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

reply to post by Hopechest


I'd say it has a lot less to do with midterms coming up than it has to do with no reelection coming up for him. The gun control bills fail because they are political suicide for all but the far left loony bin demographics. If he had pushed gun control first term, not even the perpetual parade of terrible opposition candidates would have saved him.

The man has stated before that he believes citizens should not be armed. This is a fact you can verify. His VP was behind most gun control bills over the past few decades, prior to being VP, of course. Pinning the agenda to "circumstance" is pretty naive. There was no great support or outcry for gun control after Sandy Hook, only an attempt to create one. An attempt which involved some very disgusting politicization of the deaths of children, I might add.

Originally posted by amfirst1
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?

Are you saying that the only people who should be on this site are those who hate Obama? Eh? What?

reply to post by saturnine_sweet

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
BH, sometimes i wonder about the world you live in.

And that has what to do with a UN Treaty that goes against the US Constitution? And what does Hopechest's avatar have to do with this topic?

One, both of your sources you used for debunking are highly partisan, but that's sort of beside the point.

Of course they are.

People like you seem unwilling to look past the stated intent of a treaty and look at implication, precedent, and possible other uses.

"People like me"? What kind of people are those? Do you mean that I don't find a conspiracy everywhere I look?

Obama IS a gun grabber--he has, in his public speaking history, stated his belief that citizens should not be allowed arms.

I would like to see a link to where Obama stated publicly that citizens shouldn't own arms. I have never heard this.

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.

I don't believe that the right to bear arms means without regulation.

The UN treaty effectively does the same for the citizens of many nations that will have to abide by it.

What UN Treaty? And where does it expand US laws?

Here's a little primer on freedom:

You know what? Since you have me and my kind all figured out, and you think that's part of this discussion, I'm really not interested in your idea of freedom.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
The man has stated before that he believes citizens should not be armed. This is a fact you can verify.

Since you're making the claim, I suggest you verify it. I cannot find it. All I find is hearsay.

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.

Redistribution of wealth is NECESSARY otherwise a few old moneybags can buy the moon if they want to, make the political process a total sham and dry up the currency market, thus making the government borrow more and more until it defaults from bad credit.

The problem is for what purpose is tax collection enforced. The only redistribution of wealth I see is taxing the upper middle class to pay for the lower middle and poor class. The deep millionares, billionares and a few trillionares cheat the system horrendously. To make matters worse america has lost its manufacturing base to asian countries because of over-regulating the american marketplace, corrupt unions, and especially because of lack of tariffs. The upper middle class is becoming the lower middle class and the lower middle class is becoming the poor class depending on handouts.

Combine this with the constant wars of the past decade and big police state, thus defaulting is a matter of when, not if.

All of this cannot be happening by accident. It defies logic!

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

Memo to Rand Paul. It isn't "our" constitution and never was.

AntiFederalist Paper No. 1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION:
A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE “ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION”
From The Boston Gazette and Country Journal, November 26, 1787.
www.anamericanvision.com...

Look around, from the right to the left and all points in between the aristocratic combination still defines and controls the constitution and the bill of rights. Always did. Rand wants a hand in control, no more and no less.

There is no "we the people" in their view, just "wee people".

reply to post by 727Sky


Ron Paul went against the grain.

Rand Paul goes with it.

Big difference there.

I don't like either man but if Ron was paired with someone like Kucinich, he might have a better chance of getting his message out to BOTH sides of the coin.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag

I don't like either man but if Ron was paired with someone like Kucinich, he might have a better chance of getting his message out to BOTH sides of the coin.

That's exactly why that would never happen. If voting worked it would be outlawed.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Well thank you. You're not interested in freedom. That's pretty much all I needed to hear. What comes around, goes around. You and yours will find that out, in time. Good luck with that.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


And you're not interested in backing up anything you say.

So, no one wins?

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


I gave examples of direct actions that back up accounts of stated words. I'm not going to play BH's semantics game, as that's his/her tactics with any conversation. Deflect, dissect, redirect. Intellectual dishonesty 101. I'm not interested in "winning." It isn't a debate contest or a court case, where semantics and charades outweigh substance. BH clearly stated a lack of interest in personal freedom, therefore there isn't anything else to say, really. "One of the crowd" will never care about the man standing on his own. That's essentially the story of all history. Trying to make one such see sense is shouting into the wind and nothing more.

reply to post by frazzle


It became a corporate charter with the *act of 1871*.

