Ron Paul's Urgent Warning

Unfortunately, not only is the video old but this video has been discussed on another thread:

Ron Paul Video - Martial Law And Anarchy When The Economy Collapses *Powerful Message*

I started to post this video yesterday myself but when I found it in the search, I decided not to. However, I do think this message is important. Ron Paul isn't a flip flopper. He says something and sticks by it. That happens to be one of the biggest reasons I have supported him since 2007. He knows his stuff and consistently makes Bernanke look stupid.

The best part though is that even though this video was made in 2010, the current climate is right on track to do exactly as he said. Tensions are higher than ever. Lots of people are calling for blood in the streets. I suspect we will soon enter a worldwide revolution. The People vs. The Bankers (and their goons).

I would love to see Dr. Paul in the White House but I have no doubt in my mind TPTB would take him out faster than JFK. This too would in my opinion lead to chaos in the streets which leads to the question we should all be asking: Is it intentional? Isn't the Illuminati motto - "Order through chaos"?? What better way to cause depopulation than to start a war of epic proportions and watch the people kill each other from the safety of your hidden bunker?

...just food for thought.

Originally posted by JennaDarling

Originally posted by jazzguy
i love this guy, he's so transparent almost like you can stop him on the street and talk politics, he'd be a perfect approachable president. reading from a cue card is not his forte i think

edit on 27-7-2011 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)

No cue cards eh? Well, watch his eyes *g*

left, right., left.. right....*ding*
left, right., left.. right....*ding*
left, right., left.. right....*ding*

I think when the op said that, they were saying that he isn't very good at it....NOT that he isn't using cue cards.

Originally posted by Maskirovka
Call me a defeatist or a pessimist, or whatever, but unfortunately I don't think Paul stands much chance in 2012. He speaks much common sense, but his proposals are far too radical, too different to what US voters are used to. He is not, for want of a better word, 'mainstream' enough to reach a majority. He doesn't spew slogans, regurgitate well known political cliches, or come across as the type of guy who might think about starting some wars here and there - in other words, he is just not presidential. I get the sad feeling, however, that in years to come he'll be the guy that people think about and wonder why the hell no one listened to him.

I agree, and it saddens me. How did America become a place where believing in individual liberty, trusting the constitution, disapproving of government intervention, and despising government control became "radical" notions?

reply to post by alfa1


I think like an earlier comment from someone, you misunderstood the op. They meant that Ron Paul isn't very GOOD at reading from cue cards, NOT that he isn't doing it.

reply to post by jude11


He is essentially confirming the prospects of martial law, something I NEVER thought i would hear so directly and so honestly from a politician.

Ron Paul for president in a post-apocalyptic 2012!!!!!!

Someone said in another thread about attacks on the US ,and how america had learned from the best and how they eventually beat the english and won their freedom.
Well now it seems the pupil has become the master , and has also adopted the ways of the evil empire
where the government and the "king or queens of the US " care less and less about the serfs , and only about the financial gap !

time for another revolution is what seems to be brewing , either that or we call out captain hindsight and have him prepared for when the day comes , and we all go , why did no one listen to Ron Paul.

reply to post by macman
He has my vote, but sadly I think America will pass up errantly, this last prospect of hope and change that is real and sound. America deserves what it gets, and I will avail my second amendment rights to be as secure as possible.

reply to post by the owlbear

I disagree. THE PEOPLE are our only chance to steer this country toward liberty.

I think the answer is both... we need an honest leader like Ron, but unfortunately the elections are (obviously) rigged to favor chosen candidates.

We need to put the whole country ON STRIKE until Ron Paul is put into power.

It may sound impossible at first - An American Coup - but no true change of power comes without a real show of force from the people.

Originally posted by the owlbear

Originally posted by coastlinekid
reply to post by jude11

 

This guy is are only chance to steer this country towards Liberty...

Go Paul!!!

I disagree. THE PEOPLE are our only chance to steer this country toward liberty. One man alone cannot do the job. Paul can help, in some regards, but it is up to every last person who disagrees with the constant loss of personal freedoms this plutocracy has bestowed on us in the guise of protection.

x1000

This

Every stuffed shirt in DC would be Ron Paul if the people exercised their power. In a time of information and communication overload, the personal accountability of our representation is still a black hole. We are constantly being distracted left and right and all around and somehow we have forgotten that its the people who control the purse strings to the whole show!!!!

Just renewed my drivers license and registered Republican from undeclared.

Ron will have another vote here!

reply to post by Helmkat


Not every single legal citizen in the country can have their hand on the "steering wheel" at the same time...

