[spineeupsenry]

Firstly, if you dont know who ron paul is, please watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo


Secondly, to those who would like to see him in goverment in america, it just got one step closer:

http://www.ronpaul.com/

[spineeupsenry]

Here is a short ad too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=DeAzrZCD65c

[NumStulpata]

Ron Paul makes too much sense. I don't think he can become the president of US.

[spineeupsenry]

There is a chance he could actually get elected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGguz...eature=related

Basically, if he becomes the candidate for the republicans, they will most likely all back him against barak obama (in america only two people can actually run for president), even though many republicans hate him, they will still back him against barak obama. On top of that he will receive support from antiwar movement and many liberals and plus ron paul has an actual solid following of people who dont care about parties and simply want to support ron paul due to his policies. So in my estimation there is a good chance if he becomes teh replublican party candidate in the presidential elections, that he could very well win and become president. THe main issue now is him getting to the presidential elections. He won today and there will be some more steps, I believe the next step will be a much larger scale election. I must admit I dont FULLY understand the american election system as its somewhat different and complicated compared to the british one so someone can correct me if they are able to offer an alternative explanation.

I dont think they will be able to rig the elections as that would be scandal of teh century if america goes round spreading democracy while rigging their own elections and would invovle many average people who are invovled in collecting votes to be in on the conspiracy. Definitely there is one issue that he will receive little corporate support and so will not have a wealthy election campaign

[Symnunidanimb]

i know a little about ron paul and he seems to be making all the right noises in comparison to obama, but then obama did the same as well when he went up against bush......and we all know how much our people were praising obama before he came into power. even members of this forum could not praise him enough....and look how he turned out. just as bad as bush if not worse!

call me a conspiracy nut or whatever you like........i call myself a realist. if the powers that be (whoever they are, zionists, elite bankers, big money corporations, illuminati) do not want ron paul in power then he will NEVER win. and if he does come into power its because they want him there. just look back at history to see the future.

obama was presented as an alternative from the other end of the spectrum to bush. after putting bush in power twice (and even that has a funny story if you guys remember the recount fiasco) the people got fed up with him and lo and behold the saviour obama emerged. he turned out to be a bigger, two faced, forked tongue liar then bush.

[spineeupsenry]

obama wasnt libertarian though really. If ron paul got into power and then did anything except what he said I think america woudl no longer believe in democracy. If he does what he says, america will no longer influence the muslim world. Sounds like a win win situation to me

also dont give zionists too much power. Its the mistake many muslims are currently making. they are not Allah. they make mistakes, they are not all seeing all powerful and we need to lose this understanding that they are in full control all teh time. they have power, in terms of powerful people in media and economies etc, but they arent all seeing all powerful, they dont have any way to know how certain situations will pan out like wars and uprisings, I disagree with how some people talk about them like they plan every single event that happens on the earth. Also, if all teh reporters and people were in on teh conspiracy they woudl never hide it so they only look at people of serious influence, so they dont have control over 99.99% of the population and those 99.99% can very easily do what teh zionists dont want.

Ron Paul can get to power without the zionists permission, dont ive zionists more power then they have.

[spineeupsenry]

also if you analyse obama's actualy policies they match his actions. He said he would withdraw from iraq and surge in afghanistan and thats exactly what he did. There is no way that after all that ron paul has said, that he would then get away with more of the same. Bring up obamas actions with his policies and I dont think there will be too much thats different although if you disagree you will need to quote his policies and his actions and show how they differ. Obama mainly gave rhetoric but his policies were far from libertarian

[Creva4k]

i know a little about ron paul and he seems to be making all the right noises in comparison to obama, but then obama did the same as well when he went up against bush......and we all know how much our people were praising obama before he came into power. even members of this forum could not praise him enough....and look how he turned out. just as bad as bush if not worse!

call me a conspiracy nut or whatever you like........i call myself a realist. if the powers that be (whoever they are, zionists, elite bankers, big money corporations, illuminati) do not want ron paul in power then he will NEVER win. and if he does come into power its because they want him there. just look back at history to see the future.

obama was presented as an alternative from the other end of the spectrum to bush. after putting bush in power twice (and even that has a funny story if you guys remember the recount fiasco) the people got fed up with him and lo and behold the saviour obama emerged. he turned out to be a bigger, two faced, forked tongue liar then bush.

