Friday, June 10, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Morgan Reynolds has got to be one of the smoothest dudes on the planet. The guy could play himself in a western. In fact both: Reynolds and Fetzer are pretty f'ing good cowboy names... I hope you guys can some day be validated with the "no planes scenario" but I doubt the current video evidence will ever produce anything concrete... Hopefully someone will 'crack' or some technical anomaly will expose the signature of the perpetrators... You guys are writing history... great work.
ReplyDeletei agree,jim and morgan should have the 2 main leads in brokeback mountain 2
ReplyDeleteSo happy to hear Dr. Reynolds with Dr. Fetzer again. This was the highlight of my day. I feel a sense of renewed hope in that Dr. Reynolds' seem to think there is at least some hope for law suits against the media and that he intends to continue his work on the no planes matter and keep his website alive and active. Can't wait for all the old no planes articles to be posted on his updated site.
ReplyDeleteI find it so incredible that so many seemingly logically minded people just out-of-hand discount the no-planes idea as absurd when there is so very much supporting evidence for it.
I also just want to observe that most of the "mainstream" 9-11 truther people have simply skipped on to pressing for a "new independent invesigation", with many having "hijacked" Building 7 (obvious "controlled demolition") to do this. They have all just skipped over the no-planes, no-Muslim-hijackers issue altogether. Move on, nothing to see here.
stop ggaglin on my johnson.
ReplyDeleteAlways good to hear voices of truth as dark days approach.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul came up in both interviews. I agree he's better than the rest of his fellow Congressmen and Senators but there are good reasons to oppose even him --- or at least demand better from him.
ReplyDelete1) He's pro-gold standard. This is certainly an improvement over what we have now: in the US and in England where I am. But it essentially keeps the power in the same hands because the central bankers are also the men who control the gold supply. A better option has been discussed on this show by Ellen Brown and Carl Herman; that the government create a debt free money supply.
I strongly suspect the Austrian school of economics who've hoodwinked Paul are being set up by tptb to appear like the best, soundest, safest alternative when the shtf.
2) Paul is monumentally weak on immigration. At a time when real unemployment is over 20% Paul wants to increase legal immigration and grant an amnesty to illegal 'immigrants' really invaders and colonists. Not only is this economically stupid, it shows that Paul isn't quite as prinipled as he appears. For all his talk about 'property rights' he's quite willing to dispossess Americans of their most essential common good, the very nation they live in. And again, the only people to benefit from this are the oligarchs.
Is it significant that Paul's political and economic guru Ludwig von Mises only ever had one long-term paying job, and that was for a Rockefeller outfit? Also, Mises's closest and longest working relationship (at the Rockefeller outfit and beyond) was with a bizarre character named Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi. Coudenhove-Kalergi is the archetypal well-intentioned betrayer of nations at the behest of the money power. One of the architects of the European Union, he also propagandized for the destruction of the distinct races and ethnic ethnic groups of Europe, Asia and Africa, with the exception, naturally, of the Jews, who were to become world leaders of the newly 'mongrelised' mass of humanity. Quoting his wiki bio:
Coudenhove-Kalergi complemented his liberal views of the political role of the Jews with distinctive advocacy of race mixing. In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism) he wrote:
"The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals."
"Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation."
***
Paul may not share Coudenhove-Kalergi's ideals, in fact I doubt he does, but the problem for his supporters is that by enthroning the Gold-powers and rejecting all concern for race and nation you end up with precisely what Coudenhove-Kalergi desires. That's why Mises and Coudenhove-Kalergi were so close.
1) Paul is for free banking, not a strict, mandatory gold standard such as in your characterization.
ReplyDelete2) I'm not sure what is ideal immigration quota numbers would be, but Paul has been a leader on fighting back the bogus idea that children of illegal immigrants have "birthright" American citizenship, which certainly counts against the idea is "weak" on the issue.
Paul argues for a gold standard at the national level, this is not a matter for debate. The men who control gold will control the destiny of the nation.
ReplyDeleteThe birthright issue is only a small part of the issue of Americans being replaced by other peoples against their known wishes. And Paul's current positions on the colonisation of America by people Americans overwhelmingly want to keep out, detailed in his most recent book, LIBERTY DEFINED, are in favour of that dispossession.
Mobilising the "US Army" to "round up" and "send home" the invaders "isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen."
Business, normally expected to be a responsible part of society are to be permitted to opt of their civic duties on this, the most basic issue of the social contract, who's part of our society and who isn't:
“Don't punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly or indirectly, with counterfeit identification strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the constitution. Determining who is legal or not is police and court function, not a responsibility of private business.”
