It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul speaking on the Obama power to assassinate "US Citizens" he deems as terrorist

page: 2
57
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




Im just curious as to what policy this is exactly where US citizens who question are automatically killed? Do you have the policy link? Do you have proof that this is a policy? Its no secret that the government keeps tabs on those who advocate the overthrow of the government or terrorists plots within america. I mean this has been the fact of government agencies for decades and were increased following the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11. However this specific policy of where people get shot on sight? Where does is say that? Do you have any evidence besides a youtube link?


I was wondering the same thing, exactly what article or headline, or case, or whatever is RP referring to here?



Ron Paul should be the last one to talk, having being a member of the GOP for nearly 20 years now, and having remained in that party despite the fact such policies had existed under that same party. You do know the policy of keeping tabs on anti-government groups is a continuation from the Bush administration and the GOP? If you spoke bad about the president especially following 9/11 you were automatically listed and you know what? Ron Paul remained in the GOP. No excuse for that.

here are my thoughts on this in no particular order...

great youtube vid, really shows the other side to ron paul. I'm a fan of his, but I also remember seeing an interview where he said that you really cant get rid of the federal reserve. Dont ask me to find it, i saw it on this website about a year ago.

on the other hand, RP is being very honest about how he can only do so much, and pretty much is flat out telling you and showing you that this system is busted....

Ron Paul has an amazing voting record, and i think that should speak more about him than anything else, and he's been doing it for a long long time.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Another Sensationalistic-ally titled thread

This enemy combatant and lack of rights and/or Habeus Corpus was introduced in the Patriot Act before Obama became POTUS.

It appears that Ron Paul is pointing this out, that if we allow them to incarcerate and prosecute without due process of law, then it won't be long before all US Citizens will be subject to this tyrannical system.
With all of our fundamental rights dissolved.

Exactly why I advocate the closing of Guantanamo.

Take a look at and read the Patriot Act and how anyone who uses their firearms to defend themselves/and or is considered a threat, can be categorized as an Enemy Combatant, which means you've now given up all of your fundamental rights.
And the Gloves are off and you're now a guest at one of Cheney's Halliburton constructed internment camps.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Yeah Ron Paul is the man. He speaks the truth, of course this is why all the corporate and big banker criminals won't support him.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
This is a follow up of what i had posted the other day released by RT News glad RP took notice of the issue.


Im just curious as to what policy this is exactly where US citizens who question are automatically killed? Do you have the policy link? Do you have proof that this is a policy? Its no secret that the government keeps tabs on those who advocate the overthrow of the government or terrorists plots within america. I mean this has been the fact of government agencies for decades and were increased following the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11. However this specific policy of where people get shot on sight? Where does is say that? Do you have any evidence besides a youtube link?


Take note the undermining process of what this means anyone who disagrees and talks down on obama can be deemed as terrorist,


Ron Paul should be the last one to talk, having being a member of the GOP for nearly 20 years now, and having remained in that party despite the fact such policies had existed under that same party. You do know the policy of keeping tabs on anti-government groups is a continuation from the Bush administration and the GOP? If you spoke bad about the president especially following 9/11 you were automatically listed and you know what? Ron Paul remained in the GOP. No excuse for that.

Heres Ron Paul telling all his followers to endorse other Texan incumbent GOP candidates who had been supporting such policies, in particular the patriot act:

www.youtube.com...

So, I really find it ironic that Ron Paul would talk. Allthough maybe it should not be surprising? He is after all just another GOP part appealing to a segment of the voter population?

I oppose the patriot act as it does invade our rights to privacy, and I had been dissappointed at the fact Obama still has not removed the bill. But this accusation that people can be "killed" for being critical is a very strong accusation and requires strong evidence. None of which the OP has demonstrated.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]


Ron Paul is still doing what he's always done. you can't blame him for the state of the GOP now a days. It's not his fault the party is full of neo-cons instead of conservatives. He still fits the definition of what the party is supposed to stand for, which is small government and state's rights over federal.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TacticalVeritas
 


OF COURSE. There are at least 14 FBI agents sitting in federal prisons for exposing the CIA and the drug running. Look at the Iran/Contra deal and good ole Ole' North, he admitted before congress tha tthey were bringing in coc aine on C-130's to be sold for the purchase of weapons by the Contra's. HE ADMITTED IT!! And he said he would do it again if the president asked. How insane is that?

YOU are NOT a "person", you are NOT a U.S. Citizen, you are NOT a citizen nor a resident, you ARE a SOVEREIGN, and INHABITANT. YOU must KNOW the magic language, to state that you are something that you know nothing about is guilt by acquiescence. You are admitting to being property of the U.S. Coproration. THEY can take you and all your stuff without warning. THIS is what people don't get. It is a FACT.

