HOLY COW - Dr. Murray Sabrin takes on Senator John McCain - MUST SEE!!!

ClayTrainor said:
That was well said by sabrin.

Man, i would kill for a badass 3rd party candidate like Ventura to get into the debates and rip Obama and McCain apart on Foreign Policy!!!
Click to expand...
Problem is they won't allow a 3rd party candidate to debate them.
 
I just got a call from Dr. Murray Sabrin - himself!

He called to thank me for my previous donation and told me his campaign is going great. I congratulated him on the McCain video and told him how positive the response has been.

We need to forward that video to EVERYONE we know and ask them to donate Dr. Sabrin ASAP!

It is only a matter of time before McCain and the rest of the neoconservatives ATTACK him and he needs more resources.

Go to www.MurraySabrin.com and donate right away!
 
I'll probably be part of a small minority in thinking and saying this, but here it is.

This open letter kinda concerns me - Mr. Sabrin doesn't know Obama's platform well... it's somewhat of a pro-Obama letter to McCain, oddly enough.

For one, Obama doesn't have a traditional Republican foreign policy at all - it really made me cringe to read that. Our founding fathers absolutely didn't want our troops occupying over 100 nations. Obama absolutely would keep our 'occupations' globally (has never once stated he would end all overseas occupations), and nation buidling happens through those occupations - although Obama has stated at rallies and on television that he wants to end our 'occupation' in Iraq, he doesn't seem to understand that having any type of USA involvement, be it troops or 'peacekeeping missions', or what we've had over in Korea for decades, IS OCCUPATION - no matter what 'nice' term you give it - occupation is occupation.

Even if you're in a country 'helping out' with some 'transition to Democracy' (which is a horrible form of government to be pushing around the globe... we're a Constituional Republic - not supposed to be a Democracy) it is not through any vote from these occupied nations that USA people in any capacity are in these occupied nations, and my guess is if you had people in Iraq vote on even Obama's 'Democratic' plans to keep 'helping out' over there in Iraq, the people of Iraq would most likely vote "NO THANKS" in a landslide.

Helping out is not the role of government - churches and private charities would do a much better job of it, always have, and private citizens of the USA have a great record of giving, to help out those in crisis around the globe.

You can bet many international private groups and organizations WILL step up to the plate to help out in Iraq once the USA dollar crashes - and odds are, because most Americans will be so financially crushed by what is up and coming (or down and going, as it is), I'm thinking USA churches and private sector charity for here at home will be tapped out from trying to help USA citizens, let alone being capable of helping out anyone overseas. But we're not the only nation with private citizens with a great record of giving and stepping up to the plate to help out those in need.

And we just made Iraq really needy.

Obama has plans to keep non-combat troops (and some 'privately' hired combat ready troops) plugged in Iraq for many, many years to come (on his website, you can print out and read his entire 'plans' for Iraq, which include a lot of USA continued funding/$$$ and an enormous USA presence.)

It doesn't matter if you're over there forcing our failed education system with a federal 30%+ drop out rate onto Iraqi children building schools on USA tax dollars (as Clinton wants to do for the entire middle east and eventually the world) or if you're over there just 'helping out with a transition' that costs billions - while our elderly senior citizens watch their life savings get wiped out with the crashing dollar and wonder what they are going to do about all of these 'whispers' about Social Security and Medicare 'not being financially sustainable' for the years and decades to come.

What's compassionate about stealing from and screwing over one person to help out another? Nothing. Screwing over hundreds of thousands of Senior Citizens to 'help out' an equivalent amount of Iraqis isn't based on logic, isn't based on true compassion, and definitely isn't based upon the principles this country was founded upon.

My other two concerns with Sabrin's letter, regarding his own ideas of foreign policy - the wording 'combat troops', which implies keeping non-combat troops there in some capicity for the years/decades to come after 2010, along with not removing all 'combat troops' until 2010 - why not now? How can we afford one more year of this war, let alone another 2 years??? Sabrin's plan sounds very much like Obama's plan, not Ron Paul's plan (which is the most logical and compassionate of all Foreign Policy plans.)




