Une approche critique du projet de nouvel ordre mondial que certaines institutions supra nationales et think tanks tentent de mener à bien sous prétexte de santé publique et de lutte contre le terrorisme ou le réchauffement climatique.
BLACKSBURG, S.C. — The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a 73-year-old Virginia resident who was allegedly ordered by a park ranger to remove his car from a national military park in South Carolina because of political messages attached to his vehicle. Jack Faw, whose ancestors fought in the historic battle memorialized at Kings Mountain National Military Park, contacted The Rutherford Institute after being told by a park ranger that the decal promoting a political organization associated with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), which was displayed on the back window of Faw’s car, was not allowed in the park. In a legal letter to Park officials, constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead warned that the ranger’s directive, which resulted in Faw being forced to leave the park, violated Faw’s First Amendment rights, as well as National Park Service regulations. Whitehead also demanded assurances that Park employees will be properly instructed in how to respect the constitutional rights of visitors to the Park so that Faw and others will not face similar restrictions in the future.
Whitehead’s letter to officials at Kings Mountain National Military Park is available here.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“The display of political messages from a vehicle is unquestionably expression protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “This type of censorship is what you would expect in some foreign regime, not a public park in America.”
Jack Faw is a frequent visitor to Kings Mountain National Military Park in Blacksburg, S.C., which marks the site where three of his ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. Faw visited the park on May 6, 2011, en route to his home in Virginia. Soon after arriving and in the midst of his tour through the exhibits, Faw was approached by a park ranger who asked Faw to come into the ranger’s office. The ranger informed Faw that he must remove his car from the parking lot because it displayed a political decal that is not allowed in National Parks. On the rear window of Faw’s passenger vehicle is a translucent decal promoting “Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty,” an organization dedicated to reestablishing and furthering the principles embodied in the United States Constitution. Although Faw protested that he had a right to display the decal and asserted it was not causing any disturbance, the ranger insisted that the car be removed from the park, at which point Mr. Faw felt compelled to comply with the order and left the Park.
Insisting that National Park employees be properly educated about basic constitutional precepts in order to ensure that this incident is not repeated, attorney John Whitehead reminded Park officials that visitors to National Parks do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to speech and expression. Indeed, noted Whitehead, Faw’s political messages on his vehicle appear to be wholly consistent with and allowable under regulations promulgated last October by the National Park Service concerning expressive activities by the public within National Parks. Furthermore, not only is the display of a political message on a vehicle unquestionably expression protected by the First Amendment, but a federal appeals court recently ruled that the right of citizens to freedom of speech applies within the confines of National Parks.
Glorified Tea Party candidate Cain holds establishment values: pro-war, pro-Federal Reserve, pro-bailout and more
Infowars.com May 6, 2011
The Fox News-led GOP debate last night in South Carolina gave the first formal glimpse of the emerging 2012 GOP presidential field, though more thought was perhaps spent on the presumptive (selected & vetted by the establishment) big name contenders who have yet to enter or debate. Congressman Ron Paul was perhaps the most well-known face next to a field otherwise unseen in 2008. With him were former Senator Rick Santorum, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, businessman and former KC Federal Reserve chair Herman Cain and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.
After the debate, an artificial-esque buzz quickly centered around Herman Cain, who has positioned himself as a Tea Party candidate and gained popularity for his ‘tough’ rhetoric.
A Fox-focus group fielded by the notorious Frank Luntz quickly established that Herman Cain had won the debate (in lieu of a poll, apparently). Cain charmed a majority of the 29 handpicked and carefully-handled likely Republicans in Luntz’s focus group. After all, he’s a fresh face, he talks about smaller government, ending the economic crisis and he’s a successful businessman.
Frank Luntz Focus Group Names Herman Cain Winner of First GOP Debate
Just as in 2008 with dud-candidate Fred Thompson, Luntz used the perception of a quick turn-around of support to promote the candidate as a possible front runner. Luntz declared the reaction to Cain as “unprecendented” and suggested a spontaneous surge in his viability.
Fox News’ website coverage of the debate features a poll– but on top issues rather than candidates. This effectively obscures the already existing base of substantial support for Ron Paul, which does not exist for the other candidates on the stage. A CNN poll released Thursday (prior to the debate) found Ron Paul did best against President Obama, garnering 10% next to potential candidates like Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney, Trump and Palin.
