WarriorOnTheEdgeOfTime

WarriorOnTheEdgeOfTime

How To Avoid Voting For A Globalist Puppet

Only a few days ago I attended a community meeting here in the Flathead Valley of Montana which revolved around the first of a series of gubernatorial debates covered by webcast across the state. The number of Republican candidates vying in the primaries of this election is a bit absurd, and after witnessing the half-hearted or outright fake performances by most of them, I can see quite clearly that the state of Montana is being targeted by Neo-Con interests posing as Constitutionalists in an attempt to neutralize the extraordinary advance of the Liberty Movement here. What struck me most sharply was the fact that almost every candidate vying for the governor’s slot had taken on elements of the Liberty Movement philosophy. The elections of 2012 and the immense success of the Ron Paul campaign have so far proven without a doubt that the anti-globalist, anti-totalitarian, anti-collectivist stance is now part of a growing majority in America. Just as we have forced Neo-Con candidates in the Presidential primaries to at least pretend that they care about freedom (quite a change from the Bush years), so too are Republican impostors forced to mimic us in the battle for state offices.
With so many political candidates now at the very least paying lip-service to the concepts of Constitutional freedoms, limited Federal influence, and State’s rights, it may become increasingly difficult for voters to discern who is a snake-oil peddler and who is the real deal. Many who supported the rise of the Tea Party (originally launched by Ron Paul back in 2007-2008), suddenly found their efforts for a free America being hijacked by establishment fakes in 2010. Out of nowhere, gutter dwelling pro-globalist imposters like Rick Santorum could be found headlining forums at Constitutional rallies, and even veteran globalists like Newt Gingrich have tried to jump on the bandwagon.
The light at the end of the tunnel, though, is ironically visible in the destructive nature of these candidates.
The NDAA, despite the inherent horror of its provisions, has been a spectacular litmus test for traitorous politicians. Self-styled liberty candidates like Allen West of Florida, winning with Tea Party support, have been exposed because of theirr backing of the NDAA. Shockingly, West not only voted for the NDAA, but helped to COMPOSE the bill! Now, due to a growing public outcry over the rendition and indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, legislators like West are scrambling to cover their own asses by knowingly misinterpreting the bill’s language and denying it applies to American citizens:

Three amendments to the NDAA were put forward by senators Udall, Paul, and Feinstein, specifically designed to ensure that American citizens would be protected from the draconian detainment provisions of the NDAA, and all three were struck down. Yet, Allen West and others continue to perpetuate the lie that Americans are safe from such tyranny.
Exposure after the fact is better than nothing, but these difficult days require more vigilance. How can the people of this country avoid making the mistake of voting for such disingenuous candidates when they seem so adept at telling us what we want to hear until they are comfortably in office?


The key is to stop listening to what they SAY, and start looking closely at what they DO. We must ignore their rhetoric, their speeches written by proxy, and their bad jokes slapped together by hired staff, and begin examining their actions and their backgrounds. Because the Liberty Movement has gained so much influence and so much voice over the past four years, it is time that we start setting some ground rules for political candidates we will accept, and those we will not accept, to represent us.
We need to ask ourselves, and them, some very pointed questions. How have they consistently voted in the past? Are they truly protecting our rights as Americans and as a human beings as described in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights? Have they done anything to stall or dismantle corruption in the government and in the banking industry? Or, have every one of their propositions and “solutions” involved the continuation of destabilizing policies designed to aid an elite few at the expense of average Americans? The following is a list of warning signs that can help you, your family, and your friends, no matter what their party affiliation, in determining if a favorite politician is a legitimate statesman, or a puppet bought and paid for by global corporate interests…

1) Have They Ever Promised To Investigate, Audit, Or Dissolve The Private Federal Reserve Bank?
The Federal Reserve is the primary culprit in the creation of the derivatives and credit bubble. Its use of artificially low interest rates inflated the housing market and by extension the U.S. economy, energizing international banking fraud and producing perhaps the greatest financial black hole in history. It is currently staving off the effects of this collapse through the constant printing of fiat money from thin air, setting up the U.S. for a currency implosion of epic proportions.
If your candidate has never made more than a passing sound bite comment on the Federal Reserve and what they plan to do about the poisonous debt and dollar devaluation that the private central bank has generated, then it is likely they are either too ignorant to understand how the institution operates, or, they know full well the problem, and plan to do nothing about it. Ask directly any politician you plan to vote for; will they promise to fully audit and or shut down the Federal Reserve, especially if foul play or corruption is discovered? If they defend the Fed, or dance around the question, then they are not on your side, nor on the side of true free markets and a stable economy.