File your UCC-1 financing statement and reclaim your strawman and your sovereignty. It is the only way out without fighting.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


no he said you cannot get rid of the Fed Reserve in one day!!!!!!!!!!!


nice dis info

[edit on 1-2-2010 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I was trying to talk some sense into my brainwashed mother the other day.
She always gets all emotional and almost childish when I start to overload her with truth. One of her favorite(naive) arguments is... Well if you don't like it here, then why don't you try living in "one of those other countries". I tried to force her to name some of those countries, but she just says one of those other countries, where if I went over there talking all this # that I do, I would surely be executed. One of those other countries where they have no freedom, or no right to free speech. Well I've simply been trying to tell her that if our fellow Americans decide to keep their heads in the sand, then surely America will surely become just like "one of those other countries"(if it hasn't already)



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by suicydking
Ron Paul is still doing what he's always done. you can't blame him for the state of the GOP now a days. It's not his fault the party is full of neo-cons instead of conservatives. He still fits the definition of what the party is supposed to stand for, which is small government and state's rights over federal.


What exactly is the difference between a neo-con and a traditional conservative? A lot of fuss is being made out of it but I doubt many people actually know the difference.

And how is a "small government" less corrupt than a "big government". If by small you mean less regulations versus less personel/smaller&fewer departments, than I can understand that but I don't necessarily agree with you.

It would seem, the smaller a government is the more corrupt it becomes because fewer people are involved in the decision making process. As in business, the greater the competition the less chance of corruption.

I am for big government, but not a corporate usa. I want all corporate contributions to the political process banned and give that right to the tax-payers because government is suppossed to represent the people, not corporations. Corporations are immortal entities, not human beings and thus not entitled to special privileges as currently is the case. It is ok to lobby but no pay-offs!

The way I see it, only rich people and large corporations can benefit from a small government. As for ron paul, I think he is affiliated with the wrong party. He belongs to the libertarians and is waisting his time with the gop.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by suicydking
Ron Paul is still doing what he's always done. you can't blame him for the state of the GOP now a days. It's not his fault the party is full of neo-cons instead of conservatives. He still fits the definition of what the party is supposed to stand for, which is small government and state's rights over federal.


What exactly is the difference between a neo-con and a traditional conservative? A lot of fuss is being made out of it but I doubt many people actually know the difference.

And how is a "small government" less corrupt than a "big government". If by small you mean less regulations versus less personel/smaller&fewer departments, than I can understand that but I don't necessarily agree with you.

It would seem, the smaller a government is the more corrupt it becomes because fewer people are involved in the decision making process. As in business, the greater the competition the less chance of corruption.

I am for big government, but not a corporate usa. I want all corporate contributions to the political process banned and give that right to the tax-payers because government is suppossed to represent the people, not corporations. Corporations are immortal entities, not human beings and thus not entitled to special privileges as currently is the case. It is ok to lobby but no pay-offs!

The way I see it, only rich people and large corporations can benefit from a small government. As for ron paul, I think he is affiliated with the wrong party. He belongs to the libertarians and is waisting his time with the gop.


Well, small government is good for a number of reasons. It's cheaper, for one. Second, as the federal government is diminished, more rights are returned to the states. As a resident of a state, you have greater control over what the laws & such are where you live. If you don't like something, you can try change it or simply move to a state that is more in line with your lifestyle. You don't have to leave the country if a law offends you, just the state.

Bigger government doesn't mean less corruption, it just means a larger morass and more red tape. It's harder to get things done and there is much much less accountability.

As far as the difference between a neo-con & a conservative, neo-cons generally favor a policy of using military & economic means to affect the culture or economy of other nations. Bringing democracy to the rest of the world, so to speak. Traditional conservatives tend to favor a more hands-off approach. There is quite a bit of info on the neoconservative movement available, you should be able to find ample sources on the web that are factual instead of just hit-pieces.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by suicydking
 


small government for the people controled by the people is the only way it should be



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Thanks for the reply. I will comment wherever I deem appropriate:


Originally posted by suicydking
Well, small government is good for a number of reasons. It's cheaper, for one.


So your advocating a smaller and more efficient government? I doubt effiency is measured only by the size of government. Sometimes too small is just as bad as too big.

If there are not enough departments within each branch then understaffing becomes a problem. Conversely with a too big government there is waste.


Originally posted by suicydking
Second, as the federal government is diminished, more rights are returned to the states. As a resident of a state, you have greater control over what the laws & such are where you live. If you don't like something, you can try change it or simply move to a state that is more in line with your lifestyle. You don't have to leave the country if a law offends you, just the state.