Ronnie1776 said:
An open message to Senator John McCain:

As it is most likely you will be the Republican nominee for President and I will be the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in New Jersey, I have one really big favor to ask of you: STOP trying to convince the American people you are right on our involvement in Iraq's Civil War. I have made it abundantly clear when I am elected to the United States Senate I will do everything within my powers to bring all the combat troops home from Iraq by September 2010 (2 ½ years from now), irrespective of who occupies the Oval Office. I will agree to disagree with you on this very important issue.

Let's have some straight talk my friend: I am not going to convince you that your position is wrong and you are not going to convince 75% of New Jersey voters you are right. One rule of thumb my parents taught me was the first thing to do when you are digging a hole for yourself - stop digging. I am sure you will continue to be asked about your position on Iraq and I am not suggesting for you to not answer the question. But instead of giving platitudes like you "want to win the war" or if we exit now "we are retreating", try offering to the American people YOUR exit strategy and the tactics to accomplish that strategy. As a great military hero you know all successful military plans have an exit strategy - that is what Americans want to hear, not gaffes like your infamous "100 years in Iraq" statement.

I am still confused how Senator Barack Obama has a more traditional Republican foreign policy than you do (i.e., no nation-building, no pre-emptive attacks) but I will leave that for another conversation.

As recent polls in New Jersey and across America show you are dragging down the rest of the Republican ticket. In New Jersey you are now trailing the presumptive Democratic-nominee, Senator Obama 56% to 32% (Monmouth University poll) and 48% to 40% (Bergen Record poll). The Monmouth University poll gave you a 39% favorable to 45% unfavorable opinion - I am no political scientist, but those are not good numbers. Nationally, the picture looks equally weak.

As the likely Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey, part of my responsibility will be to lead the Republican Party in New Jersey and protect the Congressional and local candidates from a Democratic rout come November. Hence, my message to you today.

In order to win back those "Reagan Democrats" you must focus your campaign on kitchen table issues. This is why I have proposed The Sabrin Solution which is a simple three point plan to communicate: 1) secure our borders from foreign terrorists and illegal immigrants, 2) secure our economic well-being by getting government off our backs and out of our wallets, and 3) secure our children's well-being by increasing choice in education and increasing our liberties and freedoms. This was Ronald Reagan's message, this is my message to New Jersey voters and I strongly believe this can be a winning message for your campaign. My message to Legalize Freedom is resonating with voters which is why I am the frontrunner to take on the extremely liberal Frank Lautenberg in November.

Stop with the silly gimmicks like eliminating the gas tax for three months - you don't need to be a Ph.D. in economics (I have a Ph.D. in economic geography from Rutgers) to know this will have little, if any positive impact on the economy. As a matter of fact, a very good argument can be made your plan will have a negative impact because it will have a minimal positive impact on working Americans while increasing the deficit without offsetting spending (I think I heard that from you back during the first Bush tax cuts). You lose credibility with the American voters when you offer such economic gimmicks.

The American tax-payer wants you to fight for them and when they see the Federal Reserve give a $30 billion bail out to Wall Street and you remain silent they become suspect. Silence is approval and a good fiscal conservative would never approve such a transaction. Fight for Main Street, fight for the middle class, and fight for our freedoms - those are the qualities Americans are looking for in their next President. You can see more about my efforts to correct our failed monetary policy by visiting my website MurraySabrin.com.

If you don't heed my advice, not only will you lose in November, but you will take the Republican Party down with you. It will be my job to make sure the "Obama Tsunami" doesn't wash ashore the Jersey coast in November.

In Liberty,
Murray Sabrin, Ph.D.
Republican candidate for United States Senate in New Jersey
Click to expand...
 
Either you are a plant or you didnt read!

BagOfEyebrows said:
I'll probably be part of a small minority in thinking and saying this, but here it is.