My original comment should have said "He is the ONLY POLITICIAN" that can use our federal government system to steer us towards Liberty...

sheesh...

What most of the people who want to keep their entitlements and increase the debt do not understand is this country is going to become bankrupt very soon.
Once our country goes bankrupt their entitlements will be gone, the poor people who rely on wellfare/unemployment/disability will become a larger burden on the goverment, mainly inner city folks at first. These people will eventually be sent to these FEMA relocation camps to live in so the goverment can better take care of their basic needs to survive.
These relocation camps will become overrun, only thing for the people to do will be to reproduce, the goverment will not be able to sustain such a catastrophe.

People need to wake up and rationally think. With the farmlands flooding out in midwest food will be scarce. The UN will be called in to help, and we all know how the UN handles it's buisness. Just look at the African nations the past 50+ years.

Many, many American lives will be lost. All in the name of greed.

Originally posted by Maskirovka
Call me a defeatist or a pessimist, or whatever, but unfortunately I don't think Paul stands much chance in 2012. He speaks much common sense, but his proposals are far too radical, too different to what US voters are used to. He is not, for want of a better word, 'mainstream' enough to reach a majority. He doesn't spew slogans, regurgitate well known political cliches, or come across as the type of guy who might think about starting some wars here and there - in other words, he is just not presidential. I get the sad feeling, however, that in years to come he'll be the guy that people think about and wonder why the hell no one listened to him.

I agree with everything you said.

Stop all of this Ron Paul jocking! Even if he is what many believe him to be....do you really think he won't be executed? Do you not believe he'll be showed the JFK video?

There's no hope for this country from ANY President until we get rid of the corruption first!

If Ron Paul won the chair, he'd be pulled to the side and told to fall in step or have he and his entire family line wiped from existence. What could he do? It's the look I saw on Obama's face shortly after election. He looked as though someone told him they'd eat his children if he doesn't!

There's TOO much money and POWER in play in America's and indeed the WORLD'S politics for any one man to make a change or difference. The PTB are always two steps ahead of the general public. So they're probably one step ahead of people who are awake. They've been hearing the rumblings about the two party system and have begun implementing another bought and paid for party...which people will rally behind and swear allegiance too because they'll think things have changed.

reply to post by jude11


It would be really interesting if he took it to the next step, which is asking everyone to grow closer as a community.

That way there will no longer be a problem. And so far he has been true to his word, and doesn't look like a guy who worships idols.

he still has my vote for his to be in office, let us pray that he doesn't get killed by those in power.

Ron Paul is full of hot air and hence he does stand a chance of getting elected.

There are a couple of promises he could fulfil. One is the foreign policy of non-intervention. Foreign policy is an executive privilege and doesn't require Congressional approval.

The second, interestingly, is abolishing income tax. Weird, though it may seem, the US Congress, the only body charged with the power of federal taxation by the US Constitution never passed a law allowing for incomes to be taxed. Income tax in the US is collected under a semi-legal system. The US Federal Government has municipal and state jurisdiction over the Federal Territories and any laws affecting solely these regions are directly under the federal executive and not any elected legislature, state or federal. It is this jurisdiction that the federal executive exercises to levy the federal income tax. However, this is not automatically applicable to US citizens living in any of the states and not a federal government employee. So a neat trick is employed to collect income tax from these people. Employees are made to sign a piece of paper authorising the employer to treat them as federal employees for the purposes of deducting and paying income tax. Thus most federal income tax payers are so voluntarily! Of course, very few are aware of this and an employee who refuses to sign this piece of paper is likely to have his employment terminated. Those few self-employed people who are aware of this, refuse to pay income tax and are taken to a federal court by the IRS usually get shafted by the judges who simply declare that there exists a law that mandates them to pay federal income tax and penalise them for violating a non-existing law. There have been a case or two where such people were cleared of charges by the judges.

Anyway, the President using the executive privilege of legislative authority over the federally administered terrirtories and federal government employees can make their income tax liability zero, which automatically makes everyone else's income tax liability zero (whether they sign that piece of paper or not) and this he can do without violating the constitution.

However, if he wants to augment the federal government's income through a federal sales tax or some such thing, he would need the Congress to pass the appropriate legislation.

Other than those two there are few promises that are consistent with his stand.

For example, Ron Paul wants the power of the Congress restored to what it was under the US Constitution and yet runs for Presidency under the slogan of ablishing the Fed and legal tender laws, which are the prerogative of the US Congress and not the President. What happens when he gets elected and the Congress refuses to repeal the legal tender laws abolishing the Fed? Will he use the executive privilege to unconstutionally force the Congress to repeal the laws or will he abide by the Constitution and admit he made a promise he knew he could not fulfil?