Fox New’s hoax that Herman Cain won the debate is but an opening salvo in a familiar pattern of downplaying Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency to restore sound money and the Constitution. Perhaps that is why Ron Paul snubbed a post-debate interview with Ron Paul, instead going to a Tea Party event.
However, a sober look at Cain’s statements tonight and his past record show little to be enthused about. He stands diametrically opposed the fundamental positions of pro-liberty candidates like Ron Paul. Cain is pro-war and appears to be pro-Empire, against a Federal Reserve audit, and has been supportive and apologetic about the bailout. Free market is incompatible with crony capitalism and Fed intervention.
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate – Part 1
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were distinct in their libertarian-edged stances on an immediate end to wars and the overseas empire, foreign aid, economic solutions, drug decriminalization and other issues, but received no doting from media ‘analysts’. Paul, however, drew heavy applause for most of his answers, including a call to bring the troops home from Afghanistan. Johnson had to speak out just to be fielded a question every now and then.
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate – Part 2
Paul has already been cheaply attacked over being supposedly pro-Heroin due to his stated position about drug decriminalization.
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate -Part 3
Cain, Santorum and Pawlenty lined up to regurgitate the typical hawkish position for war, torture, military adventures, and beyond. Big talk about budgets and deficits, but no serious talk about military spending. Typical social-wedge issues also came up including abortion, stem-cell research and gay marriage.
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate -Part 4
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate -Part 5
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate -Part 6
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate – Part 7
FLASHBACK: Herman Cain, 2012 hopeful: “There’s No Reason To Audit The Federal Reserve”
You Tube
Herman Cain, former Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, flippantly denies the need to Audit the Federal Reserve while hosting the Neil Boortz Radio Show on 12/29/10
I’ve noticed that Herman Cain, who is already an announced candidate for president, seems to have a close association with the Koch brothers. He attended the recent Koch conference in Rancho Mirage and he has been a speaker at the Koch-funded rightonline.
I have seen clips of him speak, but never anything of substance. He sure can deliver a speech though (see below). So I was excited to see that he was going to appear on Eliot Spitzer’s CNN show last night. True to form he gave one hell of a performance. Lot’s of talk about cutting government down to size (all generalities though), and he threw out the fact that he was a former exec at Pillsbury and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza for 10 years. But then Spitzer zeroed in. He asked Cain about the war in Iraq. Cain said he supported it because, get this, Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Cain also said that he was in favor of food stamps (Though the program needs to cut out fraud). It also sounds like Cain is in favor of some kind of “fair tax”, whatever that is.
And, oh yeah, he’s a former chairman (1995-96) and deputy chairman (1992-94) of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
What the hell are the Koch brothers thinking?
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
When you compare Ron Paul to Herman Cain, the choice is obvious. Congressman Paul says, let’s start by bringing U.S. troops home from overseas to help reduce the budget deficit and shift priorities to Americans. He is like that on every issue. He is always about details and specifics He doesn’t talk in generalities such as “Well I’m a great manager”, like Cain does. Everybody says that, from Mitt Romney to Rudy Giuliani. Who needs more of that?
Congressman Paul is also more principled. You would never see Congressman Paul, as a libertarian, ever say that the food stamp program is a good program. And it appears he has a different view about the Fed, than does the former Fed insider Cain.
So what are the supposed libertarian Koch brothers up to here? It sure isn’t about backing the most libertarian candidate. That’s clearly Ron Paul. It really strikes me that Cain is likely more controllable than Congressman Paul. You know in advance where Ron Paul is going to stand on issues. He is not about to change anything for a couple of billionaire brothers playing Kochopoly with the world.
If I’m a billionaire playing Kochopoly, I like this guy. He seems to have that ability to fine tune his thinking to the greater good of the billionaire game. I’m thinking, we may have another Paul Volcker or Colin Powell type. Volcker and Powell, I’m convinced, if called upon by their controls, could justify doing pretty much anything.
It is obvious Ron Paul represents a political threat to the neocons when the former Marxist David Horowitz calls the Texas congressman an anti-Semite.
“For years the Texas crackpot, Ron Paul, has been attacking America and Israel as imperialist powers — the Great Satan and the Little Satan, and calling for America’s retreat from the battle against our totalitarian enemies,” writes the former communist turned neocon (a natural transformation – the neocon movement was established by Trotskyites).