2) Did They Vote For The Banker Bailouts? Do They Continue To Defend Them?
If a candidate or representative voted for or openly supports the continuance of bailout measures for international banks which taxpayers must eventually cover, then this politician is not for you. The bailouts have accomplished nothing that was promised by the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration, or state representatives who gave a platform for their passage. Credit markets have not been unfrozen, the housing market has not stopped its endless decline, and consumer activity has not returned to levels anywhere near those of 2006. Nearly 80% of Americans on both sides of our twisted two party spectrum voiced opposition to the bailouts and have continued to fight against quantitative easing measures on the part of the Federal Reserve. This is not a case of our government knowing better for us than we do for ourselves. This is a case of the government ignoring the will of the people and serving the interests of select elites. If you plan to support a man or woman running for elected office, make absolutely sure they are not proponents of further bailouts and inflationary printing for the sake of propping up big banks, foreign institutions, and the highly manipulated stock market.

3) Do They Support The Domestic Spying Measures Of The FISA Act And The Dissolution Of The 4th Amendment?
Any politician who has the audacity to argue that you must sacrifice your privacy and your liberty for “safety” is not on your side, or the side of the Constitution. The 4th Amendment strictly prohibits illegal search and seizure of a citizen’s property without a warrant and without probable cause, and this includes your personal information and communications. However, over time, the protections of the 4th Amendment have been slowly eroded away. Today, almost every aspect of our lives is an open book for the government to peruse at their slightest convenience.
With the advent of new measures executed through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, no electronic transfer of data is safe, and corporate entities which handle these communications are completely immune from civil suits involved in the release of private information. Under FISA, and under any act which authorizes mass surveillance of the public, every citizen is treated as guilty until proven innocent. This is not Constitutional. If your candidate has his hands into FISA or other pieces of legislation that open the door to domestic spying, drop them like a bad habit, or find yourself in deep regret later down the road.
4) Do They Support The NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, The AUMF, The Expatriation Act, Etc.?
The fascinating thing about the response by legislators to the fury over the NDAA is that they now refuse to acknowledge that the bill actually pertains to American citizens. This tells me they are afraid to confront those opposed to the bill on the grounds that indefinite detention and suspension of Habeas Corpus is necessary. Arguments from men like Allen West (or Denny Rehberg here in Montana) revolve around one line in the bill from Sec. 1022 which they use completely out of context:
1) UNITED STATES CITIZEN The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
What they consistently refuse to explain is the word “requirement” in this line. If they were to place the line in the context of all the provisions involving indefinite detainment, the word “requirement” pertains to foreign prisoners that fall under the definition of “covered persons” in Sec. 1021 (a covered person could essentially be anyone the government decides to accuse of being a terrorist). So, to put this as simply as possible; the government and the U.S. military is “required” under the NDAA to indefinitely detain without jury trial those foreign prisoners designated as enemy combatants or terrorists. The government is NOT required to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens under the NDAA, but THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO! This precedent was set by the passage of the Authorization For The Use Of Military Force (AUMF), and was further strengthened (not obstructed as some propagandists claim) by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The NDAA gives the highly unconstitutional practice the Congressional stamp of approval.
With the NDAA, Americans must adopt a scorched earth policy before it is too late. Every single sitting legislator that supports this bill must be removed from office. Every political candidate running this year who proclaims support for the NDAA should be avoided like a plague ridden corpse. SOPA, PIPA, the Expatriation Act, and other pieces of legislation operate on the same principle as the NDAA; they create a grey area within the law that allows government to accuse any person of a crime without evidence and inflict punishment without due process. If we allow political vampires who nurture these measures into seats of power, then America ceases to be. Without our liberties and the means to protect them, our country becomes nothing more than a doomed land mass devoid of principles or honor.

