Inaccuracies in AFTF

[lucius]

Alice in Wonderland is appropriate. How many friggin rabbit holes do you people have? "Dead end over here...how bout that one over there...nope, nothing there, how bout that one?..." it never ends.

Once again, a feeble retort.

 

[cjhowe]

Once again, a feeble retort.

Your higher level learning is a conspiracy theory in itself. The author held his viewpoints in 1949 and somehow had them "confirmed" by the "insiders" letting giving him an inside look 15 years later. Riight. He then goes on to publish a 1300 page book without footnotes. Yes, this is to be trusted as the smoking gun.

 

[lucius]

Your higher level learning is a conspiracy theory in itself. The author held his viewpoints in 1949 and somehow had them "confirmed" by the "insiders" letting giving him an inside look 15 years later. Riight. He then goes on to publish a 1300 page book without footnotes. Yes, this is to be trusted as the smoking gun.

Better, you are now speaking too issues. Your bombastic rhetoric is quite amusing—“smoking gun”.

CFR member Walter B. Wriston, ex-chairman of Citicorp, wrote 'The Twilight of Sovereignty', explaining how the information revolution was ending nation-state sovereignty. He said: "A truly global economy will require concessions of national power and compromises of national sovereignty that seemed impossible a few years ago and which even now we can partly imagine."

Speaking about 1949. NATO was designed as a political and military subsidiary of the UN, and it has no rationale for existence apart from the world organization. This was understood at the time of NATO's creation in 1949. A State Department document published in the spring of that year entitled Foreign Affairs Outlines: Building the Peace explained that NATO was designed to "bring about world conditions which will permit the United Nations to function more efficiently." This understanding was also expressed in a March 1949 Washington, DC address by CFR member Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Acheson explained:

"[NATO] is designed to fit precisely into the framework of the United Nations and to assure practical measures for maintaining peace and security in harmony with the Charter.... The United States government and the governments with which we are associated in this treaty are convinced that it is an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations...."

(An interesting note about Acheson concerning Communist Alger Hiss, who held CFR membership in the 1940s as well. After Hiss had been exposed as a Communist agent, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, a CFR member publicly announced that he would never turn his back on Hiss - and he never did.)

In 1976 interview in 'Transition', CFR member Senator Cranston warned against publicly promoting world government since "the more talk about world government the less chance of achieving it, because it frightens people..." Jean Drissell, "A Senator's View of World Order," Transitions, III (April, 1976).

"The stability of the new world order and the new global challenges require cooperation between all global players.... [W]e have to fight organized crime, international terrorism, and fundamentalist tendencies which are not limited to Islamics only.... Nationalism ... is a main enemy of the nations of Europe, and it can only be avoided by an ever closer cooperation [through the EU]." Former German Chancellor Hans-Dietrich Genscher at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University 1996.

My favorites:

"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." Abraham Lincoln

Watch Dr. Paul denounce the North American Union at the four minute mark. An interesting note but Dr. Paul remarks that politicians against the NAU are labeled by the media as ‘CONSPIRATORIAL’. See how the Master eloquently speaks too support of Israel in the first four minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Jn2xCF92Y

Here is a little tidbit on preCFR media control, US Congressional Record from 1917 by Representative Oscar Callaway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pLRWiqNsnY&NR=1

CFR Ex-director Cheney speaking at CFR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg&mode=related&search=

Bill Clinton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTi2ib9QMY0

Bush Senior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CWBTL33MpA&mode=related&search=

Gary Hart speaking at CFR on 9/12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEfdUuPeus0

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” Herbert Spencer

I see you are a regular…

 

[cjhowe]

This is becoming annoying. There are bad arguments that are non sequitur and there are conspiracy theories. What makes a conspiracy theory is the use of a non sequitur argument to prove another non sequitur argument. And this is what all of the Federal Reserve, NAU, EU, CFR, 9/11 inside job, etc conspiracy theories do.


If there are those that want world domination and the enslavement of the masses, then there must be organizations that exist to remove the principle of state sovereignty.