The decline has been gradual since then, until 2001 when it rapidly accellerated with the false flag and everything that has ensued thereafter.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by Hopechest

 

I'd say it has a lot less to do with midterms coming up than it has to do with no reelection coming up for him. The gun control bills fail because they are political suicide for all but the far left loony bin demographics. If he had pushed gun control first term, not even the perpetual parade of terrible opposition candidates would have saved him.

The man has stated before that he believes citizens should not be armed. This is a fact you can verify. His VP was behind most gun control bills over the past few decades, prior to being VP, of course. Pinning the agenda to "circumstance" is pretty naive. There was no great support or outcry for gun control after Sandy Hook, only an attempt to create one. An attempt which involved some very disgusting politicization of the deaths of children, I might add.

It is certainly possible that he saved it for his second term but I find it unlikely. Studying Obama, and we can go into great length on this, he is focused on particular issues. Gun-control does not fit that agenda and in fact pulls political capital that he would want to use elsewhere.

He is very motivated for passing an agenda but has more to do with his belief in a move towards socialistic policies, though he is not socialistic overall, and I do not see this as a major issue for him. It does absolutely nothing to further his agenda.

Obama wants to take wall street wealth and move it to programs and the poor and that is his goal, its what he wants his legacy to be. Gun control, other than being part of an overall platform, simply is not his passion. He's a brilliant scholar and knows how pointless this whole gun-control issue is. Its like putting all your eggs in the Roe v. Wade decision, its a waste of time.

Our guns aren't going anywhere and the Supreme Court keeps verifying that so why is he going to make this a center point of his policy?

Its because his base is forcing him into it. In order for his policies to go forward he needs to retain control of Congress and those districts have a lot of people that are up in arms about guns. He has to appease them so he can get his people re-elected and his legislation through.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by frazzle

 

It became a corporate charter with the *act of 1871*.

The decline has been gradual since then, until 2001 when it rapidly accellerated with the false flag and everything that has ensued thereafter.

edit on 12/5/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

Yes, but long before 1871, the aristocrats took control of the nation's future with the Buttonwood Agreement, signed in secret by the high rollers in 1792, later to become the NYSE. www.stock-options-made-easy.com...

Money talks and it lays down the golden rules forever after. Their "posterity" aims to own the world's gold and all of the slaves. Well, maybe they already do.

Said the same a while back, thread kinda died out....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am CERTAIN this is happening...

I trust his father more than him. When he declared his support for Mitt Romney, he proved to me he's like every other politician who tows the same party line. He's aligning himself with the gun lobbyists, and in my book, any politician who does that is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Give me a politician that backs ideas from both parties and independents and supports term limits and abolishing corporate and special interest lobbyist. Than and only than, will I give any kind of credibility that comes out of a politicians mouth.

reply to post by Hopechest


I think you naively place way too much benevolence onto Obama's motives. History is not replete with benevolent tyrants, and that's pretty much what you paint him as. He wants power because he wants to force his view of "fairness" onto the nation. He doesn't support freedom for people to better their own lives--which would correct the problems you speak of--but instead punishes anyone who deviates from his view.

Here's a truth about the world--people who want power to control everything, they aren't your friends, and they aren't looking out for you or your best interests. If he was, he'd spend a lot less time on recreation and a lot more time doing good. (It's pretty pathetic that I work about four times more than the president, don't you think?) He's just another puffed up idiot with the intellectual maturity of a child, and he wants to be the opulent king of the benevolent, cared for by his vision and power, masses. Ultimately, it's about his ego, and thus why he pitches a hissy fit every time he doesn't get his way. He's not the first of his breed, and he won't be the last. But all have been pretty poison to their people and to freedom, and so is he. He's a small man feeding his fragile ego, nothing more, and doesn't much care if the world burns for it.

reply to post by WeRpeons


I'd agree that Ron is a more honest man than his son, yes. And I agree with most of your points. About the gun lobby, it's complicated. I don't much care for the NRA, for example, but I do believe freedom dictates the right to bear arms without restrictions. I just don't agree with how the NRA goes about things, most times, and I would agree that there are better approaches to support freedom than aligning with such groups.

People have choices but they don't get informed of the issues at all.



They vote tactically and/or superficially. The controllers love it I bet. Listen to the lamestream media so they can help you.

Sure the system is rigged so that the two parties perpetuate their existance, but you still have a choice......

I saw this story on Steve Quayle's site last night (before posted here)....but is this really "news"? (The Rand Paul statement, yes, but Barack Obama's sentiments, no.)