The difference between Ron Paul and Obama is that Paul actually has a record to back up his claims. He's been saying the same things for years now, whereas Obama was a political newcomer who never really committed to much. His campaign's genius was that it was quite vague. There was constant talk of change, but not a lot of solid policy.

Besides that, the Muslims who act betrayed by him only have themselves to blame for getting caught in the hype. Yes, he did break some promises, like closing down Guantanamo, but some of the things Muslims criticize him for now were positions he held before becoming president, and he never tried to hide them. Focusing on the war in Afghanistan and increasing pressure on Pakistan, supporting Israel, etc. These things were known about him before he became president, but some Muslims just chose to ignore them and get caught up in the hype.

Now, I'm sure Ron Paul has some positions that we may not agree with, either. But, his primary concerns include isolationism, reducing the US Federal government, changing the money policy and reducing the influence of rich bankers. These are things I think Muslims could get behind, because they do benefit us. He wants to return the US to governing as it did during its early days, and if I remember correctly, the US was much friendlier with Muslim powers than it was even with the Europeans back then.

Of course, the president is only one man, and even if he did become president, it's unlikely he'd be able to enact many of his policies (that would require a massive shift in Congress and the Senate as well, which most likely wont happen), and he most likely wont win the Republican nomination, but he probably would be the best US president in relation to Muslims in a long time.

[discountviagraman]

Br Dawud

Personally I am not a fan of social conservatism, or libertarians. They seem to have a who cares attitude towards the poor in society; and this is what makes Ron Paul interesting on so many levels. Even though he is conservative, he is not agreeing with his party on issues such as foreign policy.
However that doesnt necessarily make a good leader;

[Creva4k]

There is a chance he could actually get elected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGguz...eature=related

Basically, if he becomes the candidate for the republicans, they will most likely all back him against barak obama (in america only two people can actually run for president), even though many republicans hate him, they will still back him against barak obama. On top of that he will receive support from antiwar movement and many liberals and plus ron paul has an actual solid following of people who dont care about parties and simply want to support ron paul due to his policies. So in my estimation there is a good chance if he becomes teh replublican party candidate in the presidential elections, that he could very well win and become president. THe main issue now is him getting to the presidential elections. He won today and there will be some more steps, I believe the next step will be a much larger scale election. I must admit I dont FULLY understand the american election system as its somewhat different and complicated compared to the british one so someone can correct me if they are able to offer an alternative explanation.

I dont think they will be able to rig the elections as that would be scandal of teh century if america goes round spreading democracy while rigging their own elections and would invovle many average people who are invovled in collecting votes to be in on the conspiracy. Definitely there is one issue that he will receive little corporate support and so will not have a wealthy election campaign

Just some clarification:

1. He actually lost today, coming in third to Romney and Santorum. However, it was a strong showing, especially considering the lack of media attention given to Paul.

2. The Iowa Caucus is open to all people, not just Republicans. As such, much of Paul's support was from independents, who cannot vote in the primaries to decide the actual Republican candidate.

3. I've heard that the Iowa Caucus rarely actually correctly predicts who ends up the Republican candidate. So it's hard to predict what will happen in the end.

4. Paul is not very popular with conservatives and Evangelicals. It's pretty hard to win a Republican nomination with out support from those groups.

[Symnunidanimb]

also if you analyse obama's actualy policies they match his actions. He said he would withdraw from iraq and surge in afghanistan and thats exactly what he did. There is no way that after all that ron paul has said, that he would then get away with more of the same. Bring up obamas actions with his policies and I dont think there will be too much thats different although if you disagree you will need to quote his policies and his actions and show how they differ. Obama mainly gave rhetoric but his policies were far from libertarian

what kind of pre-election promises made our people support him?

[spineeupsenry]

Just some clarification:

1. He actually lost today, coming in third to Romney and Santorum. However, it was a strong showing, especially considering the lack of media attention given to Paul.

