Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
I did not want to start a new topic on this but maybe we could start a topic regarding the prosecution and how they approached this case.
Below video shows the DUI arrest of Gaige Grosskreutz, where he refuses field sobriety test, refuses blood test, ends up with 3 times as much as legal in his blood.
Interesting choice for the prosecution to drop these charges, you'd say that people who are driving drunk could cause grave bodily harm and or death with their actions as they are in a lesser amount of control of a potential deadly weapon. Interesting.
"I am a bird"
Enough about Rittenhouse. We need to now focus all of our attention on Ghislane Maxwell now, especially since there will be people that will be tweeting all about it starting next week.
"Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."
Calvin Coolidge
DA's simply do not drop slam dunk DUI. Ever. There had to be some kind of Quid-pro-quo involved. And why was he never charged for concealing a handgun without a license?Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo
I think it is pretty obvious as well. Anyone that has any connection politically or with law enforcement is above the law. This is nothing new. People are always surprised since they have been forced fed propaganda since birth from a myriad of police TV shows presenting a false reality of no one being above the law.
I agree and have my doubts that we will see much participation here considering the site is pretty much a reflection of what the elites have setup for people to talk about in the news cycle.
* See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
* Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.
I had never heard this story, but it’s pretty obvious that he wasn't charged because he was the prosecution’s key witness. Quid-pro-quo indeed.
On October 6 of 2020, Gaige was pulled over because he didn’t use his turn signal. His lawyer, who told the judge that this was a “unique case”, is trying to get the charge dismissed because she claims you don’t need to use a turn signal if there are no cars around. (Spoiler alert – There was a cop-car nearby) Grosskreutz was very uncooperative with police and refused to take the field sobriety tests. West Allis police obtained a search warrant from a judge for his blood and it came back from the lab at almost 3 times the legal limit. Police seemingly found drug paraphernalia in his car, but gave him a break. His friend, who was riding shotgun told police “he (Grosskreutz) was in the national media.”
...
http://kenoshacountyeye.com/2021/05/...nd-dwi-arrest/Gaige was shot and wounded by Rittenhouse on 8/25/2020 when Gaige pointed a gun at Kyle, seemingly trying to kill the then-17-year-old.
A few weeks later, on October 26, 2020, Gaige was arrested for driving while intoxicated – almost three times the legal limit. The Milwaukee DA didn’t charge him for three months. They charged him after the KCE repeatedly asked why he wasn’t charged. Yesterday, October 27, 2021, a liberal Judge called Jack Divilia, who was appointed to be a judge just last year by Democrat Governor Tony Evers, dismissed the case over a turn signal. We asked the judge if his decision had to do with the fact that Gaige was shot by Rittenhouse on August 25, 2020. He did not chose to respond to our question.
The timing is very curious. Under Wisconsin statutes, the defense could have asked Gaige about his pending criminal case. Now that it has been dismissed prosecutors cannot ask him. The dismissal comes just 6 days before the Rittenhouse trial is scheduled to begin.
...
http://kenoshacountyeye.com/2021/10/...t-rittenhouse/
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
Rittenhouse files $400 Million suit against CNN
https://dailyworldupdate.us/you-have-weird-heros/
It looks like Kyle Rittenhouse, the newest hero of true patriots, will soon have enough money to buy CNN, once he’s done suing them.
Sources close to the Rittenhouse legal team have leaked to America’s Last Line of Defense that they are prepping the lawsuit to end all lawsuits for the young man, which would spring him into the 3rd position all-time for profiting from killing someone. George Zimmerman and OJ Simpson are numbers one and two.
Rittenhouse, who not only shot and killed two people but also wounded another in an act the court has deemed extremely brave and in self-defense, will be able to sail off into the sunset if he so chooses.
But that’s not what this wonderful young man is all about. We caught up with Kyle, or someone who looks just like him anyway, and asked what he’d do with that kind of money:
“That’s easy. I’d set up a school for medical training for crisis situations that also teach3es self-defense. Everyone should have the opportunity to shoot unarmed people then cry about it in open court. What a rush!”
We pointed out that his school would be more of an afternoon course that teaches extremists to carry a medical kit and an AR15, and to fire at will the first time your fragile masculinity feels threatened, to which Kyle responded, “Right? People will pay a fortune!”
