Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rand Paul: Obama is working with ‘anti-American globalists plot[ting] against our Constitution.’

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Rand Paul is the last hope both for the republicans and for the nation of USA.

I do not mean this lightly at all!

I just hope we can survive these 3 demonic years ahead of us without some major catastrophe.

Some of the posts in this thread are beyond naive and totally insane. It seems their party can do nothing wrong, even if they have proven themselves to be complete sellouts.


(the person above me is a classic example)
edit on 12/5/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


You think that a some one who seems to be unable to stop saying nutty things is the best hope of the GOP and the USA? The problem with the GOP right now is the only people who get headlines are the nut bags like Paul. Of course the fact that you think that the next 3 years of peace and a growing economy is some how demonic pretty much makes you the target audience of Paul. His father always played the uh,,, fringe very well and make some money doing it.




posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Rand Paul is the last hope both for the republicans and for the nation of USA.

I do not mean this lightly at all!

I just hope we can survive these 3 demonic years ahead of us without some major catastrophe.

Some of the posts in this thread are beyond naive and totally insane. It seems their party can do nothing wrong, even if they have proven themselves to be total sellouts.


Rand Paul? Are you kidding. The man's a teabagging douchebag of the first order.


You don't realise the difference between mainstream conservatives and tea baggers? Really? Do you pay any attention to politics, other than what the globalist shill obama says?

What about Occupy? Do you think they are democrats?

Please tell us what you know about politics, other than insulting good people.


He isn't one of the "good people". The man is a tea bagger plain and simple. He might have fooled a lot of people with his filibuster against the use of drones, but then he flip flopped and admitted that he supported the use of drones on American soil.

True conservatives also do not attach fetal personhood amendments to flood insurance bills.


When did he flip flop on the use of drones? I am not aware of this at all.

True conservatives are not the neoconservatives. True liberals are not the neoliberals. Neoconservatives and neoliberals are globalist shills. They are zionist, military-industrial complex, monopoly capitalist, "yes sir" monsato and rockefeller/rothschild satanic scumbags of the first degree. Just like the pathetic media we have.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
i don't see why anyone thinks a new president can fix things. I don't know if anyone noticed but the countries been taken over long ago. Business's are too big to fail, brainless voters, corrupt government officials have infested every branch, FDA is taken over (grow your own food). You really think we can reclaim our freedom and authority? Give me a break. USA ruined itself.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   


The people who make fun of Alex Jones do not have a leg to stand on. I don't see anyone else infiltrating bohemian grove, talking about how fake 9-11 was, exposing the gun grabbing agenda. going to RT to talk about issues, giving people like Ron Paul/Gary Johnson a voice, talking about the FEMA camps, etc.

Why do people hate the good guys and promote the bad ones? Stop listening to the lamestream media. Please!



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Rand Paul is the last hope both for the republicans and for the nation of USA.

I do not mean this lightly at all!

I just hope we can survive these 3 demonic years ahead of us without some major catastrophe.

Some of the posts in this thread are beyond naive and totally insane. It seems their party can do nothing wrong, even if they have proven themselves to be total sellouts.


Rand Paul? Are you kidding. The man's a teabagging douchebag of the first order.


You don't realise the difference between mainstream conservatives and tea baggers? Really? Do you pay any attention to politics, other than what the globalist shill obama says?

What about Occupy? Do you think they are democrats?

Please tell us what you know about politics, other than insulting good people.


He isn't one of the "good people". The man is a tea bagger plain and simple. He might have fooled a lot of people with his filibuster against the use of drones, but then he flip flopped and admitted that he supported the use of drones on American soil.

True conservatives also do not attach fetal personhood amendments to flood insurance bills.


When did he flip flop on the use of drones? I am not aware of this at all.

True conservatives are not the neoconservatives. True liberals are not the neoliberals. Neoconservatives and neoliberals are globalist shills. They are zionist, military-industrial complex, monopoly capitalist, "yes sir" monsato and rockefeller/rothschild satanic scumbags of the first degree. Just like the pathetic media we have.





