The Old World Order? The Society of Slightly Creaky War of 1812 Veterans? Bob Dobbs?
I gotta know.
Ron Paul has a clear path to victory:
-
Rand wins May 18
-
Ron wins VVS straw poll Spetember 19
-
Ron & Rand win in November
-
Giant moneybomb December 16 raises $10 million
-
Ron & Rand push Audit the Fed bill in February 2011
-
Ron wins CPAC straw poll in February
7 Ron’s new makes bestseller list in spring 2011
-
Ron wins Iowa straw poll in August
-
Palin drops out and endorses Ron Paul in September
-
Ron wins Iowa Caucus
I am a Canadian librarian. Here is a trade secret. At every library I have worked in, the number to disarm the alarm has been “1812” (Not my doing.) That’s a small Canadian celebration of a war we won.
- Barack Hussein Obama wins Second Term!
Would it be relevant to note that high speed rail was introduced in Japan (1964) and France (1965) when their rail systems were government run? (Japan privatized in 1987; the French system is still owned by the government.)
- Profit!
The New World Order is a phrase that can have a lot of different meanings. Remember, though, that many politicians and people like Zbigniew Bzezinski and Henry Kissinger have used the term New World Order to describe what they were working towards. And Bush (the first president Bush) famously used the term in 1991. Now, the term NWO has been used in many conspiracy theories encompassing anything from the Illuminati, the Christian notion of the End Times, Shape Shifting Reptilians, UFOs, etc. I don’t buy any of that.
I just see it as the gradual consolidation of world power, nothing more. Remember, many people in power have openly used the term. It wasn’t something any conspiracy wackos made up. Some dressed it up a little in order to sell some books or dvds. But it certainly exists,
The issue is that I believe we should not accept World Government. I prefer local government. I like our Constitution and Bill of Rights. So, my only concern is to protect sovereignty and to reestablish Constitutional government in this nation and disengage with many of these unelected international organizations which don’t serve our interests.
Seriously, The United Nations has pushed us into war repeatedly. The first thing they did was get us involved in the Korean War. We still have troops there by the way. The real issue is whether you support sovereignty or world government. I support the former.
But this statement is, at best, a gross exaggeration. It’s simply not true in any realistic sense that there are literally NO rules and NO limits to modern governmental power.
Reasonable people can certainly disagree as to whether and in what ways there should be more strict rules and limits to governmental power than there are at present. But if you’re starting out in dead earnest from the premise that government authority in today’s America is literally an unbridled and unbounded tyranny, then you’ve abandoned all common ground with reasonable people.
You mean like France and the Netherlands, for example? Their rail systems are either fully nationalized or include private operators in a network controlled by a central government agency. The Japanese introduced their pioneering high-speed rail back when their rail system was nationalized. I don’t think the facts support your inference here.
[ETA: Curse you 42fish and your faster fingers! 
]
We DO allow private money and competing currencies to circulate. Any individual or institution who wants to can issue their own form of money. (Really.)
What they can’t do is legally force anyone else to accept their private currency if they don’t want to. And most people don’t want to accept private currency because it’s more limited in use, more vulnerable to forgery, and more likely to become worthless if the issuing party goes bankrupt.
Won what? You didn’t win anything until years later when you were freed from the yoke of British tyranny. You also lost your military forts and agressive navy on the Great Lakes, which you used to pillage free Americans, and were in blatant violation of the Treaty of Paris (1783). You lost your power to kidnap innocent Americans, shoot at us, and seize our vessels.
You also lost Carleton Island.
See, you think because I respect the Founders ideas on liberty and the role of government, I want to go back to the era of horse drawn carriages before electricity and the automobile. Don’t be ridiculous. In fact, if we kept with a limited government and free enterprise and didn’t allow the banks to take over our country, we would be light years more advanced than we are today with a booming middle class and very little poverty. Our standards of living would be through the roof. It would be like comparing the Flintstones to the Jetsons.
