of God's earth in his sleep and would love nothing more than the government to end the free market for gold and to have government artificially increase it's value by declaring it legal tender. The Rockefeller Foundation and William Volker Fund funded Austrian economists. Austrian economics is considered neoclassical economics, like Marxism and Keynesian economics. Lewis Lehrman is a board member of PNAC and did partner with Ron Paul to write The Case for Gold. Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman both support a world gold standard, globalism and a one world monetary order.

The Bible does disagree with some of Ron Paul's position. The Bible supports no taxation of toil and real capital. However, the Bible does support full taxation of land, distribution of the profits of the land, and is fully against usury (profit on financial capital), especially upon the money supply. Henry George and Georgists in the Libertarian Party are more aligned with the Bible than your Royal Libertarians, like Ron Paul, who promote the neoclassical economics of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

I believe the Libertarian Party would have more success if they stopped supporting Royal Libertarians trying to steal a free lunch in their sleep with their land and gold holdings and put their support behind Real Libertarians, like David Nolan and Dan Sullivan and more well-rounded economists like Milton Friedman who is more aligned with classical liberalism, rather than neoliberalism, like the Austrian School of Economics who use reducto ad absurdum to equate everything to capital like Marx and Keynes. Some Libertarians do cringe when people like Ron Paul try to equate land to capital and promote a return to a gold standard.

The Real Libertarians even have solutions to pay off the national debt, end income taxation, and end the boom/bust cycle, without the need for austerity programs.

“Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” – Richard M. Ebeling, The Life and Works of Ludwig von Mises

“There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency…. The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights…. The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation.” — Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001

And some validated quotes from people not considered conspiracy kooks...

“Men did not make the earth… It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property… Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.” — Thomas Paine, “Agrarian Justice,” 1797

“Both ground rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own…. Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.” — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. ” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1785

“Wherever, in any country, there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1785

“When the ‘sacredness of property’ is talked about it should always be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property. No man made the land. It is the general inheritance of the whole species.” — J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, 1848

“They [landlords] grow richer, as it were in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing.” — J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, 1848

“God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience…. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” — John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690

“The earth, therefore, and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, exclusive of other beings, from the immediate gift of the Creator.” — William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1766

“It is quite true that the land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies — is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public. Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position — land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions.” — Winston Churchill, “The People’s Land,” 1909

“I thank you for your great friendliness. I have already read Henry George’s great book and really learnt a great deal from it. Yesterday evening I read with admiration the address about Moses. Men like Henry George are rare unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form and fervent love of justice. Every line is written as if for our generation. The spreading of these works is a really deserving cause, for our generation especially has many and important things to learn from Henry George.” — Albert Einstein, Letter to Anna George De Mille, 1934

“In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.” — Milton Friedman, The Times Herald, Pennsylvania, 1978

“People do not argue with the teaching of George; they simply do not know it. And it is impossible to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree.” — Leo Tolstoy, “A Great Iniquity,” Letter to the London Times, 1905

“Moreover the profit of the Earth is for all….” — Ecclesiastes 5:9

“Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.” — Ecclesiastes 5:18-19

“The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.” — Leviticus 25:23-24

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers.” — Matthew 21:12 (KJV)

“If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” — Exodus 22:25 (KJV)

“And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.” — Leviticus 25:35-37 (KJV)

“He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest.” — Ezekiel 18:17 (KJV)

“Thou shalt not lend upon usury (interest) to thy brother, interest on the money, or on anything that is lent with interest. Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.” — Deuteronomy 23.19-20 (KJV)

“He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent, he that doeth these things shall never be moved.” — Psalm 15:5 (KJV)

“Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil’s influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgement rests with God. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever.” — Koran 2:275

“God condemns usury, and blesses charities. God dislikes every disbeliever, guilty. Lo! Those who believe and do good works and establish worship and pay the poor-due, their reward is with their Lord and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. O you who believe, you shall observe God and refrain from all kinds of usury, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from God and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew.” — Koran 2:276-280

“O you who believe, you shall not take usury, compounded over and over. Observe God, that you may succeed.” — Koran 3:130

“And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people’s money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution.” — Koran 4:161

“The usury that is practiced to increase some people’s wealth, does not gain anything at God. But if people give to charity, seeking God’s pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold.” — Koran 30:39

“Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs.” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John W. Eppes, 1813

“And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Taylor, 1816

“I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country.” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to George Logan, 1816

“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the laws. Usury once in control will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of Democracy is idle and futile.” — Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, radio broadcast, 1935, parliament speech, 1934 (Ottawa Citizen, August 3, 1935)

“It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.” — Thomas Edison, New York Times, December 6, 1921

“Gold and money are separate things, you see. Gold is the trick mechanism by which you can control money.” — Thomas Edison, New York Times, December 6, 1921

“The gold standard has, in my opinion, the serious disadvantage that a shortage in the supply of gold automatically leads to a contraction of credit and also of the amount of currency in circulation, to which contraction prices and wages cannot adjust themselves sufficiently quickly.” — Einstein, The World As I See It, 1934

“According to this theory, it is possible to avoid a collapse following a period of credit expansion simply by converting the existing volume of bank credit into actual money having an existence independent of the debt, and at the same time take away the banking system’s privilege of creating any more credit, i.e., force the banks to confine their lending operations to the lending of existing funds.” — Robert de Fremery, “Banking and Monetary Reforms To Preserve Private Enterprise,” 1956

“Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal — that there is no human relation between master and slave.” — Leo Tolstoy, What to Do?, 1887, English Uncensored Edition

