Skip to comments.So you think Ron Paul is crazy? (2002 video shows him making stunningly accurate predictions)
Posted on 01/09/2012 7:07:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Intellectually speaking, we live in fascinating, if dangerous, times. Given a larger view of history, it should be understood that nations, political systems, and currencies come and go on a fairly regular basis. Human freedom is an exception -- not the norm.
There are four core components necessary for the existence of an independent, sovereign nation: A system of laws (constitutional or otherwise,) geographical borders, a sound monetary system, and a defensive function.
Presently, the United States is failing (or trending toward failure) on the first three counts. Failure on two or more will lead to a failure of the fourth (national defense.) Capitalism notwithstanding, could it be that this is what Russia, China, and the emerging Islamic Caliphate want? Or what George Soros wants?
It is for this reason that I support Ron Paul for POTUS. Yes, detractors of Paul's foreign policy may have legitimate gripes -- in particular his seeming failure to understand that radical Islamists cannot be disincentivized in the same way that Soviet Communists could.
Here is a short, 2002 video of Ron Paul making a multitude of predictions in the areas of economics and geopolitics. Watch the entire thing before judging -- Paul's accuracy craves explanation.
Could it be that Ron Paul is right about economics, the Constitution, and geopolitics, and that his detractors are the ones that have it wrong?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I’ll say this about gold. I went on a tour of the non-operational gold mine in Cripple Creek, Colorado. There is PLENTY of gold in the ground there — it’s just not economical to bring it out; esp. when it’s so cheap to mine elsewhere, such as South Africa. Some gold mines are operating, but I have no idea as to their profitability.
Oh yeah, he’s rising in the polls — everyone is quaking in their boots.
He’s showing up at 13% in South Carolina, fourth place...
Apparently you are the expert in that.
What name would you give the people who are working to destroy United States sovereignty and independence?
If you look at G H W Bush— well he brought the term New World Order to the American people.
What did he mean when he said that?
OK - well after a bit more research, you can listen to his position about this at the 3:25 mark of this video. He spells out exactly what he did and why. There is also a transcript of the video on the site.
He received a draft notice (into the Army as a “Buck Private”) and chose to volunteer as a doctor in the air force. That’s how it works my friend.. I’d say that receiving a draft notice is a reasonable equivalent for “I was drafted; particularly 50 years later than the event. It also seems that Paul could have easily gained a deferment since he was married and at the older end of the age group - but he did not go that route.
You are trying to use what is best a semantic slip or abbreviation and turn it into “he is disingenuous liar”. That’s unfair, does not flow out of your argument and some people might believe your misleading statement without checking it out.
That’s precisely the problem I’m reacting too. Way too many people on this forum are hyping up irrelevant stuff like this and clouding the bigger issues.
Were you drafted? Did you volunteer? Did you serve?
Anyone who voluntarily and honorably served in the military after receiving a draft notice checks an important block for me regardless of what sequence of events provided a catalyst for the decision. I would consider that “being drafted”
Going back to the original debate point that this was about - Paul and Perry served, Gingrich and Romney did not.
“What name would you give the people who are working to destroy United States sovereignty and independence?”
Socialists, liberals and if Ron Paul and his cult is an example of them, libertarians.
“What did he (GHWB) mean when he said that?”
Probably not the same as the much more current conspiracy fringe meaning that Ron uses the term when participating on conspiracy nut shows and to his supporters.
The socialists and liberals are globalists.
So are the corporatist fascist free traitors.
One word covers it all, so I’ll continue to use it.
That isn’t what their party platform says, and Paul ran for president under their platform.
In 1965 just as the Vietnam War was getting serious, Ron Paul left active duty and spent the rest of his career in the Air National Guard.
Then in 1968, when the Vietnam War was at its height, Ron Paul resigned his commission and left the service.
He may have been "drafted" but it sure wasn't to serve in Vietnam like he inferred.
Let us start posting the Libertarian party platform, then people can see how insane they are and learn why Ron Paul was so anti-Reagan that he left the party to become president of the Libertarian party platform.
Sorry - fail again my friend.
Paul did not say during the debate or the prior interview about Newt the week before that he was drafted “to serve in Vietnam”. He did say that Newt did not go himself “during the Viet Nam Era” when he was called. His point was of course that folks who have never served themselves should not be quick to send other young people to fight wars that are not declared by Congress (which is what our Constitution calls for).
Paul cited the Cuban Missile crisis as the backdrop for his draft notice in 1962. However, US Military involvement in Viet Nam was starting to ramp up in 1962 and 1963 even though it was a few more years before it started to escalate under LBJ. Having said that, the Viet Nam era really started in the mid 50’s - google “domino theory” if you want proof of that.
