- Ron Paul the deceiver -- this man is
consciously your enemy, deceiving you on behalf of the worst criminals
in the world. Unfortunately only one in a hundred can see it.
-
- Comment from Social Crediter Wallace Klinck:
-
- [Klinck is arguing against Ron Paul's solution in the
passage presented by Ken Freeland that the solution to the debt crisis
is that we "to live within our means" -- what Klinck
says here is the answer to all money power apologists for austerity in
order to keep up debt payment to the international creditor aristocracy.
-- DE ]
-
- The whole idea of "living within our means"
is from a realistic perspective an absurdity. We cannot eat
a turnip that has not been grown or drive an automobile that has not been
produced. Living beyond our physical means at any given period of
development is a physical impossibility and if anyone is so foolish as
to attempt to do it then one must wish them luck. When we are subject
to the demand that we must "live within our means" the meaning
of the words is that we must live within our financial means-- a quite
different thing altogether. The patently false assumption is made
that our financial means accurately reflects our actual or real physical/psychological
means or capacity to produce goods and services as, when and where required
or desired. That is what Social Credit calls a nation's "real
credit". "Financial credit" is what Social Credit
calls the ability to deliver money "as, when and where required or
desired." Social Credit calls for the two forms of credit, real
and financial, to be balanced or equated. Today they are increasingly
unbalanced with finance failing to serve production and consumption up
to the full potential. That is why although the physical cost of
all production if fully met when it is completed in final form for consumer
use the financial costs are increasingly not met and we must resort to
exponentially increasing debt in order to claim the outflow of consumer
goods from the production line. Briefly, the consumer in final retail
prices is quite properly charged with real capital depreciation but quite
wrongly not credited with real capital appreciation. The true cost
of production is consumption and we are producing far more than we are
consuming--as is readily evidenced by a mere glance around us. Surely
anyone who accepts the bogus argument that we should constrict those physical
activities of production and consumption for which we are entirely capable
in a real sense must surely be hopelessly naive or subject to some form
of psychotic delusion. Money is simply a ticket system, a means of
transferring information, a means which should reflect, not control, what
we actually do in an economic sense. Are we to genuflect before a
mere falsified numerical abstraction and restrict our lives according to
its dictates? Surely therein lies madness.
-
- Sincerely
- Wally
-
- Comment Eastman: Yes, and elsewhere I heard him blame
the borrowers for taking out the loans -- Ron Paul not giving any indication
that he understood the role of domestic economy loop DEFLATION as the cause
of their not being able to meet payment schedules that were perfectly reasonable
at the price levels that were obtaining when the loans were made. The
absurdity of Freeland and Paul thinking that all of those loan officers
just happened to get reckless at the same time -- without seeing this as
coming from the financial sector as a concerted effort to make up interest
drain with a million toll-free salespeople calling every homeowner three
or four times a night asking them to refinance their home and get extra
cash to pay debts by giving up equity. So that rather than the financial
sector giving us the purchasing power needed -- they just took our home
ownership and threw that into the interest-rate black hole -- that ends
up out of our universe in a Swiss or Chinese bank account or building a
super estate in the Amazon.
-
- I remember exactly warning Freeland BEFORE RON PAUL PULLED
OUT OF THE PRIMARIES AGAINST MCCAIN that Ron Paul was a pied piper, that
he was not really in the race to win and that it was obvious from a hundred
"tells" in his badly played game. Freeland attacked me then
-- then when I was exactly vindicated he remained loyal to Paul and now
he is defending Paul as the trick is done a second time to prevent a populist
from emerging in 2012.
-
-
- Comment from UK polymath Peter Wakefield Sault:
-
-
- You get my vote, Dick - because of 9/11.
-
- Peter
-
- Yes, how can Ron Paul have been in Congress all these
years and never once have been shown the conclusive evidence that I and
a thousand other people sent to him. How can he sound like O'Reilly or
Hannity every time 9-11 is brought up.
-
- If Ron Paul was the man poor Ken Freeland thinks he is
that he would have survived as long as he has, that he would not have died
ina plane crash somewhere between DC and Texas? He has not been vilified
because the media knows he is really working for their side. The media
know all about Congressmen, their real talk and their real positions and
the phony talk they put out for home consumption.