Looks like Kyle will be just fine. Good for you, hero.
God bless America.
What bunch of purple haired fagggots did you quote from Tod?
ETA - Ah, never mind, satire site...so damn hard to tell anymore.
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
I encourage whatever limp-dick wrote this unfunny piece of garbage to go through EXACTLY what Kyle went through that night and NOT pull the trigger or get his brains blown out.
Then we can see "what a rush" really is.
$#@! these people.
Sorry......
I obviously didn't look into this at all.
I saw this on a racing forum I visit and cross posted it.
Last edited by tod evans; 11-28-2021 at 02:58 PM.
When reality and satire have become the same thing, it's too late to be scared.
"I am a bird"
LOL - No worries brother...we've all been burned by the satire/not-satire sites.
I'm just trying to confirm if he did, in fact, file a $400 million suit against CNN.
Hope he did.
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
What are you going to do, study the water color paintings really hard?
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
Yeah, no. Just no.
People should continue to pay attention to (and post about) the Rittenhouse affair for just as long as it continues to engage or interest them (however long that might be), and not for one moment less.
I don't agree. People are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and they are able to pay attention to more than one story at once, as well.I agree and have my doubts that we will see much participation here considering the site is pretty much a reflection of what the elites have setup for people to talk about in the news cycle.
At any given moment, there is more than just one important/significant thing going on in the world.
I don't much care for the rather arrogant and presumptuous implication that everyone who doesn't focus exclusively (or even at all) on the Maxwell affair is somehow an ignorant, unwitting, and easily-manipulated dupe of the elites.
I am skeptical that the Maxwell case is going to (be allowed to) come anywhere close to producing the kind of bombshell revelations that some people are apparently expecting (though I would love to be wrong about this). But if it does, I'm certain the Internet in general and RPFs in particular are not going to just ignore it, and will focus on it quite a bit - and anyone who says otherwise is just being overdramatically silly and is not to be taken seriously.
I am starting to wonder what all the people who claim that this, that or the other thing is just some kind of "distraction" from the Maxwell case are trying to distract us from. (There. See how that works? Turnabout is fair play ...)
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dannno again.
Speaking of which (h/t Peter Boghossian):The @libsoftiktok account has posted the same sort of thing from a lot of other companies, too (such as Best Buy and Kaiser Permanente.) It's another symptom of the "woke" takeover of corporate HR departments - and they don't even need the endorsements of the CEOs or board members, either (most of those people wouldn't have the spine to stand up to them anyway, even if they did have objections).
And the same Twitter account covered a lot of colleges/universities cranking out the same kind of guff (turned up to eleven) in the wake of the Rittenhouse veridct: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7074000
Universities Try to Force a Consensus About Kyle Rittenhouse
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...nhouse/620809/
Conor Friedersdorf (26 November 2021)
At universities, the recent acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse should be an opportunity to study a divisive case that sparked complex debates about issues as varied as self-defense laws, guns, race, riots, the rights of defendants, prosecutorial missteps, media bias, and more. If administrators were doing their jobs, faculty and students would freely air a wide variety of viewpoints and have opportunities to better understand one another’s diverse perspectives. Instead, many administrators are preemptively imposing their preferred narratives.
The Rittenhouse saga began in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, amid rioting that followed the police shooting of a Black man. Rittenhouse, then 17, armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle and walked into the chaos, claiming that he intended to protect the community. He wound up shooting three men, killing two. Last week, a Wisconsin jury found him not guilty of murder, crediting his claim that, at the moment he fired, he feared for his life and acted in self-defense. This, many analysts argued, was a plausible conclusion to draw from Wisconsin law and video footage and testimony presented at trial.
More than 2,000 miles away, administrators at UC Santa Cruz felt otherwise. Chancellor Cynthia Larive and Interim Chief Diversity Officer Judith Estrada issued a statement that began like this:
We are disheartened and dismayed by this morning’s not guilty verdict on all charges in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse … We join in solidarity with all who are outraged by this failure of accountability.