2. The Iowa Caucus is open to all people, not just Republicans. As such, much of Paul's support was from independents, who cannot vote in the primaries to decide the actual Republican candidate.

3. I've heard that the Iowa Caucus rarely actually correctly predicts who ends up the Republican candidate. So it's hard to predict what will happen in the end.

4. Paul is not very popular with conservatives and Evangelicals. It's pretty hard to win a Republican nomination with out support from those groups.

bro i proper laughed when shaikh yousuf asked maneating lizard to read on the live session of the shariah program. i take it your on there? Its an amazing course mashAllah


He did win bro, 3rd place was enough, the first three are goig to be invovled in the next rounds as far as i know?

Perhaps you can enlighten me with an epxlanation of how the system works and what the significance of today was? As far as I can see it was a necessary step for ron paul to become president.

And even if the congress dislikes his policies, its a mass movement taht heavily favours the ummah. People will get swept away in his movementy and adopty his policies and inshAllah he will help transform the attitudes of many americans. Imagine all those people who because of ron paul, oppose interventionalism. i believe this can only be a good thing. All the money he is spending on ads and documentaries and talks, arguing the points taht muslims really need to be made

[spineeupsenry]

what kind of pre-election promises made our people support him?

general rhetoric to be honest bro. He broke very few of his policies and his policies didnt really favour the ummah but people seem more pursuaded by rhetoric these days than facts. Im sure tehre is a hadeeth on this and warning of us of a time when words will become like sihr (magic)

[Symnunidanimb]

general rhetoric to be honest bro. He broke very few of his policies and his policies didnt really favour the ummah but people seem more pursuaded by rhetoric these days than facts. Im sure tehre is a hadeeth on this and warning of us of a time when words will become like sihr (magic)

you are probably right. i have been looking at a site that lists his pre-election promises and shows which ones he kept and broke. i cant see anything on there that would have made our people support him. maybe it WAS magic? why not?

[Symnunidanimb]

campaign promises...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ises/obameter/

[spineeupsenry]

campaign promises...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ises/obameter/

jazak allahu khair

how much do you see from here taht really benefitted muslims:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ects/military/

[mplawssix]

The difference between Ron Paul and Obama is that Paul actually has a record to back up his claims. He's been saying the same things for years now, whereas Obama was a political newcomer who never really committed to much. His campaign's genius was that it was quite vague. There was constant talk of change, but not a lot of solid policy.

Besides that, the Muslims who act betrayed by him only have themselves to blame for getting caught in the hype. Yes, he did break some promises, like closing down Guantanamo, but some of the things Muslims criticize him for now were positions he held before becoming president, and he never tried to hide them. Focusing on the war in Afghanistan and increasing pressure on Pakistan, supporting Israel, etc. These things were known about him before he became president, but some Muslims just chose to ignore them and get caught up in the hype.

Now, I'm sure Ron Paul has some positions that we may not agree with, either. But, his primary concerns include isolationism, reducing the US Federal government, changing the money policy and reducing the influence of rich bankers. These are things I think Muslims could get behind, because they do benefit us. He wants to return the US to governing as it did during its early days, and if I remember correctly, the US was much friendlier with Muslim powers than it was even with the Europeans back then.

Of course, the president is only one man, and even if he did become president, it's unlikely he'd be able to enact many of his policies (that would require a massive shift in Congress and the Senate as well, which most likely wont happen), and he most likely wont win the Republican nomination, but he probably would be the best US president in relation to Muslims in a long time.

Ron Paul is a controverstial person. Be cautious. I have given you two sources --one is supporting him and another views him as a secret freemason.

############################## pro ###########
http://www.thedailybell.com/
http://www.thedailybell.com/3428/Ron...-on-Washington

############################# anti ############
JS said (June 18, 2010):

http://www.henrymakow.com/repudiate_...of_a_debt.html

I've been watching Ron Paul for a while...I was hoping against hope that he was one of the "good" Freemasoons (I know, I'm naive). When I started seeing him all the time in the media suddenly after being "ignored" for so long though, I knew you were right again Henry! This article has connected the dots on the real purpose for his public appearances etc.