If there are organizations that exist to remove the principle of state sovereignty, then there must be people who use the influence they have in multiple countries for their personal gain.

Since there are those that use their influence in multiple countries to bring about personal gain, they must belong to an organization that wants world domination and the enslavement of the masses.

You're putting forth the argument that
If A is true, then B is true
If B is true, then C is true
If C is true, then A is true
C->A doesn't follow.

 

[lucius]

This should be required viewing for anyone regarding the issues of our day...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...l=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

CJ, I now understand you better; I watched your video, ‘TED talk Bjorn Lomborg’. He is quite a utopian dreamer; solving the top world’s problems brought to you by the Bavarian Motor Works.

I then did a quick scan of your posts, a supporter of ‘A heavy progressive or graduated income tax’, ‘Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly’ and ‘porous/open borders, little restriction on immigration’—mostly a defender for the status quo, somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter. Your positions remind me of a one-world government proponent.

This is becoming annoying.

We reached accord; I will agree to disagree with you.

What’s the connection to my feverently working to elect somebody like Dr. Paul? I believe that Gurudas said it best in his ‘Treason: The New World Order’:

“All these people say there are powerful groups threatening our way of life. Some sources identify the bankers and corporate elite as the source of our problems, while others feel the national security state is the threat. The power of Wall Street is now obvious to many. So much is happening today that it is increasingly clear a police state is no longer some distant event to fear. The American people must awaken and join together to restore constitutional government and diminish the power of the large corporations and their agent, the federal government, so that we can again be a free people.”

 

[Electric Church]

CJ,—mostly a defender for the status quo, somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter.

There are quite a few on this forum that appear this way...

 

[stevedasbach]

IMO, we shouldn't distribute ANY materials while campaigning for Ron Paul except for those directly related to Paul and his message. We should not put words in Paul's mouth that he didn't say -- words that aren't part of his message.

 

[hiddentreasure]

I find it a shame that so many people send this DVD out with Ron Paul materials. The law is whatever a judge says is the law. There are hundreds of thousands of unconstitutional laws on the books. So whether or not it is constitutional makes no difference at all.

I am afraid that all the people that I have heard who saw this because it was sent to them by Ron Paul supporters are now against Ron Paul because they think he is nutjob that backed this DVD and is trying to get people into trouble implying that they do not have to pay his taxes.

I wish people would just send out Ron Paul speaking. A good DVD, professionally made, with good video quality, that just shows Ron Paul and uses his words. Trying to convince people that there is no law to pay taxes to try to get them to support Ron Paul seems silly to me. You will only convince a few young kids, turn off all adults and what does this have to do with Ron Paul anyway? Nothing.

What is a law? It is a thing that when you break it there are consequences. Now, you think you won't have any consequences for not paying taxes... When you can convince me of that, then you will have convinced me there is no law, but I don't think anybody in the film seemed to know what a law is. There is more to law than written statutes. There is case law. There is administrative law. There is tax law and tax courts. If a tax court tells you you have to pay, guess what, that is a law.

This DVD has just enough accuracy to make it dangerous and to confuse people. Do a search for Sheldon Friedman and paying taxes. He has written some excellent stuff on the topic.

I understand your point that there could be some "blowback" to using AFTF to promote Ron Paul. Its the principles that we should promote with his message. Its an ongoing process of learning for all of us and the masses are not going to understand all of the principles of freedom. Ron Paul articulates the freedom message well to those willing to listen and do a little homework.

here is a good location for promotional DVD's

www.onedollardvdproject.com

www.hiddentreasure.ws

 

[Electric Church]

IMO, we shouldn't distribute ANY materials while campaigning for Ron Paul except for those directly related to Paul and his message. We should not put words in Paul's mouth that he didn't say -- words that aren't part of his message.

I think that is very reasonable. But AFTF does a lot to support the Ron Paul message. Ron Paul is opposed to the IRS, the Federal Reserve system and a National ID card and those issues are clearly presented in AFTF

 

[stevedasbach]

I think that is very reasonable. But AFTF does a lot to support the Ron Paul message. Ron Paul is opposed to the IRS, the Federal Reserve system and a National ID card and those issues are clearly presented in AFTF

True. However, Ron Paul doesn't, to the best of my knowlege, include the claim that there is no law requiring payment of income tax as part of his message. The message I've heard is that we should get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing.