As far as the 107 Trillion dollar unfunded liabilities associated with Medicare and Social Security, look at this:
From http://www.ncpa.org/
[[MOD NOTE: FULL article is here: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662]]
**"No. 662
Thursday, June 11, 2009
by Pamela Villarreal
The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion in today’s dollars! That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt.
The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, this debt rose by $5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both.
Social Security versus Medicare. Politi cians and the media focus on Social Security’s financial health, but Medicare’s future liabilities are far more ominous, at more than $89 trillion. Medicare’s total unfunded liability is more than five times larger than that of Social Security. In fact, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2006 (Part D) alone adds some $17 trillion to the projected Medicare shortfall - an amount greater than all of Social Security’s unfunded obligations. **
Are you going to deny these facts?
I see I’m not the only one who thought about Bob in this thread. [By the way, jrodefeld, I do plan on responding to your platform when I have some more time.]
See, this is a brilliant picture of why he doesn’t have any hope of winning. Your ten step plan includes one stage where actual voters get involved. The rest involves a series of meaningless straw polls and endorsements, not to mention the absolutely laughable idea that Palin drops out before a single primary or caucus. Two of the items include Rand Paul, and a third assumes Ron Paul is writing a book and that that will really matter. Campaigns are not won and lost in straw polls. I can’t remember any straw poll results from 2007 (I probably didn’t pay any attention), but if Barack Obama won any of them I’d be shocked.
I was asking what it meant to you.
No, but they’ve done pretty well with it.
Nobody with credibility it proposing one.
The UN has no power to do anything like that. Who at the UN would do the pushing? The US is the most powerful country in that institution to begin with.
It’s not a real issue. World government is an area of concern for conspiracy theorists and religious extremists, and nobody else.
The fact that a “World Government” is a Conspiracy Theory means we dodged a bullet there. I will join you in not accepting that conspiracy theory and, as a bonus, I will also suggest that we join together in not accepting evil hybridized bees which spread an alien virus, too.
We’ve never lost Constitutional government and we’ve never lost sovereignty, so again, we dodged a bullet there. But I suggest you join me in reestablishing humanity as carbon-based life forms. Are you with me?
Basic lack of knowledge about how the UN works doesn’t help your case. The US has permanent veto power, it’s mighty hard to use Chapter VI or Chapter VII when the US could veto any such resolutions. But if you want, I’ll join with you in a campaign to reestablish the US’ veto power on the Security Council.
Someone at the UN has to oppose those damn hybridized alien bees, and a Ron Paul led America is just the someone to do it.
Voter 1: Okay, let’s say that you’re defending Barack Obama, and I’m defending Ron Paul. Now if I were to say to you: ‘Ron Paul is the best choice for president’, you’d say:
Voter 2 [Playing along]: No, Barack Obama is.
Voter 1: Exactly, but you can’t win that argument… so, I’ll ask you: so you think Barack Obama is the be all and end all of presidents, do you?
Voter 2: He’s the best choice for president, I wouldn’t vote for any other.
Voter 1: Oh! So it’s all Barack Obama for you, is it?
Voter 2: Yes, Barack Obama is all I need.
Voter 1: Well, I need more than Barack Obama, and for that matter I need more than Ron Paul. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our presidents, and that, James Madison and the War of 1812, that is the defintion of liberty.
Voter 2: But that’s not what we’re talking about.
Voter 1: Ah, but that’s what I’m talking about.
Voter 2: …but you didn’t prove that Ron Paul was the best…
Voter 1: I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong, and if you’re wrong, I’m right.
And that’s why the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 is so important.
jrodefeld, don’t quote an entire article in your post. Since this board is owned by a newspaper, our policies on fair use are a bit conservative. Use a short quote and link to the rest. (Granted, the article is not very long.) I’ve abbreviated the quote in your last post, and put in a direct link to the article.
That is so ridiculous. Ron Paul votes only for bill expressly authorized in the Constitution. Look at this:
**"When Congress voted to give Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal, there was only one voice of dissent. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has voted against giving the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa and the Pope. Many people, given only this snippet of information have concluded that Congressman Paul is a bigot, a racist and just plain intolerant. Yet he raises an interesting additional argument.