In relation to the Boston Marathon bombings, Sen. Rand Paul told Fox Business today that, “If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them.” He went on:



“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”


Link

So not only is he pro-drone, he's apparently also against due process!



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Well the republicans will take over again and its only a matter of time. It always switches between parties so the only question is when it will happen and who is positioning themselves for the top spot.

Paul is going in the opposite direction of being a top contender and is starting to build the label of someone on the fringe.

He really needs to start working on his image if he wants a shot at the presidency. He already has most of his fathers supporters so he needs to start walking a fine line or hes out of contention.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Thanks for the link. The man is by no means Ron Paul at all and seems unstable a bit, BUT compared to the competition is he not better? I am personally against drones of all kind except for surveillance in a war enviroment. I think drones have no business on american soil whatsoever. It is a very slippery slope that once the cat is out of the bag it is nearly impossible to put back. It is borderline orwellian imho.

Just for your information I don't plan on voting for Rand Paul if he is on the republican ticket. I won't vote for any republican or democrat because neither party stands for what I believe in. I am conservative on social issues and progressive on financial issues.
edit on 12/5/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Rand Paul will be the "Rick Perry" of the 2016 elections. Yes, he'll be nominated, but his ideas and positions on practical matters are so far out and antiquated, he'll never make it past that. He's "pro-life", anti-marriage equality, and supports banning gays in the military.

He does have some ideas that I agree with (as did his father). But his extreme position on other issues makes him a dangerous candidate and he'll never make it to the GOP candidacy.

As far as his claims that Obama is an "anti-American globalist"... What the hell is he talking about? Obama is not a "gun-grabber". He's dreaming.

From the OP link:



By the way: This treaty, at least as described here, is total fantasy. The hoax-busters at Snopes.com will catch you up, and just for good measure, PolitiFact gave similar claims the old pants-on-fire. This is black helicopter stuff from Paul.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Kind of baffled by the response here. One, there appears to be some uncertainty about how tied to Paul this email is. But two...the statement is true. The UN, an organization that is globalist, continually churns out treaties and the like which run counter to the US constitution, and Obama clearly supports that.

Is stating a very clear and simple fact really that crazy? Or are all of you that programmed that you can't even make objective observations about reality?

A large portion of the US government, along with the UN, have effectively declared war on the US Constitution and those who seek to follow it and maintain the right enumerated therein. They don't even bother to hide the fact or play it down. At some point, voices will be raised in opposition in higher and higher places. I actually find this statement rather mild compared to the reality of the situation--as one would expect from a politician trying to play towards moderates.

Rather than jumping on others for being "crazy" when they say something that seems "out there" to you, maybe you should inform yourself on the matter? Just maybe?



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
The UN, an organization that is globalist, continually churns out treaties and the like which run counter to the US constitution, and Obama clearly supports that.


Show me a UN Treaty that has anything to do with the US Constitution.

snopes.com



The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market."


Pants On Fire



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, sometimes i wonder about the world you live in. One, both of your sources you used for debunking are highly partisan, but that's sort of beside the point. People like you seem unwilling to look past the stated intent of a treaty and look at implication, precedent, and possible other uses. At least, when it fits your agenda. I'm sure you latched onto all the ways say, the Patriot Act (which is also an abomination) could be abused, because it fit your agenda.

The real issue is the philosophy overall. Obama IS a gun grabber--he has, in his public speaking history, stated his belief that citizens should not be allowed arms. He chose as his VP a man who is pretty much the poster boy for disarming the populace. You seem to fail to understand that most gun laws in place already clearly violate the constitution, and both have stated that they want to expand those laws dramatically. The UN treaty effectively does the same for the citizens of many nations that will have to abide by it.