-
- One would have to ask Ken Freeland -- why the wall between
Ron Paul and populists? Why does he not even acknowledge our existence,
our arguments, our evidence? (Again, in this he is exactly like Hannity
and other known disinformation mouthpieces.) And look at Rand Paul --
his idiot son -- another George W Bush with a pack of libertarian slogans
but really ignorant and instinctively dishonest and evasive in defending
his views -- you know all about the father by looking at the son.
-
- =========
-
- Ron Paul blames government -- looks to sound (gold)
money to cure it. Ron Paul Does not believe in monopoly. Glenn Beck and
Ron Paul -- everyone cheers then when the blame the Fed --
but notice that Ron Paul blames inflation, not deflation. He speaks of
debt, but does not mention the real killer which is deflation in a high
debt situation.
-
- Watch these two gold-bug charlatan's here.
-
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mnHuWCJvgQ
-
- And what is Ron Paul's solution -- "sound money"
rather than "paper money" -- in other words deflationary gold
standard that changes control of the money supply from the Fed directly
to the Rothschild gold monopoly. Ron Paul is the media darling who is
leading the charge on the Federal Reserve. He wants to get rid of it, and
that's certainly a good idea. Right? But what would replace the Fed?
-
- The replacement for the Federal Reserve Bank would be
the Global Reserve Bank, where all spending power must be tied to backing
by the Rothschild gold monopoly, a bank coincidentally owned by the same
global banking cartel. You must remember that the old standard has always
been Rothschild preferred international currency. Von Mises and the other
Austrians are internationalists. For them the gold standard has to be
international. Money has to be controlled by international gold. There
is not room for a national monetary policy under von Mises libertarian/Austrian/hard
money proposals. Gold is Rothschild control over who gets to create money
out of thin air -- yes, there will still be credit, but you will need
to be a bank that holds some Rothschild gold in order to have the privilege
of having a loan etc.
-
- Did you hear Ron Paul say that gold would reduce debt?
No. He wants debt reduced by austerity -- but the people having less
private consumption and public goods. Ron Paul is simply a tool of the
same conspiracy that Obama, Clinton and the Neo-Cons are about. And he
knows it and is happy with it.
-
- Ken Freeland take note.
-
- To: chdouglas@yahoogroups.com
- From: diogenesquest@gmail.com
- Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:52:34 -0500
- Subject: RE: [chdouglas] Ken Freeland Defends Ron Paul
FW: Dick Eastman or Ron Paul for GOP Candidate in 2012? Decide for yourself.
-
-
- Dick,
-
- First of all, you are quoting me out of context. I sent
you the quote in question to remind you of the authenticity of Ron Paul's
antiwar (anti-imperialist) convictions, NOT to promote his economic platform,
with which I told you I had serious disagreement. A good example of this
would be the example you adduce below of his supposedly supporting NAFTA
et al. Whether he did or not I do not know, but it would not surprise
me, given his libertarian economics (with which I told you I disagreed
and which I told you I thought were limiting his populist vision).
-
- Dick Eastman: How can I quote you out of context when
I presented your entire letter word for word? The subject you are defending
is Ron Paul's "character" and that laps over both economics and
foreign policy. And note this on Ron Paul's foreign policy -- while he
is "against war" just as he is "against abortion"
the killing goes on -- and Ron Paul NEVER ON EITHER ISSUES EVER ATTACKS
THE RATIONALS FOR THE KILLING -- he accepts the Bush view that Moslem
terrorists exist, that the war on terror is real, that 9-11 was really
Moselms with box cutters despite being shown again and again by people
like me that that is an untenable position given multiple lines of evidence
proving otherwise -- and I mean PROVING!
-
-
- Now, I have taken the time to listen to the youtube interview
you cited. I hope others have also. There is not a WORD on this about
endorsing "pedophilia" or "the sexual predation of young
men." What he does do is to present a scientific answer (as becomes
a member of the medical profession) to the dogmatic interviewer in which
he properly presents the issue of homosexuality as a complication of nature
and nurture. His answer is extremely agreeable to me, and strikes me as
quintessentially Christian. If some people are BORN with homosexual proclivities,
who is any of us to say that he or she is any less a child of God? A genuine
Christian (which I consider Ron Paul) cannot get around this question.
Anyone who answers an unequivocal "yes" to this question is
a bigot, in my view (as this interviewer surely is, and he is attempting
to bait Dr. Paul throughout the interview).