 

[cjhowe]

CJ, I now understand you better; I watched your video, ‘TED talk Bjorn Lomborg’. He is quite a utopian dreamer; solving the top world’s problems brought to you by the Bavarian Motor Works.

I then did a quick scan of your posts, a supporter of ‘A heavy progressive or graduated income tax’,

I have no idea where you got this notion. The federal government should not be doing one tenth of what it does now and therefore does not need the FIT to fund the operations that it is supposed to be doing.

‘Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly’

Again, I don't know where you got this notion. Credit should solely be in the hands of the private sector to ebb and flow in concentration as to the ability of individuals to freely contract.

and ‘porous/open borders, little restriction on immigration’—mostly a defender for the status quo,

yes, I am in favor of porous, open borders, as little restriction on immigration as to ensure our physical security. That's certainly not the status quo though. When the government does not protect the freedom of movement for one class of people, you cannot expect it to protect your freedom of movement.

somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter. Your positions remind me of a one-world government proponent.

You must not have been around the block, because it should remind you of a limited government proponent. But, I'm glad to see that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks now that you're argument has failed.

 

[cjhowe]

True. However, Ron Paul doesn't, to the best of my knowlege, include the claim that there is no law requiring payment of income tax as part of his message. The message I've heard is that we should get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing.

Exactly, what need do we have to get rid of the IRS, if there is no law requiring you to pay taxes on your labor?

 

[lucius]

I have no idea where you got this notion....I'm glad to see that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks now that you're argument has failed.

Not ad hominem attacks, mere observations:

Dr. Edward Flaherty debunks the Jekyll island myth and gives a pretty decent history of the events leading up to the Federal Reserve Act
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html
...

A Flaherty "pearl" from your link:

“Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.
…
Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve.”

Here is one of my observations:

"I then did a quick scan of your posts, a supporter of ... ‘Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly’ ...mostly a defender for the status quo, somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter. Your positions remind me of a one-world government proponent.

Notice how I used the fifth plank from Karl Marx's communist manifesto to describe your Fabian Socialist inculcation/indoctrination. I thought it was appropriate.

"5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking."

President Lincoln was well versed in the tactics of the "The Money Powers" fifty years before the Federal Reserve Act was passed, he will be the one to point out your foolishness:

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." Abraham Lincoln

Pfffst...too easy!

 

[Wendi]

The law is whatever a judge says is the law.

And the courts have ruled several times that the tax protesters' argument is valid. That's kind of the point.

 

[libertarianguy]

test

 

[Electric Church]

i don't like journalistic styles employed by alex jones, michael moore, and aaron russo (may he rest in peace)

please instead use videos put forth by people like michael ruppert, andrew napolitano, michael scheuer, lew rockwell, and murray rothbard

I'm sorry about what you don't like. But I like what you don't like so I'm gonna do what I like.

Thanks

 

[cjhowe]

Not ad hominem attacks, mere observations:



A Flaherty "pearl" from your link:

“Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.
…
Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve.”

Here is one of my observations:

"I then did a quick scan of your posts, a supporter of ... ‘Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly’ ...mostly a defender for the status quo, somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter. Your positions remind me of a one-world government proponent.

Notice how I used the fifth plank from Karl Marx's communist manifesto to describe your Fabian Socialist inculcation/indoctrination. I thought it was appropriate.

"5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking."

President Lincoln was well versed in the tactics of the "The Money Powers" fifty years before the Federal Reserve Act was passed, he will be the one to point out your foolishness:

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." Abraham Lincoln

Pfffst...too easy!

Just because the Federal Reserve is not a conspiracy theory does not mean that I am in support of it. There you go again with the non sequiturs.

If the Federal Reserve is a Centralized bank
and cjhowe doesn't think that the Federal Reserve is a conspiracy theory
then
cjhowe must be in favor of centralized banking