Horowitz continues:
At the recent CPAC conference Paul’s Jew-hating storm-troopers swarmed the Freedom Center’s table to vent their spleen against Israel as a Nazi state. Now Paul is making a priority of withdrawing aid for Israel — the only democracy in the Middle East and the only reliable ally of the United States. Here is an alert from Gary Bauer about the amendment Ron Paul is proposing which may be voted on today.
Ron Paul and millions of other Americans believe the United States government does not have the right to confiscate the wealth of hard-working citizens and dole it out as “foreign aid” to Israel or any other nation.
Israel is the largest recipient of stolen goods from the American people and that is why it was mentioned by Ron Paul.
Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul – recently elected by the people of Kentucky to serve in the U.S. Senate – are not afraid of the neocons, Israel’s arm-twisting lobby in Washington, or the former Marxist turned neocon opportunist David Horowitz. It is immoral to take the money of the American people and give it away to Israel and Egypt – the second largest recipient of stolen goods – or any other country.
More than anything, the neocons know their shakedown scam is coming to an end. The United States has the largest national debt in history and can no longer afford to steal money and give it away to Israel of any other undeserving country. The bogus anti-Semitism canard no longer works.
It also irks Horowitz and the faux conservatives that Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll and actually stands a good chance of becoming the next president. For the neocons, a Ron Paul presidency is their worst nightmare. If elected, Paul will work hard to put an end to wars designed by neocons in the Pentagon to wreck small nations in the Middle East and kill Muslims and Arabs.
Ron and his son Rand Paul are not anti-Semites as the disingenuous David Horowitz claims. They are patriotic Americans who understand that the foreign and fiscal policies of the United States will ultimately destroy the nation and reduce its citizens to paupers.
David Horowitz and the neocons have done more than any other group in recent history – with the exception of the banksters – to facilitate the destruction of what was once the most productive republic in the world.
Horowitz and the neocons are responsible for the murder of nearly a million and a half Iraqis. David Horowitz should be arrested immediately and tried as a war propagandist. He is no different than Hans Fritzsche, the German newspaper journalist who supported the Nazis. Fritzsche was charged with conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
For the past three decades, the Federal Reserve has been given a dual mandate: keeping prices stable and maximizing employment. This policy relies not only on the fatal conceit of believing in the wisdom of supposed experts, but also on numerical chicanery.
Rather than understanding inflation in the classical sense as a monetary phenomenon– an increase in the money supply- it has been redefined as an increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is calculated based on a weighted basket of goods which is constantly fluctuating, allowing for manipulation of the index to keep inflation expectations low. Employment figures are much the same, relying on survey data, seasonal adjustments, and birth/death models, while the major focus remains on the unemployment rate. Of course, the unemployment rate can fall as discouraged workers drop out of the labor market altogether, leading to the phenomenon of a falling unemployment rate with no job growth.
In terms of keeping stable prices, the Fed has failed miserably. According to the government’s own CPI calculators, it takes $2.65 today to purchase what cost one dollar in 1980. And since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has presided over a 98% decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. The average American family sees the price of milk, eggs, and meat increasing, while packaged household goods decrease in size rather than price.
Loose fiscal policy has failed to create jobs also. Consider that we had a $700 billion TARP program, nearly $1 trillion in stimulus spending, a government takeover of General Motors, and hundreds of billions of dollars of guarantees to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, FDIC, etc. On top of those programs the Federal Reserve has provided over $4 trillion worth of assistance over the past few years through its credit facilities, purchases of mortgage-backed securities, and now its second round of quantitative easing. Yet even after all these trillions of dollars of spending and bailouts, total nonfarm payroll employment is still seven million jobs lower than it was before this crisis began.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
In this same period of time, the total U.S. population has increased by nine million people. We would expect that roughly four million of these people should have been employed, so we are really dealing with eleven million fewer employed people than would otherwise be expected.
It should not be surprising that monetary policy is ineffective at creating actual jobs. It is the effects of monetary policy itself that cause the boom and bust of the business cycle that leads to swings in the unemployment rate. By lowering interest rates through its loose monetary policy, the Fed spurs investment in long-term projects that would not be profitable at market-determined interest rates. Everything seems to go well for awhile until businesses realize that they cannot sell their newly-built houses, their inventories of iron ore, or their new cars. Until these resources are redirected, often with great economic pain for all involved, true economic recovery cannot begin.