This open letter kinda concerns me - Mr. Sabrin doesn't know Obama's platform well... it's somewhat of a pro-Obama letter to McCain, oddly enough.

For one, Obama doesn't have a traditional Republican foreign policy at all - it really made me cringe to read that. Our founding fathers absolutely didn't want our troops occupying over 100 nations. Obama absolutely would keep our 'occupations' globally (has never once stated he would end all overseas occupations), and nation buidling happens through those occupations - although Obama has stated at rallies and on television that he wants to end our 'occupation' in Iraq, he doesn't seem to understand that having any type of USA involvement, be it troops or 'peacekeeping missions', or what we've had over in Korea for decades, IS OCCUPATION - no matter what 'nice' term you give it - occupation is occupation.

Even if you're in a country 'helping out' with some 'transition to Democracy' (which is a horrible form of government to be pushing around the globe... we're a Constituional Republic - not supposed to be a Democracy) it is not through any vote from these occupied nations that USA people in any capacity are in these occupied nations, and my guess is if you had people in Iraq vote on even Obama's 'Democratic' plans to keep 'helping out' over there in Iraq, the people of Iraq would most likely vote "NO THANKS" in a landslide.

Helping out is not the role of government - churches and private charities would do a much better job of it, always have, and private citizens of the USA have a great record of giving, to help out those in crisis around the globe.

You can bet many international private groups and organizations WILL step up to the plate to help out in Iraq once the USA dollar crashes - and odds are, because most Americans will be so financially crushed by what is up and coming (or down and going, as it is), I'm thinking USA churches and private sector charity for here at home will be tapped out from trying to help USA citizens, let alone being capable of helping out anyone overseas. But we're not the only nation with private citizens with a great record of giving and stepping up to the plate to help out those in need.

And we just made Iraq really needy.

Obama has plans to keep non-combat troops (and some 'privately' hired combat ready troops) plugged in Iraq for many, many years to come (on his website, you can print out and read his entire 'plans' for Iraq, which include a lot of USA continued funding/$$$ and an enormous USA presence.)

It doesn't matter if you're over there forcing our failed education system with a federal 30%+ drop out rate onto Iraqi children building schools on USA tax dollars (as Clinton wants to do for the entire middle east and eventually the world) or if you're over there just 'helping out with a transition' that costs billions - while our elderly senior citizens watch their life savings get wiped out with the crashing dollar and wonder what they are going to do about all of these 'whispers' about Social Security and Medicare 'not being financially sustainable' for the years and decades to come.

What's compassionate about stealing from and screwing over one person to help out another? Nothing. Screwing over hundreds of thousands of Senior Citizens to 'help out' an equivalent amount of Iraqis isn't based on logic, isn't based on true compassion, and definitely isn't based upon the principles this country was founded upon.

My other two concerns with Sabrin's letter, regarding his own ideas of foreign policy - the wording 'combat troops', which implies keeping non-combat troops there in some capicity for the years/decades to come after 2010, along with not removing all 'combat troops' until 2010 - why not now? How can we afford one more year of this war, let alone another 2 years??? Sabrin's plan sounds very much like Obama's plan, not Ron Paul's plan (which is the most logical and compassionate of all Foreign Policy plans.)
Click to expand...

Dr. Murray Sabrin said that Barack Obama's foreign policy is closer to traditional Republican than McCain - is that factually wrong? No it isn't.

If you spent a few minutes reading Dr.Sabrin's writings or watching his videos you would know Dr. Sabrin wants all of the troops out, but he is the ONLY US Senate candidate promising to bring ALL combat troops home by September 2010 - if you are not happy with that, then you are not being intellectually honest!
 
Ronnie1776 said:
Dr. Murray Sabrin said that Barack Obama's foreign policy is closer to traditional Republican than McCain - is that factually wrong? No it isn't.