Here's a little primer on freedom: if you, personally, cannot secure your own freedom, YOU ARE NOT FREE. You are at the mercy of whomever keeps you safe. THAT is the reason for the right to bear arms. Governments exist for collective freedom, which is something else entirely. So I ask you, as I would love to ask the president himself: are you truly so set against freedom? Or can you not comprehend the concept? Because THAT is what the debate is about, and that is what makes the ideology and legislation a threat to the freedom of US citizens. And, ultimately, through the UN, a threat against the freedom of mankind globally.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


Obama is not a gun-grabber and its rather obvious.

His first four years he never even touched the subject and it wasn't untill Sandy Hook where is base demanded action that he actually spoke about it.

Hes about wealth re-distribution and that is his focus. He addresses the gun issue because he's forced to. I bet you that Obama would like nothing more than this issue to go away so he could get back on track.

Same thing with gay-marriage. He didn't care about it until Biden opened his mouth and said they had a stance. These are issues that are pulling attention away from what Obama really wants to do.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So because it doesn't infringe on our rights, it's ok that he supports it? Even though it would, if it did? You DO understand the point of that treat, right? To make certain that the governments of the world control all arms channels? It's very akin to what he has stated he wants to do domestically. (actually, he has clearly stated he would like to do far more.) Would that not imply working with said globalists? Playing semantics is just being intellectually dishonest.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Orrrrr....reality check. Wealth "redistribution" has been an agenda in the past, for other nations. There's a detail there you should learn, if you've ever bothered to learn any history. These half-witted fools who believe they have the right to do this always come to the same conclusion--you can't steal THAT much from people who are armed. So arms control always comes into the mix when redistribution fails.

Sandy Hook wasn't something forcing him to address it--it was a convenient crisis. You avatar is pretty apt--you seem lost in never never land.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Rand Paul will be the "Rick Perry" of the 2016 elections. Yes, he'll be nominated, but his ideas and positions on practical matters are so far out and antiquated, he'll never make it past that. He's "pro-life", anti-marriage equality, and supports banning gays in the military.

He does have some ideas that I agree with (as did his father). But his extreme position on other issues makes him a dangerous candidate and he'll never make it to the GOP candidacy.

As far as his claims that Obama is an "anti-American globalist"... What the hell is he talking about? Obama is not a "gun-grabber". He's dreaming.

From the OP link:



By the way: This treaty, at least as described here, is total fantasy. The hoax-busters at Snopes.com will catch you up, and just for good measure, PolitiFact gave similar claims the old pants-on-fire. This is black helicopter stuff from Paul.



The World Bank, UN, the bilderbergers run everything from behind the scenes. There is zero opposition from either mainstream party, except from a few candidates that say one thing today and something else tomorrow.

The second assault weapons ban drafted from senator feinstein WAS gun grabbing. Weapons have to be automatic to be classified as assault weapons, YET we saw lots of semi's classified as such which was utterly deceitful.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
For him to expose the masters behind the curtains he has my vote. Obama is a creation of the CIA n the NWO.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


No crap he has to have his surrogates push the agenda otherwise it would look obvious.

What the hell r u doing on this site if u think he is so great?



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Orrrrr....reality check. Wealth "redistribution" has been an agenda in the past, for other nations. There's a detail there you should learn, if you've ever bothered to learn any history. These half-witted fools who believe they have the right to do this always come to the same conclusion--you can't steal THAT much from people who are armed. So arms control always comes into the mix when redistribution fails.

Sandy Hook wasn't something forcing him to address it--it was a convenient crisis. You avatar is pretty apt--you seem lost in never never land.


Of course it has been an agenda for other nations, I never said it wasn't and I have learned a bit of history as my degree in history would attest to.

Obama is very smart, yes you cannot rob the people blind when they are armed, but you can do it slowly which I believe is his goal. Healthcare was a prime example of it.

And yes Sandy Hook was the catalyst that made Obama come out for gun-control, pure and simple. Did he back any legislation before his base got all in a tizzy about it?

Nope. Never pushed it in anywhere. He realizes that mid-terms are coming up and people want to see some action taken so he does what he has to.

Simple as that and its not opinion, its a fact you can very easily check.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join