5) Do They Have Overt Ties To The Military Industrial Complex?
The last thing this nation needs is another ‘chicken hawk’ candidate thirsty for war in far off lands as long as he doesn’t ever have to do any of the actual fighting. However, what we need even less are candidates who have made their livings and their careers dispensing war for quick cash. In Montana, it is disconcerting to be confronted with the likes of Neil Livingstone, who gave audiences a brief chuckle when he claimed that he would like to reintroduce the gray wolf to Washington D.C. instead of Montana to see how they liked it. Very funny, but if the audience really knew Livingstone’s history, they wouldn’t be laughing.
Livingstone’s background in private mercenary warfare and Blackwater-like businesses leaves a bad smell in the air, not to mention his attempt to lobby for Gaddafi and make a buck or two (or ten million) off the NATO debacle unleashed in Libya:
Revealed: How US mercenaries offered Gaddafi $10m deal to flee Libya | Mail Online
All that aside though, this “terrorism expert” suddenly decides to move back to Montana just last year, taking a break from his lucrative war driven wheeling and dealing, to enter the race for governor? Should I not be at least a little suspicious? In the meantime, his running mate, Ryan Zinke, a former Navy SEAL whose unit purportedly went on to “kill Bin Laden”, is now visiting Montana election meet-ups dressed in the most insincere cowboy costume I have ever laid eyes on complete with ten-gallon hat and giant gold belt buckle with “Montana” etched in bold letters, as if to say “hey ya’ll, I’m just like you!” At the end of the meeting I attended, Zinke suggested that Montana solve its employment issues with “predator drone factories” (of course). As he left, he actually exclaimed “go predator drones!”
Bottom line, whether you are dealing with presidential candidates, or state candidates, a record of getting into bed (and into business) with the military industrial complex is probably not a good sign that the representative will respect civilian rights or the Constitution. Certainly, he will say that he loves liberty, but by being instrumental in the spread of globalism, he has proven otherwise, and is not to be trusted.

6) Does It Feel Like They Are Just Telling You What You Want To Hear?
Every candidate at the first gubernatorial debates in Montana was quick to use the words “states rights”, at least when it came to the EPA and resource development. Livingstone even served up a vague threat of arresting federal representatives who cross into Montana (which, oddly, doesn’t seem to have the same bite after learning his background). However, only one candidate, Bob Fanning (and running mate Chuck Baldwin) was willing to put himself on the line, promising to nullify federal incursions into Montana, protect medical marijuana, build a state sponsored militia (as the Constitution demands), deny the socialist doctrines of Obamacare, and insulate Montana’s economy using decentralized methods and legitimate free markets.
The difference between Fanning and the other candidates was evident after hearing his goals and solutions. They’re plans were broad, and dubious. His were direct and decisively outlined. They’re stances against Federal encroachment felt hollow, or deceitful, while Fanning’s resolve was absolute. Sometimes, intuition is as good a measure of a candidate as factual research. If your gut is telling you the man in front of you is a fake, it may be wise to ponder the thought for a moment.
7) Where Are They Getting Their Money From?
In the 2012 presidential elections, only one candidate is raising the majority of his funds from average citizens instead of corporate backers. Only one candidate has received a majority support from active serving military. Only one candidate has done all of this through grassroots methods, despite being relentlessly attacked or ignored by the mainstream media. Of course, I’m talking about Ron Paul.
If global banking interests are pumping their donations into a particular candidate’s campaign, that candidate should be automatically categorized as unelectable. Sadly, this is not how our world works right now. “Follow the money” should be the first rule of the American voter. If Mitt Romney, for instance, is being backed by the exact same corporate financiers as Barack Obama, then one should be led to question whether or not there is absolutely any difference between them. Apparently, global banks don’t seem to think so, so why should you?
If elitists refuse to spend a single penny on a specific candidate, then it is a sure bet that candidate is a threat to the status quo, and therefore, should be on the top of your list as a potential representative.
In the end, it will be difficult if not impossible to change this country in the midst of the current political climate. This means that the climate must evolve or be done away with completely. I believe 2012 may be our last chance to establish a governmental environment conducive to freedom. If we fail to educate ourselves and others on the warning signs listed above, then political options will disappear. We will be left with no other choice but a violent and prolonged conflict with those who would demolish American Constitutionalism. Perhaps this is inevitable regardless of election results, but the fact remains that we must try every other available avenue first.
I have never been a fan of politics, but I know that this is only because the system now in place is constructed to discourage me, and everyone else, from trying to make a difference. Playing by the rules of the establishment system is useless, but there are other roads we might take. We can, indeed, make our own rules, and start a new game on more even ground, as long as we find the right candidates, cast off agents of distraction, and at the very least, attack the issues at a local level with every ounce of strength we have. Putting a Constitutional candidate like Ron Paul into the Oval Office, though excitingly possible, will not be enough. We must also pursue the same standards in our states, and draw a line in the sand around our respective communities.
Even with rigged electronic voting, media manipulation, and political co-option, I feel our efforts this year will resonate for many decades to come. Whether we are able to take back social power for regular citizens is not as important as making them aware that they have allowed themselves to lose that power in the first place. The elections of 2012, ultimately, should be treated as a vehicle for enlightenment, and this enlightenment begins when we are able to recognize the lies we live, and the men who sell them to us…

WarriorOnTheEdgeOfTime

» Ron Paul Ignored In GOP Debate Once Again Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Congressman was afforded less than six minutes speaking time and asked when he was going to drop out.