UC Santa Cruz is a public institution with roughly 19,000 students and 1,000 instructors who, one can safely say, do not all share the same viewpoints. But Larive and Estrada emphasized their personal feelings and openly pledged solidarity (meaning “unity or agreement of feeling or action,” by one definition) with others based on whether they too feel angry. This is posturing, not engagement with a campus community. I wrote to Larive and asked her to clarify why the jury should have found Rittenhouse guilty, if that’s what she meant by “failure of accountability.” A university spokesperson, Scott Hernandez-Jason, responded, “The campus message speaks for itself.”
Indeed, it does. America has never known a time without sensational murder trials that seize the public’s attention and inflame passions. I have an old-fashioned answer to how a university should behave in these cases: It should stay neutral and promote reasoned analysis and debate. But Larive and Estrada made a different choice. And they aren’t the only university leaders who have done so in the days since the verdict. Rather than encourage independent scrutiny, administrators on many campuses have issued statements that presuppose answers to hotly contested questions, and assert opinions about the not-guilty verdict in the case and its ostensible significance as though they were matters of community consensus.
The whole episode is an illustration of a bigger problem in academia: Administrators make ideologically selective efforts to soothe the feelings of upset faculty members and students. These actions impose orthodoxies of thought, undermining both intellectual diversity and inclusion. “Certainly,” declared a statement by Dwight A. McBride, president of the New School, “the verdict raises questions about … vigilantism in the service of racism and white supremacy.” In reality, many observers are far from certain that, when 12 jurors concluded that a white man shot three other white men in self-defense, they were saying anything about white supremacy.
There are exceptions in which administrators try to contextualize the Rittenhouse case in educationally useful ways. “Just this week,” wrote Gillian Lester, the dean of Columbia Law School, “we have seen the 11th hour commutation of a death sentence in Oklahoma, the long delayed reversal of two convictions in the assassination of Malcolm X, and—just today—the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, a case decided against the backdrop of deep divisions in our national discourse about criminal justice.” Note the attempt at neutrality in phrasing and analysis.
Lester’s schoolwide email went on to acknowledge varying viewpoints and cast them as an occasion for academic inquiry:
This trio of decisions has become a flashpoint for passionate debate about our systems of criminal procedure, the presence of structural racism in the application of law, and the moral and political context against which we judge the adequacy of our legal system.
That reaction was worthy of what Lester called a “community devoted to the study of law and justice.” And she promised “a program where we can come together to share reactions, feelings, analysis, and ideas.”
But most top-down proclamations from administrators are unnecessary: As the Brown University professor Glenn Loury explained last year, they either affirm platitudes or present arguable positions as certainties. “We, the faculty, are the only ‘leaders’ worthy of mention when it comes to the realm of ideas,” he insisted. “Why must this university’s senior administration declare, on behalf of the institution as a whole and with one voice, that they unanimously—without any subtle differences of emphasis or nuance—interpret contentious current events through a single lens?”
That’s precisely what Douglas M. Haynes, UC Irvine’s vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion, did in a statement that presented a highly subjective personal analysis as if it were fact. “The verdict,” he declared, “conveys a chilling message: Neither Black lives nor those of their allies’ [sic] matter.” But other observers, including UC professors, disagree that it conveyed that message and believe that statements like Haynes’s are inappropriate coming from administrators speaking in their official capacity.
While expecting neutrality from university administrators now sounds idiosyncratic, it was once a lodestar for many academics. The principle was articulated most famously in a 1967 report that a committee led by the legal scholar Harry Kalven produced for the University of Chicago. The mission of a university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge, it reasoned, and a university faithful to that mission will challenge social values, practices, and institutions. “A good university, like Socrates, will be upsetting,” the Kalven report asserted. But “the instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student,” not the university itself, nor the administrators who speak for the whole. “The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”
Greg Lukianoff, who leads the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit group that defends the rights of students and faculty, told me that every time universities speak on a controversial issue they send the message, “This is a space with certain orthodoxies,” and “that has done long-term harm to the unique marketplace of ideas that higher education is supposed to be.” Though the bully pulpit is something university leaders can use, Lukianoff said, “they should be very sparing.”
The university, Kalven’s committee believed, should not compromise its neutrality even to pursue worthy goals, such as social justice:
It is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives … If it takes collective action … it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree.
This inclusive neutrality “arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity,” the report concluded. “It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.” Doing so offers “the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.”