-
- I was once vice president of Washington Together Against
Pornography with a post-gradauate degree in experimental psychology of
a very rigorous behaviorist school that examined behavior in terms of Pavlovian
classical conditioning (of emotional and conditioned reflex responding)
and Skinnerian operant conditioning of instrumental behavior that is reinforced
by the consquences of similar responses emitted under similar conditions
on past occasions -- believe me there is a lot more to it than you or anyone
likely to be reading this knows. At any rate as Vice President of WATAP
prepared a seminar showing that pornography when paired with masturabation
affects future behavior, conditions fetish attractions, conditions a sexual
valance to submission or dominance, conditions sexual valance for scenarios
-- increasing that liklihood that the viewer when given occasion will attempt
to respond in ways that terminate in that scenario. At the same time as
I was putting out this message -- a so called great Christian, James Dobson,
was going around telling everyone that masturbation was OK -- while he
attacked pornography purely on the grounds that it was "immoral"
and -- with no reason given -- that it led to sexual crime and adultery
and poorly bonded marriage. I made phone calls to Dobson's "ministry"
and I wrote letters -- but I was shut out. Then Dobson was sued by the
pornographers. He -- not having any good reason for saying that pornography
affects behavior -- since he would not hear and use mine -- which is the
right one and the one that cannot be answered or shot down -- Dobson allowed
the pornographers' lawyers to chill him -- and he never put up a fight
against pornography again -- after taking everyone's money and after all
that talk against pornography and for masturbation. I also went around
to churches offering to give a lecture on how pornography and masturbation
combine to change disposition.
-
- I have news for you. No one is born a homosexual. Also,
no one is born heterosexual or monogamous. All homosexuals are set up
for their "orientation" by the absence of male role model, by
the attack of homosexuals when they are young boys who enter the hero-worship
stage without good male role models, but are latched on to by paedophiles
who show them pornography and attack their parents morality and integrity
and knowledge. Soon the boy is masturabting to the themes the homosexual
has provided -- always lots of pornography, usually starting with female
porn etc. -- then when the boy gets an errection the homosexual tells
him : you are a latent homosexual, you were born gay, don't fight what
you really are etc. And now the schools are doing exactly the same thing
in sex ed. It is politically correct to say people are born homosexual
and to deny any role of conditioning in what they become -- when the truth
is what they become is entirely due to conditioning.
-
- Now what does this have to do with Ron Paul?
-
- Simply that he has been a Republican in Congress for
over 20 years -- he knows how male prostitute seduce and control congressmen.
He knows. He knows. The conspiracy needs people who are alienated from
American middle class society. Zionist are alienated by Jewish racial
hatred and chosen-people supremacism. Others are controlled by secret
society rites that involve homosexuality -- Bohemian Grove for example
-- and others are controlled by prostitutes, male and female. The homosexuals
become libertariains -- in order to promote "man-boy" freedom.
If a homosexual will cross the male-female line he will think nothing
of crossing the 18-year old line to go after 16 year olds or 12 year olds.
There is a giant market for kidnapped children, for international child
prostitution. Israel leads the world in this trade. They are also the
great pornographers on the web -- Jews have always been behind the sex
magazines -- Hugh Hefner being merely a token goyim "who made the
field respectable." And of course Larry Flynt was "born again"
and kept publishing his pornographic magazine.
-
- I grew up in the San Francisco bay area -- not the Bible
belt -- I have known homosexuals very well -- friends of the family --
otherwise good men -- but in the closet -- and when they get to Washington
the Jews control them from that closet. So, yes, Ron Paul is a libertarian
in favor of homosexuals having the freedom to "be themselves"
-- in the military and in classrooms etc. with no intellectual protection
-- like I wanted to give parents, churches and schools -- against the lies
of homosexual seduction.
-
- I fought that fight and as always people sided with Dobson
-- who is just another phony Zionist televangelist and his ministries ineffective
garbage that don't even know the cause or mechanisms of the evils they
pretend to treat. Ron Paul's Christianity is made of the same stuff.
-
- I don't care if you are homosexual or not -- of course
I hope that you are not, what I mean is, whether you are a homosexual or
not that does not give you any special insight into what made you that
way. Most homosexuals think that masturbating relieves sexual pressure.