- V -

» Ron Paul Responds to Obama’s SOTU Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

» President Obama’s State of the Union: Ten Skirted Issues Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

The Ron Paul Media Blackout Is Back On - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

__________________
"Few have the stomach to pursue truth , yet most know in their gut something is wrong" V

"But everyone knows the media doesn't inform. Duhhhhhh !! "

- V -

Ron Paul will defeat Mitt Romney in the Virginia primary - The Hill's Pundits Blog


In a dramatic head-to-head contest that will win huge attention throughout the political world, I now believe that Ron Paul will defeat Mitt Romney in the Virginia primary. The implications could be enormous. This result would dramatize the fact that a majority of Republican primary voters favor a candidate more conservative than Mitt Romney. This prospect could also inspire the mother of all money bombs for the Ron Paul campaign.

If I were the campaign manager for the Gingrich and Santorum campaigns, I would be suggesting that all conservatives vote for Ron Paul in Virginia. Ditto the conservative movement leaders from all conservative points of view and throughout the conservative media.

So far, the pundit debate has largely missed the point that Mitt Romney has hovered between 26 percent and 38 percent in various state votes and polls. It is ridiculous for anyone to suggest "this race is over" or "this race will soon be over" (as many pundits wrongly have) because, obviously, the nominee will need 50 percent-plus-one of all delegates. I emphasize delegates.

What is certainly unique about Virginia, so far, is the prospect of a straight Ron Paul versus Mitt Romney contest, with no other candidates. If this does not change, the Virginia vote will be a pure play of Romney versus Paul, and also a contest purely of Romney versus the conservative movement, which I would expect to unify behind Paul for the Virginia vote.

This pure play will dramatically increase media coverage for Ron, because the Virginia race will take on a life of its own as a unique head-to-head battle. This will provide fundraising opportunities for Paul going into, and coming out of, the Virginia vote. This will boost whatever role Ron Paul chooses to play, whether it becomes convention player, kingmaker or third-party candidate.

What conservatives have long needed is a one-on-one battle with Romney. Virginia will give it to them. This alone should generate maximum publicity and benefit for the winner in Virginia.

So watch the results in Florida, but do not believe anyone who tells you the campaign is over, no matter who wins Florida.

This battle goes on to Super Tuesday at least, and probably longer.

On the matter of the vote in Virginia, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are headed to a High Noon showdown that I now believe Ron Paul will win.

__________________
"Few have the stomach to pursue truth , yet most know in their gut something is wrong" V

"But everyone knows the media doesn't inform. Duhhhhhh !! "

- V -

Will Ron Paul win more delegates this week than Gingrich, Santorum?

Peter Grier
CS Monitor
January 31, 2012

This week, Ron Paul is likely to win more delegates to the 2012 GOP convention than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. In fact, he’s likely to win more delegates than Gingrich and Santorum combined.
“Hold it”, you’re saying, “How can that be? Rep. Paul’s polling in single digits in Florida. He’s going to finish behind Gingrich and Santorum, as well as Mitt Romney, in Tuesday’s Florida primary. How can that translate into beating any of his rivals at all?”
We’ll tell you how – because he’s not winning those delegates in Florida. He’s winning, or will probably win, at least a few delegates in Maine.
Paul took a quick two-day swing through Maine over the weekend, in case you didn’t notice. He met with GOP Gov. Paul LePage. He spoke to big crowds throughout the state – in Lewiston, apparently, event organizers had to expand his conference room to handle the people who showed up.
He even landed the coveted L.L. Bean endorsement – that’s Linda Lorraine Bean, heiress of the L.L. Bean empire and a lobster roll entrepreneur in her own right. She endorsed Paul on Saturday from her restaurant in the retail outlet mecca of Freeport.
Full article here Will Ron Paul win more delegates this week than Gingrich, Santorum? - CSMonitor.com

__________________
"Few have the stomach to pursue truth , yet most know in their gut something is wrong" V

"But everyone knows the media doesn't inform. Duhhhhhh !! "

- V -

__________________
"Few have the stomach to pursue truth , yet most know in their gut something is wrong" V

"But everyone knows the media doesn't inform. Duhhhhhh !! "

- V -

So its a choice between a serial hypocrite , a two faced flip flopper , a war hungry corrupt slime ball , the incumbent failure ( all of them favoured by the establishment .. Rent-a-Clue ! )..... or the consistent straight talking , war ending, libertarian Good Doctor ?