“Connected with this subject is the character of the currency. The idea of making it exclusively metallic, however well intended, appears to me to be fraught with more fatal consequences than any other scheme having no relation to the personal rights of the citizens that has ever been devised. If any single scheme could produce the effect of arresting at once that mutation of condition by which thousands of our most indigent fellow-citizens by their industry and enterprise are raised to the possession of wealth, that is the one. If there is one measure better calculated than another to produce that state of things so much deprecated by all true republicans, by which the rich are daily adding to their hoards and the poor sinking deeper into penury, it is an exclusive metallic currency. Or if there is a process by which the character of the country for generosity and nobleness of feeling may be destroyed by the great increase and neck toleration of usury, it is an exclusive metallic currency.” — William Henry Harrison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1841

“If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” — William Jennings Bryan, Democratic National Convention, July 9, 1896

“We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government… Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.” — William Jennings Bryan, Democratic National Convention, July 9, 1896

“The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few.” — Henry Ford, My Life and Work, 1922

“This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour — nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times…People began to say, if this is what State abstention comes to, let us have some State intervention.

“But the state had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly — the landlord’s monopoly of economic rent — thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labor market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus.” — Albert J. Nock, “The Gods’ Lookout,” 1934

henrygeorge
05-15-2012, 09:30 PM
I need 3 posts to provide links

henrygeorge
05-15-2012, 09:31 PM
References and links for more information...

henrygeorge
05-15-2012, 09:31 PM
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org/governments.html

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=692

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052702303822904576516114289723344.html

http://www.masongaffney.org/publications/K1Neo-classical_Stratagem.CV.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Corruption-Economics-Georgist-Paradigm/dp/0856832448/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_2

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Gold-Ron-Paul/dp/B000XG8T40/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271144664&sr=8-1

http://www.thegoldstandardnow.org/the-lehrman-gold-standard-articles/39-money-and-the-coming-world-order-the-creation-of-international-monetary-order

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/ron-pauls-biggest-supporter-is-a-bilderberger

http://embraceunity.com/politics/who-is-peter-thiel/

http://www.henrygeorge.org/isms.htm

http://sites.google.com/site/justindkeith/home/geolibertarian-faq

http://wealthandwant.com/docs/Fillebrown_Catechism.htm

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/george-henry_on-bimetalism-and-money.html

http://www.monetary.org/henrygeorgeconceptofmoney.htm

http://www.politicaleconomy.org/speV_1.htm

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/zarlenga-stephen_on-economics-as-a-science.html

http://www.monetary.org/

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/97percent-owned-documentary/

i've spared you my own publications since i'm a little more abrasive and tend to have typos.

henrygeorge
05-15-2012, 09:42 PM
I will provide you with one of my own writings to warn you about how Ron Paul will be stealing from you too if your gold as legal tender increased in value (deflation). You would need more gold than your home or other assets are worth to come out ahead in the great redistribution of wealth and socialism for the rich that Ron Paul promotes if such a move doesn't bankrupt you from the taxes and deflation such a system would require.

http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/paper-beats-rock-the-gold-standard-is-theft/

Feeding the Abscess
05-16-2012, 09:04 AM
“There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency….

True.


The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements

He's railing against government, and also true by the way. Do you dispute any of this?


can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights….

Absolutely true. Do you deny that people should choose their own currency? Or do you want government to claim the power to declare what money is?


The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money.

So he rejects the government declaring what money should be. Onus is on you to proves that he doesn't. By the way, you can't yell about Ron Paul wanting government to impose a money standard when he clearly says he doesn't want government declaring a money standard.


Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation.” — Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001

There's that voluntary again, which means that government cannot be involved in the matter.

All of your assertions are based on your lack of understanding of what "voluntary," "fiat," and "market" mean.

July
05-16-2012, 03:13 PM
I've seen this theory about Ron Paul being controlled opposition before, and about the Austrian school of economics being funded by Rockefeller, and the gold standard being therefore what the ruling class wants. The thing I notice though, is that a lot of these sites promoting this information seem to always leave out key bits of information, mixing the truth with lies of omission. Things such as currency competition, the definition of natural money, etc. Which leads me to believe they either don't have a strong foundation in economics, or they have some other agenda, or possibly even just want website hits-- possibly all of the above.

I don't think the "cool guys" in the media are promoting Ron Paul to make him seem more anti establishment. They could just as easily be using references to Ron Paul to appear "cool" and appeal to the "youth culture" in the first place-- but they are never really there when it counts either, and their support is minimum. But of course, you can keep going back and forth with these "what if scenarios" once you get started.

henrygeorge
06-24-2012, 12:25 PM
Lies by ommission? I've talked about free market currencies. I've talked about how such a usury-free greenback system would work and how it would end national debt and income taxation. We have a bill in Congress.

I think Ron Paul has a lot of lies by ommission because he doesn't explain his bilderberg peter thiel and lewis lehrman libertopia fantasy and delusion to protect the current system and promote austerity for the poor and welfare for the rich.

Travlyr
06-24-2012, 12:44 PM
Lies by ommission? I've talked about free market currencies. I've talked about how such a usury-free greenback system would work and how it would end national debt and income taxation. We have a bill in Congress.

I think Ron Paul has a lot of lies by ommission because he doesn't explain his bilderberg peter thiel and lewis lehrman libertopia fantasy and delusion to protect the current system and promote austerity for the poor and welfare for the rich.

All that is required is to read Ron Paul's books. They are easy to read. He tells exactly where he stands on virtually every issue. It is really quite simple.

July
06-24-2012, 01:00 PM
I meant lies of omission regarding details about what Ron Paul's full positions are. If someone wants to make a counter argument for some of the things Paul advocates for, that's fine, but they should at least take his positions in context and fully illustrate the position he is actually advocating.