What your refering to is called *DECENTRALISATION* and has nothing to do with size. Less power to the federal government(which is a corporation) and more power to state corporations.


Originally posted by suicydking
Bigger government doesn't mean less corruption, it just means a larger morass and more red tape. It's harder to get things done and there is much much less accountability.


Bigger government in size means less corruption but also more red tape.

Unfortunately the two go hand-in-hand and are difficult to seperate.



Originally posted by suicydking
As far as the difference between a neo-con & a conservative, neo-cons generally favor a policy of using military & economic means to affect the culture or economy of other nations. Bringing democracy to the rest of the world, so to speak. Traditional conservatives tend to favor a more hands-off approach. There is quite a bit of info on the neoconservative movement available, you should be able to find ample sources on the web that are factual instead of just hit-pieces.


I DON'T THINK there is much, if any, difference between a neo-conservative and a traditional conservative. Conservative means keep the status quo alive! Keep the church the same, keep the wealth at the top, strong military presence, no abortion, racism&sexism, etc.

The "neo vs traditional" argument appears to be a false dichotomy intended to cause confusion and split the GOP! Just my take and sure I could be wrong.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I like Ron and wish there was more people like him, so I could vote because where I live we don't have that kind of good people.
What he said at 3:05 was awesome.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
to whoever questioned if this video is from recently i just now remembered it the video is from

On the evening of Jan. 27, 2010, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) spoke, in Baltimore City, before a capacity audience at Loyola University Maryland and did not attend the SOTU he gave this speech

Russia today posted the video about Obama and i grabbed it and posted on myspace staffers got it and he brought it up at the speech the next day



Original video



[edit on 1-2-2010 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Obama, is there anything that He can't do?



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Quite honestly, I am far more afraid of the activities of domestic enemies than I am of the activities of domestic terrorists.

Really, I am being very serious for a change. I mean you either will or more likely will not be caught up in the aftermath of a domestic terrorist's actions such as the OKC bombing. The actions of domestic enemies are far more encompassing such as the Fed or Credit Scores being used to determine your insurability and likelihood of an accident or capacity to perform mundane office tasks like answering a phone.

A domestic terrorist will at the very least punch me in the face if I disagree with his ideologies. A domestic enemy thinks nothing of having the taxpayers foot the bill for an in-flight kegger and various unneeded road trips for their friends and family.

A domestic terrorist may hold me hostage and possibly kill me to achieve a specific goal and then it is over. A domestic enemy would remove any number of my rights to achieve their goals and then never return them.

A guy in fatigues holding a gun and spouting nonsense is easy to spot and avoid. It is the well dressed and practiced liar with a pen in his pocket that will get you.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Ahabstar]



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


your not the only one Judge Nap said today on Alex Jones be ready for a False flag OP to save Obamas Presidency



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
People are putting too much faith in Ron Paul!

Even if he wants to change things he can't because the system will not allow him to. No one can change the system alone, it takes a group effort and knowledgeable citizens to cheer them on.

I give him credit for speaking more truth than others are willing to speak but again I say he and everyone else would be better served if he ditched the GOP and went Libertarian.

Conservatives and libertarians in theory have only two things in common: 1)financial freedom
2)small government.

In practice however only the first applies because conservatives spend a lot of money with the military-industrial complex. They hate small government just as much as the democrats do and are hypocrites for suggesting otherwise.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Of course Obama has the power to kill citizens. There are a lot of people that fit the criteria and may be a threat to the government. I found this site while looking up home schooling. (www.crossroad.to...)

Then I found this:
One of JTTF's 56 FBI field offices -- located in Phoenix, Arizona -- printed a three-fold flier several years ago. The front panel states, "If you encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force." An inside panel lists suspects which justifiably include "Hate Groups" such as "Skinheads, Nazis, Neo-Nazis (usually recognized by tattoos), KKK, White Nationalists...." But it also listed some surprising suspects:

Right-Wing Extremists

-'defenders' of US Constitution against federal government and the UN (Super Patriots)

- groups of individuals engaged in para-military training



Common Law Movement Proponents

- No driver's license

- Refuse to identity themselves

- Make numerous references to US Constitution

- Claim driving is a right, not a privilege

- Attempt to "police the police"



Single Issue Terrorists

- Lone individuals



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE
 


ariel sharon initiated this. I have a copy from a Chicago paper, saying jews will do this in America, and a statesman in the US said we can't stop it. I will post a link. (hours from now).

Looks like the jews can't read omens, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join