I have great admiration for Ron Paul. I think he is a bit too radical on some policies and the constitution. Because of this, I would not vote for him. The American people do not want what he has to offer and if they got a taste of it they would want him out immediately. Ron Paul was the answer to our problems about 20-30 years ago. I believe that. He is not what this country wants or feels it needs right now though.

With that said, nothing else nor anyone else is working out either though. We as American's need to get off our arses and start figuring out what we need and what we will tolerate to get things where we NEED them to be. No one man or woman is going to fix this mess we all have allowed it to become. There are a lot of problem people within the government that need to be removed from office.

So overall, I would not vote for Ron Paul because I don't agree with all of his platform. He is however doing the nation a great service and speaking for those who will not speak up. He is speaking for those who have no voice. He is doing his part and upholding his oath. There are more like him but they go unnoticed because they are surrounded by vipers in that Vipers Den we call Washington DC.

Originally posted by MiloNickels

Originally posted by Maskirovka
Call me a defeatist or a pessimist, or whatever, but unfortunately I don't think Paul stands much chance in 2012. He speaks much common sense, but his proposals are far too radical, too different to what US voters are used to. He is not, for want of a better word, 'mainstream' enough to reach a majority. He doesn't spew slogans, regurgitate well known political cliches, or come across as the type of guy who might think about starting some wars here and there - in other words, he is just not presidential. I get the sad feeling, however, that in years to come he'll be the guy that people think about and wonder why the hell no one listened to him.

I agree, and it saddens me. How did America become a place where believing in individual liberty, trusting the constitution, disapproving of government intervention, and despising government control became "radical" notions?

Probably when they built the hoover dam and energized las vegas...thats pretty much when people thought...hey wait, seemed big government programs can produce some pretty sweet things.

Then NASA came along...


I think people enjoy building massive things overall, huge programs that have clear benefits for progressing our country and perhaps even the world as a whole. I think picking and choosing is required though.

A new cool stealth bomber is not needed...we don't need to police the world with superjets...we need to spend that money on more worthy things like developing giant solar grids to power entire states for free, or start work on evacuated tube transport system throughout the states, etc...


__________
incidently,
I am tired of ATS being the defacto Ron Paul campaign headquarters...do we need a thread on every single word that ever comes out of his mouth? ya, we get it...you like Paul...now lets cut back on the endless RP threads, or at least balance it out with a thread on everything Ralph Nadar, Bob Barr and any other unelectable candidate says that challenges the system...

Originally posted by coastlinekid
reply to post by jude11

 

This guy is are only chance to steer this country towards Liberty...

Go Paul!!!

And better education..

reply to post by Observor

The second, interestingly, is abolishing income tax. Weird, though it may seem, the US Congress, the only body charged with the power of federal taxation by the US Constitution never passed a law allowing for incomes to be taxed.

Oh really? Did you consider the 16th Amendment to our Constitution?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

topics.law.cornell.edu...

The debate on the ratification of the 16th Amendment was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court

The Glenshaw Glass case In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'gross income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealth — whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions — are all within the definition of income, unless the Congress makes a specific exemption, as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party,[28] gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances,[29] and certain scholarships.[30]

en.wikipedia.org...

I am a Ron Paul supporter but the way I understand law (I am not a lawyer), he would have to Amend the U.S. Constitution regarding federal income tax.

...Ron Paul wants the power of the Congress restored to what it was under the US Constitution and yet runs for Presidency under the slogan of ablishing the Fed and legal tender laws, which are the prerogative of the US Congress and not the President. What happens when he gets elected and the Congress refuses to repeal the legal tender laws abolishing the Fed? Will he use the executive privilege to unconstutionally force the Congress to repeal the laws or will he abide by the Constitution and admit he made a promise he knew he could not fulfil?

Yes, he wants to take our country back from the Fed. Because we are still in a "state of emergency" as declared in 1933, I believe he has the power to do that.

In the amendment in 1933, the Act was expanded to include "any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Remember a "person" is a corporation! The people of the United States then became subject to the powers of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917. Note that the war power acts were also expanded to include 'national emergencies', as defined by the President. And didn't Roosevelt just proclaim a national banking emergency? Where does that place us? Since this Act is still on the books today, then it is still binding until the national emergency is resolved.

usa-the-republic.com...

Maybe this is why Obama considered using his power to raise the debt ceiling?