That is exactly what does not happen. After masturbation there is an
immediate fall off interest -- but after that post-reinforcement interval
- the sexual predisposition comes back in strength, now modified by the
conditioning of the last event. One example I used in my lecture (I was
not paid for this work by the way -- it was voluntary to save children
from sexual predation, to save men from becoming caught in the sexual web
that destroys the life they otherwise wanted for themselves. The example
was that one of the famous "slick" pornographic magazines would
have the monthly centerfold naked woman shown along with an inset that
was a photograph of her as a child of 8 or 9. The men who buy pornography
buy it to consume with masturbation.
-
- That means that the customers of pornography will be
masturbating with that picture of a young child in view -- causing all
children resembling that child to take on a sexual valance in the eyes
of the man who has so conditioned himself. That way when he sees a child
in a park or something who resembles the child in the picture inset, he
will respond, weakly or strongly, kept to himself, or, if the conditioning
is strong enough and the occasion presenting an opportunity he will bring
it to some kind of interaction with the child.
-
- And this is why I am against pornography, why I want
to CONTROL THE INTERNET to have it removed, why I blame Israel and all
Jews who run pornography as they run everything else having to do with
corruption of our "character" as you call it. This is why I
am anti-libertarian and for anti-Ron Paul and his dishonest separation
of homosexuality and paedophilia. One more thing -- Ron Paul has been
shown giving Masonic handshakes and signs and tokens of Free Masonry.
Free Masonry is a conspiracy for people to keep silent about each others
crimes and sins (infidelities) -- a network where you can get help you
can trust when there is a way to gain money that involves crime or unethical
conduct. Homosexual lifestyle just adds to this culture of (screw each
other and in a different sense, screw the world as a team but never tell).
I've sent out the Ron Paul pictures giving the those signs but I no longer
have outlook express or my photo album having made the mistake of buying
a laptop with windows 7 or I would include those pictures.
-
- You say that Ron Paul is "pro-drugs," but
I suspect that, Libertarian that he is, what he really supports is the
decriminalization of drugs, which of course is key to depriving organized
crime of its multi-billion dollars of tax free income every year. It has
been estimated that more money is spent annually on illicit drugs than
on food. You got a better solution to this problem, Dick? Even the Libertarians
are right about some things.
-
- Ron Paul has never fought for that and with that argument.
He has not led that cause -- he has just given philosophical lip service
to it. I am the one who for over a decade has made that argument -- and
unlike Ron Paul I went all the way with the argument -- how the drug money
is laundered into the banks and ends up investing in China and buying presidents.
You would not hear Ron Paul talking about Clinton and drugs in Mena Arkansas
-- or the history of opium and the big Money Power families. All those
years and Ron Paul never spelled it out like it is. He just gives it lip
service when defending his libertarian credentials and looking for the
criminal vote. Ron Paul is the big phony -- he is the fake token of
non-establishment lockstep in Congress. If they did not have "libertarian"
Ron Paul -- allowed to vote "libertarian" against "neo-con"
or "Obamacon" or "Clintoncon" only when the vote is
so overwhelming that Ron Paul's vote won't count. BUt where did Ron Paul
ever give a memorable fight for any of these issues. Where is Ron Pau's
compassion for the victims of drug addiction who are in prison even though
if it were not for drug addiction and the need to get money to pay their
habit they would be constructive citizens, contributing to production instead
of draining everyone's money for incredibly expensive incarceration.
-
- I know what Ron Paul has done -- and I know what
he could have and should have done if he really had his heart where his
mouth is. He is a libertarian ideolog -- pretending to be completely oblvious
of the evil caused by the practitioners of his creed. No libertarian will
debate me on Ron Paul's economics or his late-term-abortion run for the
presidency or his libertarian stand on homosexuality. Why is that?
Do you really think that none have them have every been shown my refutations
of their stupid beliefs. I know the classics of Austrian Economics better
than 99 percent of libertarians -- and what they take on authority of von
Mises I reject on a clear understanding of where von Mises buried his errors
in justifying the gold standard and defending Says Law -- when in fact
it is only "Says Condition" that never obtains as long as there
is compound interest on loans -- and which requires social credit ever
to be realized in an actual economy.
-
- -----
-
- Tony writes:
-
- Dick, I don't know where you stand on freemasonry but
I know it as downright satanic. Ron Paul, and all his family are life-long
masons, part of the self appointed elite. That alone is enough for me
to realize he is simply controlling opposition. Like another such fake,
Ross Perot, he too, when it appeared he could actually win the presidency,
found a reason to dismiss himself from the fight, backing out. But he
kept the suckers' hard earned money with which they backed him. Obviously,
his purpose in running was to draw votes from other candidates as part
of the fix for the next president.