Sad that there are so few people we can count on.

I read the article by Tony Blizzard, about Ron Paul, and I am glad he wrote this. I was heavily campaigning for Ron Paul for president during the presidential campaign, until I noticed him flashing the horned hand symbol (I was the one who emailed you the video links on this a few years ago). I knew at that point he was probably Freemason, but I had no hard evidence. The video included in this article is enough to convince me that Ron Paul is indeed a 'plant,' as I suspected. After he raised millions of dollars during the presidential campaign, and then suddenly 'dropped out of the race,' it was evident he was doing what 'they' (NWO) told him to do. I do not trust Ron Paul, or what he says. I realize now that every politician who was part of the presidential campaign was placed there by the NWO. We have treason in the white house, yet we all sleep....thinking these same politicians, such as Ron Paul, will save us. Not so! Until Americans wake up and throw out the traitors, ALL OF THEM, the whole lot of them, we will lose this country. Voting in new 'plants' is not going to save this country. I wonder when Americans will realize they are being duped by both Democrats and Republicans? I fear it will be too late when they do.

PS. I think it is interesting to note that when I sent you the links about Ron Paul flashing the horned hand symbol, I also emailed Jeff Rense, Truthseeker, propagandamatrix, and infowars. You responded and posted online, Rense responded and posted the info online, Truthseeker responded and posted online...but propagandamatrix and infowars IGNORED my emails, and never questioned or mentioned online the fact that Paul was flashing illuminati hand signs. To this day, they never have. Of course, Alex Jones constantly has Paul on as a guest. Could it be that these two news sites remained silent about this obvious satanic hand gesture by Paul because they are 'plants' themselves to further the NWO agenda? I suspect so.

################### anti ############

Let's be Realistic about Ron Paul

left. Paul offers a Masonic handshake to Ben Affleck on Bill Maher's show.

http://www.henrymakow.com/ron_paul.html


Tony said (December 6, 2011):

Wanted to say that all one needs to know about life time mason Ron Paul is that he has been in office for around 22 years over a 45 year period. If he was any problem to the moneyed rulers of all he would have been "unelected" long ago, one way or another. He is, without a doubt, controlled opposition. No, more like controlling opposition.

#######################

[AlexBrith]

Firstly, if you dont know who ron paul is, please watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo


Secondly, to those who would like to see him in goverment in america, it just got one step closer:

http://www.ronpaul.com/

its not actually a good result for this campaign. couple days back, far as i remember, they were hoping to get 2nd place as many of the opinion polls had him coming 2nd.

[sniskelsowwef]

obama promised to close Guantanamo bay and for that reason he was popular amongst many muslims including so called modern muslims but he also made a promise to increase troops in afghanistan and pull out from iraq which he has done but this pre-election promise was overlooked by the same people that were supporting him because of his promise to close of Guantanamo bay. the Guantanamo bay still exists and abu gharib is no lesser evil place than Guantanamo bay. remember that speech that he made in cairo after he was elected which won him many fans in muslim world as if he was some kind of messiah and people thought that situation of the Palestinians will improve but nothing has happened and his support for israel has increased day by day. Ron Paul has got no chance because he doesn't have the backing of zionist lobby in USA. the rapist cain and delusional bachmann has already pulled out so their voters are likely to vote for the other 4 remaining candidate instead of Ron Paul which will increase their share of votes.

[mplawssix]

Ron Paul makes too much sense. I don't think he can become the president of US.

If Ron Paul supports usury , then surely he is very dangerous , although outwardly , he may promise to offer many good things. Check this.

###############
Ron Paul's "Austrian" Jewish Economics

Whether a currency is backed by gold makes no difference. As long as we pay interest, it is still Illuminati Jewish economics. The real alternative is interest-free currency.

http://www.henrymakow.com/austrian_e..._jewish_e.html

################

As we know, the Illuminati Jewish Money Power likes playing the Hegelian Dialectic game and controlling both sides of the conflict. Clearly, they will have their answer ready when their Fiat Empire comes to it's end.

