2 Responses to Ron Paul Speech, Tampa Florida, August 26, 2012
- DrinkDeep says:
August 27, 2012 at 1:42 am
Ron Paul hit it out of the park again!
I’m so glad you posted this…it’s a great speech, and when he said that if he were president, 3000 people wouldn’t have died on 911…holy cow! Enjoy, folks – thanks so much, Jean*
Reply
- kibitzer3 says:
August 27, 2012 at 3:09 am
"In a legitimate and high-conscious world, neither the Democrat nor the Republican Parties would be in business right now, and the public would have a wider choice than they have now of a number of political parties, some newly organized to fill the vacuum left by the dissolution of these two entities, laid low by their criminal actions.
I refer to the role both Parties played in the candidacy in 2008 of the man who in this day and age calls himself Barack Hussein Obama (there is serious question about the man even about his name, let alone so many other things about him). The Democrat Party knew he was constitutionally ineligible for that particular office, as signaled by the way their Nominating Convention Chair Nancy Pelosi worded her statements to the various states’ election officials; and the Republican Party also knew he was ineligible, because both parties had tried numerous times in the five years leading up to that election to get a constitutional amendment started through Congress to allow less than a “natural born” citizen to run for that office. All of those efforts failed even to get out of committee. So TPTB of both political parties obviously colluded in a decision just to quietly do an end-around of the Constitution, and fake their way into their Brave New post-constitutional World. This was not only deceitful. It was illegal. And when BHO finally – under pressure – posted an alleged copy of his long-form BC on the Internet, which has, according to detailed analysis by a number of electronic-document experts, turned out to be a forgery (and not even a good one at that, according to them, and anybody reviewing their analyses), he committed a crime right there. And not just a minor crime: a felony. Bingo.
And the sitting Congress itself would be out on its ear right now in such a world of legitimacy and rules – after a march on Washington of The People, Assembled – for being the party of legal ‘standing’ to this serious matter, of the overthrowing of the U.S. Constitution. But I’ll keep this summary of the case, of major national significance, strictly to the issue of the two main political parties. They signed off on this crime, each for their own purposes; the Republicans, obviously looking for a quid pro quo: for the chance to run one of their own ineligible people for that office (or the vice-presidency, now being constitutionally covered by the same requirement), and slipping him/her through the same door as had been opened by the candidacy of BHO. It’s all enough to have had every one of the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves, and calling out for justice to be served – and a similar voice from every citizen who has ever sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, that it be protected from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
How did we become such a generation of failures to The Dream, of a nation of self-governed sovereign citizens, taking responsibility along with the authority?? Another subject, for another time, perhaps. For this time, I just point out that a) the man currently occupying the office of the presidency of the United States is there under false pretenses, plus has committed crimes while in that position, and so needs to be made to vacate the office forthwith; b) the sitting Congress should have been dissolved, for being an accessory to and after the fact of the original crime, and new elections held by now; and c) both political parties involved in the crime should have been up before a court on, at the very least, RICO statutes. So we could now have been having decent, more clear-cut choices for federal political office, representing the will of The People. Not of special interests.
If we had done our job, as self-governing individuals; holding the torch of Liberty high, for all humankind to gain inspiration from. Alas. We have blown a major opportunity to prove our worth, in the court of simple human justice.
Perhaps there is still time, to salvage SOMETHING from this embarrassing debacle…"
- I continued to think of this issue overnight, and find this morning that I am still incensed over this matter. The matter, essentially, of the purloining of the U.S. presidency. But as to the specific matter, of how it happened, and the lesson, hopefully, learned from it; the lesson, that words have meanings, and you tamper with those meanings at your peril. So take, e.g., the meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen.' as appears in the Constitution as a qualifying requirement for a candidate for the office of the presidency - and only that particular federal office, which not so incidentally is as well of the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces.*
It was very clear what the meaning of the term was at the time and in the minds of those who put it in the Constitution and ratified that document - that compact; and if you're going to change the meaning of a term in a contract, you have to obtain the permission of both/all parties to the contract. And there has yet to be an amendment to the Constitution in this regard. As indicated above, that approach has been tried; but the attempts, to get such an amendment through the Congress - the appropriate, legislative branch of the federal government, to present to the States for sufficient ratification - have all failed. And you can't obtain by chicanery what you haven't obtained by legal means. You can try. But you should be slapped down for your ignominious efforts.