-
- His pronouncements about proper money are plain stupid,
in exactly the same manner as the "Austrian" (not American) school's
ridiculous, monopoly capitalistic theories. BTW, it is those monopoly
capitalist corporations who keep the wars going for high profit. You know,
Paul's "free market."
-
- Ron Paul is either not very smart or smart enough to
flim-flam good people. His son, however, is more upfront about his anti-American
stances. How the hell he got elected I don't understand. On daddy's coat
tails?
-
- Tony B.
-
-
- Ron Paul FreeMason:
-
-
- http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/pics/ron.paul.freemason.jpg
-
- http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoKxoVvWBsC9ctd
- 0beq7B6skAEi5aMb_7A3TaBJ2LeRNP6j4ZUt76QM4yE
-
- http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p9/chainlighting/r_paul2.jpg
-
-
- ---
-
- Peace,
- Ken
-
-
- From: chdouglas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:chdouglas@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of RICHARD EASTMAN
- Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 1:57 AM
- To: Ken Freeland
- Subject: [chdouglas] Ken Freeland Defends Ron Paul
FW: Dick Eastman or Ron Paul for GOP Candidate in 2012? Decide for yourself.
-
-
- To Ken Freeland,
-
- You need to look closer at the Ron Paul quote you sent
me. Break it down. See what he is really saying and what he is not saying.
-
- First Ron Paul's predictions:
-
- The whole reason why nobody wants to address the real
problem is, we're spending a trillion dollars a year overseas running an
empire, and it's coming to an end. This country is bankrupt, and we won't
admit it. Eventually though, the dollar will go bust, and we
will bring our troops home, and we will live within our means, but
we ought to do it sensibly, rather than waiting for the collapse of the
dollar, and this is what we're doing, we're on the verge of destroying
our dollar. And then, you think we have problems now, problems then will
be a lot worse, it'd look like the Weimar Republic, or a third world nation.
And a lot of people know that, and they're scared to death, but we don't
need to be making the problem worse by just propping up everything with
more government programs, more inflation, and more helicopters, it won't
work.
-
-
- Now the bad things Ron Paul is against:
-
-
- The whole reason why nobody wants to address the real
problem is, we're spending a trillion dollars a year overseas running
an empire, and it's coming to an end. This country is bankrupt, and
we won't admit it. Eventually though, the dollar will go bust, and we will
bring our troops home, and we will live within our means, but we ought
to do it sensibly, rather than waiting for the collapse of the dollar,
and this is what we're doing, we're on the verge of destroying our dollar.
And then, you think we have problems now, problems then will be a lot worse,
it'd look like the Weimar Republic, or a third world nation. And a lot
of people know that, and they're scared to death, but we don't need to
be making the problem worse by just propping up everything with more
government programs, more inflation, and more helicopters, it won't
work.
-
- Now the causes of the bad things that Ron Paul identifies:
-
- The whole reason why nobody wants to address the
real problem is, we're spending a trillion dollars a year
overseas running an empire, and it's coming to an end. This country
is bankrupt, and we won't admit it. Eventually though, the dollar will
go bust, and we will bring our troops home, and we will live within our
means, but we ought to do it sensibly, rather than waiting for the collapse
of the dollar, and this is what we're doing, we're on the verge of destroying
our dollar. And then, you think we have problems now, problems then will
be a lot worse, it'd look like the Weimar Republic, or a third world nation.
And a lot of people know that, and they're scared to death, but we don't
need to be making the problem worse by just propping up everything
with more government programs, more inflation, and more helicopters, it
won't work.
-
- Now the solutions Ron Paul offers:
-
- The whole reason why nobody wants to address the real
problem is, we're spending a trillion dollars a year overseas running an
empire, and it's coming to an end. This country is bankrupt, and we won't
admit it. Eventually though, the dollar will go bust, and we will bring
our troops home, and we will live within our means, but we ought to
do it sensibly, rather than waiting for the collapse of the dollar,
and this is what we're doing, we're on the verge of destroying our dollar.