» Why Ron Paul Has A Good Chance Of Winning In Nevada & Maine Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Wow! The Wave is Back.
The Revolution Spirit is surging.
The main stream media won't want you to see this.
Dr. Paul again peaks in Nevada.
This is real, the people love Dr. Paul and his Message.
End the Wars
End the Fed
Restore Individual Liberty
Dr. Paul is the Champion of the Constitution.

__________________
"Few have the stomach to pursue truth , yet most know in their gut something is wrong" V

"But everyone knows the media doesn't inform. Duhhhhhh !! "

Hayek

I was a much bigger Ron Paul supporter in 2008 than I am now mostly because I have learned a lot more about monetary policy, etc. over these 4 yrs. I still support him over the others mostly but I do not agree with everything, especially in his domestic policy like monetary policy.

- V -

GOP Strategist: Ron Paul Will Be On The Republican Ticket

Romney could be forced to pick Paul for Vice-President

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 9, 2012

GOP strategist Jack Burkman told Fox Business host Judge Andrew Napolitano that a brokered convention will force Mitt Romney to pick Ron Paul as his VP, earning Paul a place on the Republican ticket.



Stating that Ron Paul could still win the Republican nomination without finishing first in any of the primary caucuses, Burkman added, “I’ll make a bold prediction right here and now following what we’ve been saying for a year – Ron Paul is going to be on the Republican ticket.”
Burkman said that the presence of four candidates for the whole race would ensure a brokered convention.
“The likely leader will be Romney, but he won’t have enough delegates to win,” he added, forecasting that Romney would pick Paul as his VP because “Gingrich and Santorum have extremely high negatives, nobody in their right mind would want them on the ticket.”
“I am now affirmatively predicting that Ron Paul will be on the ticket, I’ll lay odds,” emphasized Burkman.
Paul is outperforming both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in national polls, which show him in second behind Romney. Other national polls have routinely shown that Paul has a better chance of beating Obama than anyone else besides Romney, with whom he ties in a hypothetical head to head run off against the President.


The Paul campaign’s strategy of focusing on picking up Republican delegates rather than winning straw polls has resulted in Paul outperforming Gingrich and Santorum in terms of delegates in states like Colorado despite him finishing third or fourth in the straw polls.
If Burkman’s previous predictions are anything to go by, he certainly knows his stuff.
Back in October he accurately called the demise of the campaigns of both Rick Perry and Herman Cain. At the time, Cain was the clear frontrunner.
Burkman also forecast that Mitt Romney would struggle with southern voters when it comes to Super Tuesday

__________________
"Few have the stomach to pursue truth , yet most know in their gut something is wrong" V

"But everyone knows the media doesn't inform. Duhhhhhh !! "

Hayek

Paul isn't going to actually win the nomination and I think he knows that, but he will be able to get more delegates and continue spreading the message which is why he will stick around for at least the short run. I don't see Romney trying to get him as a VP and I am not sure what his reaction to such an offer would be anyway given their foreign policy disagreements.

jhughes

I'm sorry, but I simply had to share this video - "Tea Party Crowd Cheers Letting Uninsured Die"
Direct link:

Hayek

Well that is a distortion if I ever saw one :p That is not what Paul is saying or what the crowd is cheering at. He is saying everyone should be able to weigh their own risks. If you kept watching instead of just seeing that soundbite, you would have also seen Paul talk about private charity historically taking care of such people, etc. and if I remember correctly also how American ERs don't let people die if they can't pay as per law and ethics.

antichrist

During the Great Depression they let the poor die in Australia and USA, that is why many dispossessed turned to socialism - and you libertarians would have been laughed off the planet in those days when the stomachs were hungry

jhughes

He said that government should not help him out, in our economic system people are forced to take financial risks and are (based on pure luck) either rewarded or penalized based on those risks, that's BS. Also, with regards to private charity it must be noted that people will rarely donate their money unless they've self interest at stake, only through tax can we get enough money to ensure fairness.