The Congressional Gold Medal is made of solid gold, and in every instance it is awarded, it can cost taxpayers upwards of $30,000. This money not only pays for the gold to make the medal, but also the mold that needs to be specially created since each medal is tailored to its recipient. Congressman Paul voted against awarding this medal over and over because he does not think it is a good use of taxpayer dollars.
However, Paul has not just voted against spending taxpayer money for the medal - he has proposed a workable alternative. Instead of shelling out $30,000 of taxpayers’ money, Paul proposed that each member of Congress ought to pay $100 out of his or her own pocket. This way, the money for the medal would be raised and each member of Congress would be contributing to the cause that he or she values so much. He also stressed his respect for Parks, saying that she was a courageous woman who committed herself to the cause of freedom and against an overbearing government that is unanswerable to the people it serves. Spending $30,000 of taxpayer money on frivolous medals, Paul believes, is an act of an overbearing government that is not in touch with its people.
Besides Parks and the other aforementioned medal recipients, Paul has also voted against Congressional Gold Medals given to Tony Blair, Ronald Reagan and the Dalai Lama. In the case of Tony Blair, Paul said that spending $30,000 to award “the most unpopular man in Great Britain” with a Congressional medal violated the sanctity of the medal itself in addition to robbing taxpayers. Paul also lamented the “supreme irony” of awarding a Buddhist leader with such a costly material gift when Buddhism eschews worldly possessions in favor of spiritual wealth.
Congressman Paul has a sign on his desk that reads, “Don’t steal, the government hates competition,” and has said numerous times that “it is easy to be generous with someone else’s money.” In this assertion, he is absolutely correct. Every member of Congress who votes in favor of the awarding the Congressional Gold Medal ought to contribute enough money to raise the funds for the medal, since the implied powers of Congress don’t include robbing the American people to pay for feel-good political gestures."**
I don’t care if its Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr, Mother Teresa or anybody else. It is not Congress’ job to spend taxpayer money giving out meaningless medals. Individuals can and should honor these individuals. It is a matter of principle.
By the way, why don’t you explain why, on January 21st, 2008 Ron Paul held a “money bomb” donation drive to honor one of his personal heroes?
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1183.html
Here are a few writings from Dr Paul on racism:
Here is Ron Paul writing about racism:
**"Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.
The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."**
You really have to come up with a new tactic, ITR champion. This is getting old. You haven’t contributed anything significant about the philosophy of liberty and Constitutional government. You haven’t said anything about the Federal Reserve, Austrian Economics or Foreign Policy. You seem to just want to continually dwell on the one smear of Ron Paul that people continually resort to.
Why not contribute something constructive to the thread?
Find a better source.
Sourcewatch quotes the National Center for Policy Analysis’s own description as a:
You haven’t been paying attention. This is why Ron Paul’s position will be attractive to senior citizens who rely on Social Security:
"Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt. If we don’t cut other places and fast, we will have a dollar crisis and these programs will simply collapse. Vote for me and I will make Social Security and Medicare solvent so you won’t be thrown out on the streets."
Seems pretty appealing to me. Never did Ron Paul advocate shutting down Social Security and Medicare on day one. He said he would allow young people to opt out and he would still take care of the people who are dependent by cutting wasteful overseas military expenditures. A dollar crisis and the collapse of our system does no good for anyone.
Can you provide some direct links to Doctor Paul’s** bold **statements?
The priorities have shifted. People are overwhelmingly concerned about fiscal issues and even conservatives are seeing that we need to cut the defense budget and end these overseas wars (especially now that they are Democrat wars). Younger conservatives and independents are much more tolerant toward gay rights, ambivalent about abortion and less religious.
There is a shifting of the guard that is taking place. The old divisive social conservatism won’t have the traction it used to. Believe me Mike Huckabee won’t be winning anything anytime soon.
I studied actuarial science in college and passed 7 actuary exams. Check out books by the former head of the SSA, A. Haeworth Robertson. Medicare and Medicaid are both broke by trillions of dollars.