At the New School, McBride described a starkly different ethos:
I don’t know immediately how to parse the Rittenhouse verdict at a university where students, faculty, and staff work so tirelessly and passionately for social justice. Therein may lie the answer in this moment: when we don’t know yet what to say, let’s take solace in each other. Let’s unite in our shared commitments and values. I am grateful to be part of this community that is so driven to confront inequality, unpack systemic racism, challenge oppression, and create positive change.
Tellingly, McBride continued:
While we don’t know what to say, we know what to do, which is to act to build stronger communities, unite amongst ourselves, and use our scholarship and research in service of social justice.
He’s not calling for searching, candid discussion among people with diverse views. He’s presuming that the community is united in one collective view––and, what’s more, that the community is somehow united both in not knowing what to say and in knowing what to do about it! And what about professors and students who disagree that the verdict was unjust, or feel upset by inaccuracies in media coverage, or believe that Rittenhouse was a victim of prosecutorial misconduct, or worry that widespread criticism of the verdict is undermining the jury system?
Indeed, there are as many different views of what’s wrong in the world as there are individuals on a campus. People also differ widely in which news events, if any, they find upsetting. Students and faculty should challenge university leaders who, as if speaking for their entire communities, put forth subjective assessments and notions of what everyone else thinks or “must” do. These administrators tell the group what they think it wants to hear, create incentives for people to hide other views, and harm everyone’s ability to inquire and to learn from one another.
I went back and read what I quoted/replied to and it looks like I skimmed - skipped reading a few words like "all" in his post. I only picked up that it is something that should be focused on and replied.
So my sentiments reflect what you wrote. It was not my intention to come off that way about anyone here except to @danno of course.....j/k. It has more to do with frustration in my dealings within the elites and the fake news media.
* See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
* Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.
From the New York Times (of course).
And written by a prosecutor (of course).
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/29/o...ttenhouse.html
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
I actually wanted to read what Ms Foreign Flag $#@! had to say, but it's behind a paywall.From the New York Times (of course).
And written by a prosecutor (of course).
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/29/o...ttenhouse.html
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
Try here (or see below): https://dnyuz.com/2021/11/29/self-de...flood-of-guns/
[Basically, this all just boils down to "people who have guns are to blame if they end up defending themselves with them". - OB]
As pundits and legal experts consider why Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder, many have focused on the prosecution’s choices — and possible errors — in the case, or else on the rulings of the presiding judge.
But even more than the prosecution or the verdict, it is really the defense’s strategy that we will have to live with for years to come — a strategy based on a bold and unapologetic acknowledgment of the dangers inherent in carrying a gun. The defense doubled down on the right to bear arms and asserted a right to fire, too. Such a strategy, which has adherents at the poles of the political spectrum, will increase gun violence, not only in red states, but wherever it is allowed to go unchallenged.
A claim of self-defense when you are caught on tape shooting people, as Mr. Rittenhouse was, is predictable. This case was never a whodunit. Instead, Mr. Rittenhouse’s team had to explain why his shooting three people, killing two of them, were not crimes. And what put him in imminent danger serious enough to justify his use of deadly force, according to Mr. Rittenhouse, was the presence of his own gun. Recalling the final moments of his decision to fire at Joseph Rosenbaum, Mr. Rittenhouse testified: “I remember [Rosenbaum’s] hand on the barrel of my gun.”
As a prosecutor, I have often seen arguments like these during investigations of police officers who have shot and killed unarmed people. In those cases, the officers cite their fear that their own weapons would used against them. From an armed civilian, this claim is different. Instead of distancing Mr. Rittenhouse from or minimizing the effect of his weapon, Mr. Rittenhouse and his lawyers built their case upon it: Because he had a gun, he found himself in a situation where he needed to use it. In other words, the gun he carried was not a deterrent, but the very reason for the escalation to violence.
Meanwhile, across the country in Georgia, a jury just finished deliberating over a very similar defense strategy. In another shooting caught on tape, Travis McMichael, who shot and killed Ahmaud Arbery, has now been convicted of murder along with his father and neighbor. Mr. McMichael testified that his fear of Mr. Arbery crystallized when Mr. Arbery reached for Mr. McMichael’s gun. That’s when Mr. McMichael started to worry about his child at home, contemplated life and death, and began to shoot. Mr. Arbery was unarmed. “I shot again because I was still fighting,” Mr. McMichael testified. “He was all over me, he was still all over that shotgun, and he was not relenting.” (The jury may have doubted Mr. McMichael’s credibility, since he originally told investigators he was not sure if Mr. Arbery had reached for the gun.)