Over $4 trillion in bailout facilities and outright debt monetization, combined with interest rates near zero for over two years, have not and will not contribute to increased employment. What is needed is liquidation of debt and malinvested resources. Pumping money into the same sectors that have just crashed merely prolongs the crisis. Until we learn the lesson that jobs are produced through real savings and investment and not through the creation of new money, we are doomed to repeat this boom and bust cycle.
During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Congressman Ron Paul dropped perhaps the biggest hint yet that he is preparing to announce his campaign for the presidency, affirming he has the ability to unite Republicans, independents and progressive to defeat the “warmongering” Barack Obama.
Asked if he could beat Obama, Paul responded, “The reality is it would be very, very difficult, but if you look at the polls, and there aren’t that many, my appeal is to a lot of independents and a lot of progressive Democrats who are sick and tired of Obama for opting out of cutting back on some of this militarism,” adding that his numbers would be even bigger when stacked up against Obama than they would be in a Republican primary.
“He’s a war monger,” Rep. Paul added. “He’s expanding the war. My numbers would be much bigger running against Obama than they will be running against some conservative in the Republican primary.”
Indeed, an April 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that Paul was almost level with Obama if the two were to go head to head for the presidency. Following a 15 point bounce in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, Obama has pulled away from all potential Republican candidates, but given the momentum Paul could build with his energetic grass roots base, beating Obama would be a distinct possibility.
Despite the fact that a Rasmussen poll released last week showed that Paul was ahead of Sarah Palin in terms of having the ability to beat Obama, a Fox News poll released yesterday, which showed all of the establishment Republican candidates trailing Obama by some margin, did not even include Paul in the survey.
Exemplifying again how the establishment consistently tries to derail Paul’s momentum by ignoring his very existence, obscure names like John Thune and Jon Huntsman were included in the Fox poll and yet Paul was omitted entirely.
During the MSNBC segment, the Congressman pointed out that the debate over military spending was a matter of semantics, arguing that the issue had little to do with “defense” and more to do with propping up the US military-industrial complex and occupying foreign countries.
“I think the problem we have is with the semantics,” said Paul. “They have conditioned us all to use the word defense spending. Who wants to cut defense? I don’t want to cut defense. I want a stronger defense.”
“I want to cut the militarism, the interventionism, the stuff that hurts us, that makes us more vulnerable,” he added. “If we separate defense from militarism, maybe more people would be willing to accept it. Who wants to be on record who says I just voted against the defense budget.”
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“I think it’s a perception and a semantics problem that we have to try to reeducate the people to understand what we’re talking about.”
“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.
By lumping Ron Paul in with the “feeble and appeasing” Obama administration, Marks attempts to make a distinction between Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush, by portraying Obama as weak on “defense,” when in reality, the Obama war chest has been bigger than anything ever passed under Bush year upon year. Obama’s 2011 war chest swelled to more than 700 billion dollars – that’s more than Bush ever got.
Indeed, as soon as Obama took office his first action was to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and to expand the Bush-era bombings in Pakistan, as well as opening up a new front in Yemen. There are more US troops deployed globally under Obama than there ever were under Bush.
Bush and Obama have both followed identical interventionist foreign policies that mainly revolve around carpet bombing goat herders in broken-backed third world countries, something that Paul rightly points out has nothing to do with the “defense” of the United States.
The fact that Obama has a bigger military budget than Bush ever did gives a pretty clear indication that occupying and invading foreign countries has nothing to do with true conservatism – it comes from the foundational beliefs of those whom the Young Americans for Freedom organization would undoubtedly champion – neo-cons who are nothing more than Trotskyites – they believe wholeheartedly in the welfare-warfare state.
Ron Paul should be honored to be kicked out of this pitiful little group – because it only crystallizes his character as a real conservative, while the Young Americans for Freedom are nothing more than a mouthpiece for neo-cons who have more in common with historical Marxists than they do the founding fathers of America.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
Prospective presidential candidate Donald Trump caused a sensation at the start of yesterday’s CPAC event when he dismissed Ron Paul’s chances of beating Obama in 2012, saying the Texas Congressman had “zero chance” of winning the election.
“By the way, Ron Paul cannot get elected, I’m sorry to tell you,” Trump told the CPAC crowd, to a chorus of both boos and applause.
“I like Ron Paul, I think he’s a good guy, but honestly I think he has zero chance of getting elected, you have to win an election,” the billionaire socialite added.
In actual fact, the Texas Congressman has a greater chance of beating Obama in 2012 than someone who the Republican establishment is likely to throw their weight behind next year – Sarah Palin.