That answer may be Austrian Economics. Here's why:

Murray Rothbard was a son of poor Jewish immigrants from Poland. Ludwig von Mises was a son of a wealthy Jewish financier family from what is now the Ukraine. When von Mises came to the US, he was set up with a grant from the Rockefellers.

Austrian Economics correctly identifies the manipulation of the money supply as the cause of the boom/bust, a.k.a business cycle. This is the little bit of truth necessary for the rest of the disinformation to have credibility. However, they completely ignore the wealth transfer through interest, which is of much greater significance.

THE GRIP OF INTEREST

Interest has always been the Money Power's main tool. They took power by creating wars, financing both sides, and having Governments go deeply into debt.

This is the key issue: interest is a wealth transfer from the poorest 80% to the richest 10%.

The global numbers are not known, but in Germany $1 billion per day is paid by the poorest 80% and extrapolated to the world this means the Plutocracy drain anywhere between $5 trillion and $10 trillion dollars per year.

The US Govt loses up to $700 billion per year in debt service. That's a TARP every year. All for money that was printed the minute it was borrowed. But Austrian Economics will 'fix' that problem: we'll be paying it for Gold-based credit instead.

To add insult to injury: the boom/bust cycle will not change, which is the basic case for gold. Gold has been the standard for a long time and it didn't stop the Money Power from creating asset bubbles and deflationary busts.

Even under a full reserve banking system it is quite easy to manipulate the volume in circulation when you control a large part of the World's gold reserves.

So all in all its fair to say that Austrian Economics is 'Jewish' Economics.

RON PAUL

All this has become relevant because of Ron Paul, of course. But Paul is not the man patriots think he is. In 2001, he said, There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.... The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.... The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation." -- Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001

http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/...orld-currency/

Paul says Gold will keep Government spending in check. He wants to cut Government spending, but is unable to explain how this would lead to different results than what we have seen in Greece: an imploding economy with a withering tax base and even higher deficits as the predictable result.

In the debate you see the Keynes-Austrian Dialectic: Spending versus Austerity. Both ignore interest, which is the hidden common ground.

People like Webster Tarpley and Paul Krugman want the Government to reflate the economy. This is correct, but the risk is it will kill the patient which is suffering from intolerable debt service levels as it is. They both skillfully avoid the monetary system itself, let alone interest. That's why they can't really put up a fight against the Austrians.
If the economy were reflated with either debt free money, or interest free credit the problem would be over instantly.

It is too bad Ron Paul has managed to hijack the Patriot Movement. His constitutionalism, his peaceful intentions (we'll have to see how they would work out in practice), his $1 trillion austerity drive combined with his modest demeanor have managed to convince many discerning and well meaning people.

His rise and the sycophantic worship that he receives is eerily similar to that of Barack Obama in 2008.

But as long as we don't understand money and the all importance of interest, people like Obama and Paul will continue to fool us with their Voodoo- and Jewish Economics.

CONCLUSION

During modern history the financiers behind the throne clearly subjugated Governments. They don't need the State. To them it is a competitor, a dangerous one too. They will use it as long as they can control it, but they are trying to consolidate their financial power in their World Government.

Social Credit is the best debt free currency I know of: it's a Greenback created by Govt, given to the people to spend into circulation, instead of Govt. In that way the money is located at the base of the supply line. People know where to spend the money better than govt.

Meanwhile, the gold versus fiat narrative is a distraction which allows them to sabotage all meaningful monetary reform. We need a debt-free, interest-free currency which would lead to political freedom and the put humanity back on the path to fulfilling its Divine destiny.

----------------------------------
Austrian Economists suffer when confronted with the interest issue. Here are two recent examples:
What Gary North is not telling you about Interest
Discussing Gold and Interest with the Daily Bell

Anthony Migchels is an Interest-Free Currency activist and founder of the Gelre, the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands. You can read all of his articles on his blog Real Currencies

Mutual credit, the astonishingly simple truth about money creation
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/...oney-creation/

The problem is not debt, its interest
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/...-its-interest/

-------------------