And then, you think we have problems now, problems then will be a lot worse,
it'd look like the Weimar Republic, or a third world nation. And a lot
of people know that, and they're scared to death, but we don't need to
be making the problem worse by just propping up everything with more government
programs, more inflation, and more helicopters, it won't work.
-
- His solution is to cut government spending and promote
deflation to cut consumer spending in order to "live within our means"
-
- But who sets the constraints we must live within, who
defines what our the means we must live within will be? who but the lenders/creditors.
-
- Ron Paul never fought abortion in Congress. He is pro
drugs and pro-homosexuality (paedophelia, legalized predation of young
men, the bringing of sexually obsessed homosexuals into the military barracks
and the classroom. Listen to what libertarian Ron Paul says here:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
-
- Ron Paul also voted for all the "free trade"
agreements -- and has not expressed any regret or given an explanation
of what went wrong-- in fact he has not admitted that anything did go wrong.
As far as he is concerned on inflation and government spending have caused
our problems -- the financial sector and international trade had nothing
to do with it.
-
- Ron Paul is not really pro-life. He is a Texas politician.
He delivered babies in Texas -- a very Christian place -- and then he
ran for office there. But as a one time head of an anti-abortion organization
(lifeline to the unborn in Issaquah Washington) I know very well that Ron
Paul has been nothing but lip service. I always voted for abortion when
the outcome was pre-determined. But he NEVER did or said anything in Congress
to convince his colleagues or pull a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. He
is an anarcho-capitalist -- and they are for abortion and "boy-man
love."
-
- But above all, it is impossible -- yes, impossible --
that Ron Paul could have quit the campaign when and how he did just prior
to the convention and it not have been an intentional misleading and betrayal
of populist opposition to the McCain-Obama-Clinton choice.
-
- No one who was taken in by Ron Paul is worthy of being
called a populist.
-
- Dick Eastman
-
-
- You, on the other hand, try to make it seem that Ron
Paul's antiwar stance is opportunist and inauthentic. This you have no
right to do. You would get much farther in your attempt to draw the contrast
if you would show some respect for Ron Paul's actual principles as far
as they go: he really is pro life, he really is a country doctor (ob/gyn),
he really opposes American foreign military intervention in principle,
he really is a strict constructionist with respect to the Constitution.
Viz: Lobbyists don't even bother going to his office. If their scheme
doesn't fall among the federal government's enumerated powers under the
Constitution, they know perfectly well that there is no chance Ron Paul
will support it. - View Quote Details on Lobbyists don't even
bother going to his office. If their
-
- You seem to constantly be verging on a kind of Manicheanism,
where Ron Paul has to be seen as bad in all respects, not having any worthwhile
characteristics, in order for your political position to be seen in contradistinction
as all good.
-
- If a man is a fraud and leads everybody into a deadly
trap as Ron Paul has done -- it is very important that someone point that
out -- and that no gullible dupe stupidly try to hinder the truth from
reaching the people.
-
- Diocletian decreed against the Manichaeans: "We
order that their organizers and leaders be subject to the final penalties
and condemned to the fire with their abominable scriptures"
-
- Roman Emperor Theodosius I had issued a decree
of death for Manichaeans in AD 382 and shortly before he declared Christianity
to be the only legitimate religion for the Roman Empire in 391
-
- In AD 2010 Ken Freeland called Dick Eastman a Manichaean,
which was a very dark thing for him to do against a bringer of light.
-
- But Dick, that reduces to a kind of mud slinging. You
are really attacking Ron Paul's character, and I know him to be a man of
character. True, not all of his principles are those on which I would
choose to stand, and his purview is limited by his blunt libertarianism,
but taking the stance of respectful disagreement would work much better
here. In other words, instead of being an anti-Ron Paul, present yourself
as a new and improved Ron Paul: a populist with a more practicable (SC)
economic platform, who can help fulfil Ron Paul's antiwar agenda by relieving
the economy of its obsessive need for multiplying debt, etc., etc. In
short, stop trying to be Ron Paul's antagonist and demonstrate instead
on how Paul's monetarist policies will fall short of his populist dreams,
whereas yours just might be the ticket.
-
- All the best on this Christmas day,
- Ken Freeland
-
-
- From: RICHARD EASTMAN [mailto:oldickeastman@q.com]
- Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 10:35 AM
- To: Ken Freeland
- Subject: RE: Dick Eastman or Ron Paul for GOP Candidate
in 2012? Decide for yourself.