These assertions of a right to fire exploit standard self-defense laws. In Wisconsin, Georgia, and most states, the law allows you to use deadly force as long you sincerely believe that you are in imminent danger, and as long as your response is reasonable and proportionate to that danger. Wisconsin, Georgia, and nearly all 50 states even require prosecutors to disprove claims of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Self-defense laws have ancient roots. They reflect our shared sense that we should be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones. And they are important checks on criminal prosecution. But in states that also have weak gun safety laws — like Wisconsin and Georgia — they have given lethal shooters a path to acquittal, as the attorneys for Mr. Rittenhouse, and now Mr. McMichael, well understood.
What should we do from here? To narrow self-defense laws might seem one obvious answer. But concentrating on the aperture of self-defense, and whether it should be narrower or wider, misses the point.
As I watched the Rittenhouse and McMichael trial broadcasts, I could not help thinking of a case before the Supreme Court right now, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the petitioners have challenged a 110-year old law that requires New Yorkers to demonstrate proper cause if they want a permit to carry a concealed gun. It is the first time in over a decade that the court has considered broadening the Second Amendment, and its consequences can be monumental: One in four Americans lives in a place that, like New York, seriously restricts the right to carry a concealed weapon. It tells us why the Rittenhouse and McMichael defenses will continue to matter for public safety across the nation.
As you would expect, this Supreme Court case has generated the usual briefs from gun rights advocates: the N.R.A., gun clubs, libertarian scholars, Republican politicians. What is strange, and disheartening, is that the petitioners have also received support from a group of prestigious and seasoned New York public defenders, who argue that the New York law should be overturned — not really on Second Amendment grounds, but because of the way the law is enforced against their clients, Black and brown, poor defendants who need to carry guns for self-defense. The public defenders argue that, historically, permits have been issued unevenly, and that still today, in many places, it is easier for whites and members of the middle class to get permits than it is for people of color and the poor. And they argue their clients should have guns just like other Americans do. In other words, the progressive left has met far right in describing dangerous streets and the need to be armed on them.
Theirs is not a legal argument, but a political one, and is unlikely to sway a Supreme Court focused on the text and original meaning of the Constitution (though the court may find it a useful fig leaf if it decides against New York). It is meant to shock, and it does, in its nihilism — a nihilism that echoes the far right champions of the men we have seen on trial. Instead of taking guns out of the hands of the Rittenhouses and McMichaels of the world, these progressive public defenders want to level “up”— to make guns more readily available to their clients, to all of us. Their vision, if realized, would make the self-defense claims of Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. McMichael unremarkable, not only in red states, but across the country.
The audacious position taken by these New York public defenders should give pause to anyone tempted to understand, and maybe even discount, the Rittenhouse and McMichael defenses as essentially conservative arguments playing to conservative juries in conservative states. If we start to think of guns only as a problem in the hands of the Other (white supremacists, the far right, criminals), we will miss the simple fact that unregulated guns escalate violence across ideological lines. Their presence tends to create a need for self-defense on both sides of the trigger, about which the law has very little to say. If Mr. Rosenbaum and Mr. Arbery did indeed reach for those guns, weren’t they, no doubt, acting in self-defense? More guns, no matter in whose hands, will create more standoffs, more intimidation, more death sanctioned in the eyes of the law.
That's not what the numbers say. They say armed societies like red states are polite societies.The defense doubled down on the right to bear arms and asserted a right to fire, too. Such a strategy, which has adherents at the poles of the political spectrum, will increase gun violence, not only in red states, but wherever it is allowed to go unchallenged.
dp
Switzerland is not a red state but generally a country of religious people who take being a decent person quite seriously. However, the [gun] homicide rate has been below 0.2/100k for numerous years. The US average over the past 10 years around 4.0 or so ? Gun ownership in .CH is at around 30%, so not very low either...
Kinda indicates that decent people do not kill each other, even when armed.
"I am a bird"
And when that's broken down to where in the US those occurred, there's an inverse correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership rates, and a positive correlation between strictness of gun control laws and homicide rates.
Ron PaulThere is 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.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us