If you spent a few minutes reading Dr.Sabrin's writings or watching his videos you would know Dr. Sabrin wants all of the troops out, but he is the ONLY US Senate candidate promising to bring ALL combat troops home by September 2010 - if you are not happy with that, then you are not being intellectually honest!
Click to expand...

apologies for offending you, I'm not a plant -

Sabrin's statement: I am still confused how Senator Barack Obama has a more traditional Republican foreign policy than you do (i.e., no nation-building, no pre-emptive attacks) but I will leave that for another conversation.




Sabrin cites 'no nation building' as if that's part of Obama's plan - yet, Obama has never stated he would end all foreign occupations. Obama wouldn't even end the occupation in Iraq, if you read his plans for Iraq, you'll see what I mean... long term plans for the entire middle east, via occupation.

Then Sabrin cites 'no pre-emptive attacks' as if that's part of Obama's foreign policy platform that makes Obama more 'traditionally Republican' ... yet how many times have we all seen the video where Obama states, quite clearly and boldly, that a pre-emptive strike isn't off the table?

There's different types of troops... combat troops are just one part of our military - be very cautious when reading the term 'combat troops' - there's an implication there that's very important.


This isn't about being 'happy' about something - this is about the rule of law, the principles our nation was founded upon, which are very logical, compassionate and peaceful to their very core - and holding up everything put forth by any possible leader to those principles.

All I'm saying is Sabrin isn't following the law of the land... I hold up that 2010 date to the Constitution and to the principles, and it doesn't hold true to them - I'm not happy or sad with Sabrin - I'm concerned. I'm worried about logic (how will we afford another year, let alone another two and a half years?) and compassion (how many more Iraqis and USA citizens must die?) as well as the Constitution (does the Constitution have a part in it that states if you get into a war unconstitutionally then it's ok to stay a year or two or more?)

I'm concerned that Sabrin has a very wrong understanding of Obama's foreign policy, and that some might think what Sabrin is saying is fact, and perhaps think of Obama as an 'alternative.'

The principles still aren't understood enough by some - even within this excellent forum. I've been reading it for months and months... more understanding of the principles is needed, more understanding of facts (obtained by research and critical thinking.)

What Sabrin wrote about Obama isn't accurate. And Sabrin's foreign policy isn't sustainable (or Constitutional) , either - we can't afford another two and a half years in Iraq. That's all I'm saying. I'm certain there are parts of Sabrin's political platform that I would agree with 100% - his foreign policy and thoughts on Obama just aren't something I agree with at all.

Again - apologies for upsetting you.
 
Thank you for your response...

BagOfEyebrows said:
apologies for offending you, I'm not a plant -

Sabrin's statement: I am still confused how Senator Barack Obama has a more traditional Republican foreign policy than you do (i.e., no nation-building, no pre-emptive attacks) but I will leave that for another conversation.




Sabrin cites 'no nation building' as if that's part of Obama's plan - yet, Obama has never stated he would end all foreign occupations. Obama wouldn't even end the occupation in Iraq, if you read his plans for Iraq, you'll see what I mean... long term plans for the entire middle east, via occupation.

Then Sabrin cites 'no pre-emptive attacks' as if that's part of Obama's foreign policy platform that makes Obama more 'traditionally Republican' ... yet how many times have we all seen the video where Obama states, quite clearly and boldly, that a pre-emptive strike isn't off the table?

There's different types of troops... combat troops are just one part of our military - be very cautious when reading the term 'combat troops' - there's an implication there that's very important.


This isn't about being 'happy' about something - this is about the rule of law, the principles our nation was founded upon, which are very logical, compassionate and peaceful to their very core - and holding up everything put forth by any possible leader to those principles.

All I'm saying is Sabrin isn't following the law of the land... I hold up that 2010 date to the Constitution and to the principles, and it doesn't hold true to them - I'm not happy or sad with Sabrin - I'm concerned. I'm worried about logic (how will we afford another year, let alone another two and a half years?) and compassion (how many more Iraqis and USA citizens must die?) as well as the Constitution (does the Constitution have a part in it that states if you get into a war unconstitutionally then it's ok to stay a year or two or more?)