The fact that he served for two years on active duty at a time when he could have very easily gained a deferment on multiple grounds (medical residence, married, father of two, age) and then opted to proceed with his medical career (while staying in the Guard) instead of becoming a career Air Force officer is not something a rational person should find objectionable.
Keep digging..I’m not arguing the need for accuracy in support of Paul - I’d just like to see a more intelligent and accurate level of debate here on FR instead of the shrill hooting and name-calling that seems to be developing regardless of which candidate is being discussed.
Well obviously you didn’t watch the debate and saw/heard the one sentence remark from Ron Paul about his being drafted.
“Government has always had a responsibility to maintain moral values that match those of the governed, maintaining a cohesive society. Now, it is always a struggle to make sure those laws do not go too far..”
Hey Hun - can you point out to me where the Constitution or Bill of Rights says this? Just curious...
I am worried that so many folks think that our Constitution is bad and should not be followed today because it implies that one hates all government power. Reality is that it was carefully considered as a way to “limit” federal government power. (..to make sure the government does not go too far maybe?)
Also, compliments on your great use of Alinsky tactics by first implying that the tactic is bad and only used by bad people and then employing the primary technique of ridicule blatantly...some might call that hypocrisy, but it was entertaining at least. LOL!!!
It has nothing to do with “establishment”, or DU plants or statist republicans etc.
It is far simpler, sane Conservatives don't want this nut anywhere around them or the Whitehouse.
He served and that's what matters, so far as what happened 40 years ago is an issue today.
BTW, dancer, do I take it from your spiel that you voted for the candidates who did go to Vietnam in 2000 and 2004 over the one who was in the Air National Guard at home?
Is that a nah, nah, boo, boo response, Dancer?
I did in fact watch it and I reviewed the transcript before I started this conversation. Maybe you should take a look at it yourself and revisit your position? After that, please re-read my comments. I stand by them.
If you want a more productive Paul bashing arena, maybe go cite some of the oddball candidates he has allegedly supported in the past - that’s harder to reconcile.
But, there is no doubt that he pwned Newt and holds the higher ground on this draft/military service/sending our youth to multiple wars topic. It is incongruous for a non-veteran (such as yourself, presumably) bashing a veteran (who responsibly served) over technical semantics about the precise definition of “drafted”.
OK - I’m done venting and feel better now. Have a nice day!
Doing the PAUL loves REAGAN bit?
Lets see how that worked out shall we?
Congressman Pauls Letter...
As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and thats the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.
Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.
Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.
In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagans program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.
Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Partys efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip ONeill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.
Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carters four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagans five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.
All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.
Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that deficits dont matter, the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.
Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagans foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhowers, Kennedys, Johnsons, Nixons, Fords, and Carters put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.
Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.
Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.
Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.
Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagans urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive lie detector tests.
Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has sent hither swarms of tax gatherers to harass our people and eat out their substance. His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagans new tax reform gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.
Knowing this administrations record, I wasnt surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.
I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.
After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big governments best friend.
If Ronald Reagan couldnt or wouldnt balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.
I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing Americas direction.
I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
There is nothing conservative about going isolationist and removing us from the world community. Only paultards think we can do so.
For example Rick Perry was a democrat who changed parties but not his ideology. RINO, republican in name only, is a perfect description of the politician.
So, you went and saw where I posted something positive about Perry and wish to pick a fight. Sorry, no go. Typical alinsky/paultard tactic.
NWO that term was first heard by the American people when G H W Bush uttered it as he signed away American sovereignty at the United Nations Rio Accord. Is that globalist as well?
That phrase came from this speech: Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Federal Budget Deficit
You wouldn't misrepresent something, would you?
Free traitor is an apt description for the corporatist fascists ruining our economy by forcing off shoring and outsourcing in industrial and business sectors.
Right out of a AFL/CIO playbook. We are the worlds third largest exporter. How many jobs do you think that creates?
These names were used way before this election cycle.
Now we know.....by paultards doing their best to submarine conservatives.
The lunacy is among the globalists who think that killing America off with interdependence, looting our economy to raise all boats in their words, and destroying American culture with marxism and illegal immigration, can continue without very dire consequences for humanity.
Then quit helping Democrats, who are the marxists, support illegal immigrants, would give away our rights to the ICC. As far as global trade, it has "raised all boats", ours included.
You and your cohorts are deluded and I'm glad so many real conservatives have realized it.
Are you saying that we are unworthy if we are conservative but registered as Independent (as I have always been)? I did not realize that Free Republic was supposed to be Free Republican.
There is more in this letter in terms of stating facts that I agree with than disagree with. What specific item in this letter are you so upset about?
Here is the short summary of what Paul opposed in the letter: “unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.”
Which points are wrong?
I know, they just don’t get it. However, I think you hooked a live one.
I know, they just don’t get it. However, I think you hooked a live one.