So, in short: Just declaring unilaterally that you have changed the definition of a term in a contract doesn't cut it. That is not legality. That is tyranny. And it must not be allowed to stand. In this instance, or any other such instance. For, to move from the rule of law to the rule of men is a decision fraught with significance, and peril.
I urge you, America: Do not go there. We have already seen, in the pages and experience of history, what that sort of decision can lead to. The result has consistently been not pretty. Has been, in point of fact: extremely ugly. I abjure you to reconsider the path you have started down. For a people have not only a right, but a duty - to humanity - to overthrow tyranny. And every form thereof; in the words of Thomas Jefferson. In his statement of principle; to wit: "I have sworn upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
I add the whole quote here because it is my impression that the country's public schools have done a poor job of passing on to the generations the basics of United States History and Government, and many citizens these days may well not know some of the stirring statements of the statesmen and women of our past. It appears to be, sometimes, to my observation, a matter of many citizens these days being 'strangers in a strange land',** that they know little about. A pity. And an insight, as to why so many citizens seem not to have an affinity with what has happened in this country, in its history, to give many other citizens such tender feelings for their home country, and its Constitution, that others seem not to have any real understanding of. To the point where they would go along with the labeling of those true citizens 'terrorists', for standing up for it so staunchly, against those who would overthrow it, for a little 'temporary safety' - in the words of another of its Founding Fathers.
Oh dear. Do I really have to spell this one out? Apparently so. This, from Benjamin Franklin (and I refuse to spell out who he was. Look it up):
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And there is an interesting point here, in giving this quote, that I will end my little jeremiad on. That is, that this quote has taken a number of forms over the years, as people have misquoted it, and others have picked up on the misquotes. Thus, it also appears as 'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little...' etc. And the point I want to make, and end on, is that those misquotes, though 'changes' from the original, have changed nothing of substance about his original statement.
Unlike the modern rendering, by people with an agenda, of the term 'natural born citizen'. A crucial term, with a specific meaning, to and for a proper reading of the Constitution.
And those who would finagle with it, to serve their expedient ends, need not apply. Or there will be the devil to pay.
The devil being in the details.
P.S. And a further comment, here, of mine, on another thread, just because it feels appropriate, to end this sharing with; this from David Wilcock's 'divine cosmos' blog:
Stan
August 25, 2012
...
To say: The role-playing has had its day. It's time for the real thing.
And a bit further to that, and then I'll make this a wrap; this, in response to my opening posting:
And a bit further to that, and then I'll make this a wrap; this, in response to my opening posting:
Let me suggest that Mother Earth is not one bit interested in ‘saving this embarrassing debacle.” She is creating something entirely new and different, and we would make better use of our time were we to envision what sort of a world we want to co-create with her, rather on dwelling on our present problems and issues. When all is said and doen, very few of these people presently in government will remain. Our government will not look the same or be the same – so why are we dwelling on it!
Hugs,
~Jean
~Jean
kibitzer3 says:
Jean:
Fair point. I would just say, briefly, in reply: Because we can learn important things from such things. Things about ourselves; things about the need for higher consciousness & awareness than we have often demonstrated, along the way. But: point taken.
footnotes:
* The office of the Vice Presidency has subsequently been constitutionally altered to require the same qualification (12th Amendment). Non-natural born citizens need not apply. I don't care from which political party.
And neither should you.
And neither should you.
** familiar with the expression? Any idea where it comes from?? Look it up. A clue: Robert Heinlein.
Thanks much for the links to the Darryl Robert Schoon story.
Some people feel that the corruption we are faced with is so pervasive, and TPTB so powerful, that the truth of things will never come out. But it will. It will. 'All the hidden things will be revealed.' Because the party's over. The play has been the thing by which to capture the conscience of the king, and have every soul prove its worth. Some are worth far more than others; and they will be rewarded. The others? Ah, well. They have made their bed; and they will have to 'lie' in it, as it were. In the meantime: may other good sources continue to come out, as you have drawn our attention to. As things now come to a head, and we 'head' for Ascension.