Paul doesn't even care about invaders working in any case -- and blames the poorest Americans for the fact they do, not treasonous politicians like himself and the businesses who aid Americans' dispossession:
"Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they ‘take’ are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered."
And while Paul says business should not police immigration, that it's a matter for law enforcement, it turns out he does not support police enforcement:
“Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of ‘suspicion’ is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a ‘threat,’ without charges ever being made.”
Reasonable suspicion is what drives ALL police investigations. Paul is basically admitting here that police may never investigate illegal immigrants.
There is a good criticism of Paul's flip-flop on the immigration question, or the America question, here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vdare.com/washington_watcher/110428_immigration.htm
quote:
Whatever your views on Obama’s terrorism policy, the concept of "reasonable suspicion "is not a "vague charge" made up by Kris Kobach and Russell Pearce in SB 1070. Police power to question individuals where they believe there is "reasonable suspicion" was established in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio case, and local police had been using this authority in criminal investigations long before then. SB 1070 simply applied this pre-existing standard, which was used by police in other crimes and federal immigration authorities, to local immigration enforcement.
Along with Paul’s imaginary calls for the US Army to round up illegal aliens, this analogy can only be seen as an intentional attempt to conflate basic interior enforcement with the most extreme hypothetical “big brother” violations of civil liberties.
So if we aren’t going to have deportations, interior enforcement, employer sanctions, or amnesty, what’s Paul’s plan? He writes:
“Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship. Maybe a ‘green card’ with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be condemned by the welfare left as too harsh and condemned by the confused right as being too generous. It will be said that it will create a class of second-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some illegal immigrants who come here illegal a benefit status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits—as much better option than deportation."
Paul is right about one thing: after reading this, I am a member of the “confused right”. How does this proposal not create “second-class citizens”? And how is it better to have a mass of semi-legal immigrants in this country than not to have them here at all?
Worst of all, Paul calls for increasing legal immigration from its present record levels. He writes: "With free markets and private property, a need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Make it legal and easy with a generous visitor work program."
And Paul attacks the motives of immigration patriots. Thus he claims that immigrants
"have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything."
This is just immigration enthusiast anti-American myth-making. The reality: despite the fact that illegal immigrants and newly arrived legal immigrants are ostensibly barred from most means tested welfare, the Center for Immigration Studies reports that 57% of immigrant households with children are on welfare—compared to just 39% of native-born households (and 30% for native-born whites).
And, disgracefully, Paul insinuates that there are “racist” motives behind immigration restriction. He writes: "It's hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant." (Link added.)
This, again, is a completely hypothetical assertion. Some 77% of illegal immigrants come from Latin America—and less than 5 % of illegal and 9% of legal immigrants come from Europe.
You guys forget there is congress and senate also, not just president.
ReplyDeleteWhat is important is an president who follows the constitution, congress will make sure no gold standard etc is implemented. Fed owns congress.
It is correct to say Paul would prefer the dollar be tied to gold and silver as a part of a transition from the Federal Reserve system. But Paul has always been in favor of free banking and competitive currencies. It's just a lie to say that he wants the entire "money" supply to be forever tied to gold. You're just propagating soundbite nonsense. If you're honest in your inquiries on this matter you should seek out his discussions of the issue that are longer than 90-second interviews with television airheads.
ReplyDeleteMe: Paul argues for a gold standard at the national level. The men who control gold will control the destiny of the nation.
ReplyDeleteTotal: It's just a lie to say that he wants the entire "money" supply to be forever tied to gold.
Who's lying?
My beef with Paul on this issue is not even on the question of whether he is or is not pro-gold standard -- of course he is!
ReplyDeleteIt's whether the gold standard is the best alternative to the status quo, or would it simply keep power in the same hands albeit with a different operating system. Questions that Total conspicuously avoids.
Assuming Total's American, see how he considers it more important to defend Paul on the gold standard question than to defend America's people and borders by not supporting Paul uncritically. One would have thought his nation might count for rather more than the choice of currency-model, but not to Total, apparently.
ReplyDeleteThis inversion of normal values is typical of the types associated with Paul, with Mises and Rothbard's cult, and with the gold standard -- money is all they are permitted to care about (this goes for the ideological 'acceptable' right generally). This is how they are compromised. Liberals, on the other hand, meaning White liberals, are compromised by only being permitted to care about the 'other'. Thus the fix is in: the money power is enthroned, the States are Untied. Job done.