-
-
- Every "false word" was from a pro-Ron Paul
mailing. All I did was change "he is for" for "Ron Paul
is for" -- I added nothing else and changed nothing else. The source
was full of articles advocating Ron Paul for 2012. I chose the list of
reasons why Paul was the best choice for president. And you are right
-- seeing people willing to be burned twice makes me very very insecure
-- and hence the answering of the pro-Ron Paul selling points.
-
- Thanks for saying I am getting near having a coherent
position on monetary reform.
-
-
- Send me the real Ron Paul positions that you say I missed?
The ones made of bricks and not straw or sticks. I'd like to see what
real coherence looks like.
-
-
- In friendship on Christmas Day,
-
- Dick Eastman
-
- From: diogenesquest@gmail.com
- To: oldickeastman@q.com
- Subject: RE: Dick Eastman or Ron Paul for GOP Candidate
in 2012? Decide for yourself.
- Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:24:25 -0500
- LOL, Dick, you never tire of arguing with the straw man.
I will say this for you: you are getting closer to articulating a comprehensive
monetary policy too bad you still have to put false words in Ron Paul's
mouth to do it. Perhaps some day you will feel secure enough to state
your own opinions on fiscal policy without needing to disparage the much-maligned
Dr. Paul in the process. When you do, I predict that you discover that
you never needed this "fall guy" in the first place, and that
a positive open statement of a politically correct position attracts people
much more than does shadow boxing with a puppet opponent.
-
-
- Peace (and a merry Christmas),
- Ken Freeland
-
- From: RICHARD EASTMAN [mailto:oldickeastman@q.com]
- Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 3:42 PM
- Subject: Dick Eastman or Ron Paul for GOP Candidate
in 2012? Decide for yourself.
-
- Dick Eastman or Ron Paul for GOP Candidate in 2012?
-
- How would you vote in a primary?
-
- Ron Paul has never taken a government junket.
-
-
- Dick Eastman if elected would operate entirely outside
Washington DC, setting up small offices in Michigan, Indiana, Kansas and
Utah and junketing back and forth among those cities.
-
- Ron Paul does not participate in the lucrative Congressional
Pension Program.
-
-
- Dick Eastman has no expectation of living past his first
term in the presidency -- he has given the last 12 years of his life to
saving this country with no thought of compensation and he will continue
doing so. He will not have servants -- his lower middle class background
makes him is repelled by servants. He will not be eating snacks on the
job anyway.
-
- Ron Paul returns a portion of his annual Congressional
Office Budget every year.
-
- Dick Eastman will spend what is needed accomplish his
objectives. He gets his clothes from Good Will and will continue to do
so. The budget for stamps and computer paper are of no interest too him,
although he admires skinflints if they save in order to have more for doing
good for people.
-
- Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes.
-
- Dick Eastman will finance government entirely by taxes
and inflation -- not by deficit spending (debt financing) that Mr. Paul
votes for every time he votes against taxes. But Dick Eastman will repudiate
the entire national debt and will end system where money is created by
bank loans. Eastman will give new money to each household as the replacement
of the open market operations of the Fed and the fractional-reserve banking
system. Only this will bring domestic prosperity to American households
and businesses. Then the financing of the public services we need which
people vote for can be simply paid for with taxes. There will be no government
bonds. Inflation with non-debt government fiat -- Lincoln money -- will
be the means of government paying for disaster relief and other unexpected
large expenditures. That way bankers will have no incentive to buy politicians
any more.
-
- Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
-
- Dick Eastman will make balanced budgets actually possible.
And the biggests items on the budget will not be war and interest payments
either. Dick Eastman knows that Ron Paul knows that in every vote Ron
Paul has taken his vote would not be decisive and that the unbalanced budget
would pass anyway. But Dick Eastman also knows about Ron Paul -- that
he would balance the budget by cutting public services of government rather
than by cutting debt financing, by changing the system by which government
expenditure for the public is paid for. The best government is good government,
not no government. Eastman supports strict separation of banks and the
federal government. The government will create the money and distribute
it with social credit checks to housholds, and banks will all be state
banks and all will simply pay savers some interest on time- deposits so
the banks can lend that money and only that money for local business development.
Dick Eastman will make unbalanced budgets possible without Ron Paul's
austerity and selling off the government to international privateers and
speculators.
-
- Ron Paul has never voted to restrict gun ownership.
-
|