I'm concerned that Sabrin has a very wrong understanding of Obama's foreign policy, and that some might think what Sabrin is saying is fact, and perhaps think of Obama as an 'alternative.'

The principles still aren't understood enough by some - even within this excellent forum. I've been reading it for months and months... more understanding of the principles is needed, more understanding of facts (obtained by research and critical thinking.)

What Sabrin wrote about Obama isn't accurate. And Sabrin's foreign policy isn't sustainable (or Constitutional) , either - we can't afford another two and a half years in Iraq. That's all I'm saying. I'm certain there are parts of Sabrin's political platform that I would agree with 100% - his foreign policy and thoughts on Obama just aren't something I agree with at all.

Again - apologies for upsetting you.
Click to expand...

Obama has called the preemptive strike as wrong and he has spoken out about nation-building (view his original speach against the War in Iraq). What you have to understand is Dr. Sabrin is not siding with Barack Obama's complete foreign policy but when you compare Senator Obama with Senator McCain, Senator Obama has a more traditional Taft foreign policy than Senator McCain.

Regarding Dr. Sabrin's promise to bring all combat troops home by September 2010, I asked him about it when he called me to thank me for my donation to the campaign: he said it was a practical timeframe where Generals have said they can systematically remove the 150,000 combat troops within that timetable. Keep in mind Dr. Sabrin is not in the U.S. Senate YET! So he will help bring these troops home within 1 1/2 years from going to the U.S. Senate - please identify another U.S. Senate candidate making that promise? If you cannot support Dr. Sabrin because he doesn't promise to bring the troops home within the first week he becomes a Senator, then I don't think you can be satisfied.

Perhaps you should do if you are serious about supporting Dr. Sabrin's campaign (either by voting for him if you live in NJ or by donating to his campaign) - call his campaign office in New Jersey (201-332-3422) and ask to speak with him directly. He seemed very approachable when he called me earlier to thank me.

The Freedom movement could NOT find a better candidate in 2008 then Dr. Sabrin - that is why Dr. Ron Paul flew up to NJ to host a fundraiser for him last month.

There are only 4 weeks left to Primary Day in NJ - go online www.MurraySabrin.com and donate TODAY!
 
What In The World Are You Waiting For?

parke said:
Keep up that talk and Ill donate.
Click to expand...

Dr. Sabrin NEEDS your financial support TODAY!

What "talk" are you waiting for? Go look at all of his previous videos - he has been talking about these issues for 30 years - when are you going to donate, when he celebrates his 50th year of talking about these issues?

PEOPLE - W A K E U P !! Dr. Murray Sabrin is taking on John McCain and the neoconservatives - by now we in the Ron Paul community should have raised this guy $10 MILLION DOLLARS!

Instead, he has raised only $500K+ (I have given $1,000 myself - and that is more than I can afford, but I have sacrificed a bit).

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? RON PAUL HAS ENDORSED HIM, RON PAUL HAS HOSTED A FUNDRAISER FOR HIM, RON PAUL HAS DONATED TO HIM...

You can always find a million reasons not to do something, FIND the reason TONIGHT to donate to Dr. Murray Sabrin - visit www.MurraySabrin.com!
 
I would like that video a lot better if it didn't look suspiciously like he made the video himself in his living room. But I don't know Sabrin very well yet; maybe that's his style.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
My Encounter with Murray Rothbard
Replies
0
Views
199
PAF
PAF
PAF
New Jersey Bill Looks to Require Homeschoolers Follow Public School Curriculum
Replies
10
Views
75
vita3
V
PAF
Murray Rothbard’s Lost Letters on Ayn Rand
Replies
0
Views
143
PAF
PAF
Brian4Liberty
Operation Arctic Frost
Replies
10
Views
58
unknown
unknown
Occam's Banana
US senator says rights come from the government
Replies
4
Views
164
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top