A Rasmussen poll released Monday showed that Paul leads Palin in being able to build a campaign that would prevent Obama from securing a second term. The poll shows that in these early stages, Ron Paul would poll 35% of votes to Obama’s 44%, where as Sarah Palin would attract 38% to an Obama count of 49%.
The figures mean that at this time the Texas Congressman would score 2% more of the overall vote than the former governor of Alaska.
Those numbers are also based on the fact that Obama is still riding high on a recent 15 point bounce in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, a lead that is sure to subside as the election nears. Once Paul is able to mobilize his hugely effective grass roots base, which outstrips anything the likes of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Mike Huckabee can call upon, a 9 point deficit is far from insurmountable.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Indeed, before the Tucson shootings when Obama was at one of the lowest ebbs of his popular approval, a YouGov/Polimetrix study found that establishment Republican candidates like Palin, Gingrich and Romney were all losing popularity at a similar pace to the president. Only Ron Paul has bucked this trend.
Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008 will only be motivated to do so again if Republicans put forward a compromised candidate who can easily be characterized as George W. Bush 2.0. If Ron Paul runs against Obama, huge numbers of Democrats will take a back seat, and some may even switch allegiances, such is the profound sense of betrayal many liberals now feel towards Obama’s completely unfulfilled promises of hope and change.
Donald Trump is completely wrong in his assertion that Paul has “zero chance” of beating Obama. Indeed, once the establishment media gets its teeth into the likes of Palin, Romney, Gingrich and indeed Trump himself, their compromised backgrounds will almost guarantee Obama the victory, whereas Paul’s squeaky clean track record cannot be as easily distorted.
By the time the campaign season is in full swing, and the mud begins to stick to the names of establishment Republican candidates, Ron Paul may be the only contender who can beat Obama in 2012.
—
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
A Rasmussen poll released Monday indicates that Congressman Ron Paul has a better shot of beating Obama in the 2012 presidential election than Sarah Palin would, should both decide to run on the GOP ticket.
The poll shows that in these extremely early stages, Ron Paul would poll 35% of votes to Obama’s 44%, where as Sarah Palin would attract 38% to an Obama count of 49%.
The figures mean that at this time the Texas Congressman would score 2% more of the overall vote than the former governor of Alaska.
With a sustained campaign behind him once more, Paul’s figures would undoubtedly shoot up. Indeed, at the height of the backlash against Obama last year, a similar Rasmussen survey found that a hypothetical 2012 election race between Obama and Paul would result in an almost dead heat.
Of course, we should not be surprised by the figures, given that Ron Paul was the figurehead at the inception of the Tea Party movement, which consisted of a small but dedicated team of people who organized Boston Tea Party re-enactment protests in 50 different cities in late 2007, in support of Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign.
The libertarian themed protests became extremely popular, and continued throughout 2008 and into 2009, prompting thousands of people to engage in peaceful political protest.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Since that time the movement has been co-opted by the establishment GOP and figures such as Palin, who is as much a pro-war hawk as the neocons responsible for miring the US in two endless, devastating and extremely costly wars.
Other candidates ranking high against Obama in the poll included the usual GOP establishment crowd of Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
As we have previously highlighted, perhaps the only saving grace for Obama is the fact that those Republican candidates have all lost popularity at a similar pace to the President. If Obama were to run against any of these individuals, he would probably still win, such is American’s increasing disdain for the two party monopoly.
Ron Paul would be the only Republican candidate to carry a message that resonates with the American people, his thoroughbred anti-war and anti-big government stance.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq war.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who will not seek to lead the U.S. into yet more military confrontations.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who is not compromised while the likes of Romney and Palin have more skeletons in their closet than a fancy dress boutique.
Ron Paul is the only candidate period who has promised to abolish the IRS, the Federal Reserve and end the fraudulent fiat-based money system that is crippling America’s economy while lining the pockets of the ultra-rich.
Rasmussen surmises from its findings that it is safe to assume that the president’s actual vote total on Election Day 2012 will be close to his overall job approval rating at the time. Therefore, if Obama’s job approval ratings improve from this point forward, it is likely that his support will increase against all Republican candidates. If his job approval ratings fall, his numbers are likely to weaken against all potential candidates.
Ron Paul has no better chance to become President than in 2012 and we urge him to accept the challenge and provide millions of Americans with genuine hope that the country can still be rescued from its current spiral of terminal decline.
—
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
