Liberty MavenRon Paul Supporters vs. Real Conspiracy Theorists
April 1st, 2008 5:46 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Constitution, Election, Free Market, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Neo-con, Politics, Ron Paul | 18 Comments
Throughout the Ron Paul campaign amateur and professional pundits on television, newspapers, blogs, and forums were quick to point out that Ron Paul supporters were made up of crazy conspiracy theorists. This apparently, meant that by association Ron Paul was one as well. Similarly, Obama was guilty by associating with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Both were and are unfair.
The recent events of Ron Paul supporters organizing and working within GOP convention rules to win delegate seats and resolutions has been labeled by the Republican establishment as a coup against the Republican party. This notion is preposterous and is nothing more than a conspiracy theory of their own in order to motivate opposition to true conservative ideas. Ideas that they say they believe in, but rarely practice anymore.
The recent events at GOP conventions in both Missouri and Texas show that Ron Paul supporters are not going away no matter what tactics are used to thwart them. Ron Paul supporters are not trying to “take over the Republican party”. They are merely trying to revive the conservative roots of the party.
There was a time when Republicans were conservative. They believed in non-interventionism, low taxes, controlled spending, small government, free markets, individual freedom, and the Constitution. Today’s Republican Party is nothing more than a public relations firm set up to hide that Republicans rarely vote in line with conservative principles anymore. Ron Paul and his supporters just want to restore truth to the rhetoric.
Political discourse in America is a washing machine spinning without any clothes inside. It’s all about the power and money grab to get elected. In Ron Paul many see something different. A candidate of integrity, honesty, and principle. Those that latched on to his campaign were quick to point out that once you actually listened to the man, ignored the media marginalization, and researched his positions, he was hard not to support.
In a perfect America we would all be tuned in to the rhetoric of our leaders and potential leaders. In a perfect America our leaders and potential leaders would stay true to their principles once in office. In a perfect America we would not dismiss a candidate because of his perceived “zero” chance at winning. In a perfect America we would vote for the candidate who we believe would best uphold the Constitution. After all that is their ultimate oath and supposed obligation.
The American citizen has become nothing more than a polling demographic for office seekers to utilize for snake oil pandering. Whatever happened to our founding principles of individual rights? There were many words spoken by Ron Paul during his campaign that resonated with me, but there is one I will always remember, “I serve the smallest possible special interest group: The Individual (paraphrased)”. Bravo Doctor.
Now the Republican establishment is accusing Ron Paul supporters of taking over the party. Maybe they should stop with their own conspiracy theories. Ron Paul supporters are merely trying to rescue the Republican Party and take it back to its true conservative roots. Something that is long over due. Instead of denigrating and blocking the Paul supporters, they should welcome the infusion of new blood. Hopefully they realize it before it is too late.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am (#)
The characterization of Ron Paul as innocent victim of guilt by association isn’t entirely accurate. If he were supported by ‘conspiracy theorists’, and that were the end of it, I’d agree with you. He appears frequently on the Alex Jones show, he talks in supportive tones with ‘9/11 was an inside job’ types, and has claimed that all governmental investigations are cover-ups.
While libertarian views are gaining a foothold, Ron Paul was never the right candidate. His judgment and character are too often questionable…
April 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm (#)
Hey Pubicus, as soon as they show a video of that airline crashing into the pentagon, or maybe one showing it flying around the pentagon… oh that’s right they don’t have any videos of the airspace around there cause they are not interested in security. What was I thinking…
The economy is taking a dump, our rights are being violated, the constitution is being ignored… Ron Paul is the ONLY right candidate even if his only qualifications were his desire to restore liberty.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm (#)
Only Dr. Ron Paul honors tenets of the US Constitution.
Albert Einstein once said, “You cannot solve the problems with same thinking and people who created the problems in the first place.” Unfortunately, John McCain has already vowed to continue the disastrous policies of the Bush and Cheney administration. If he wins, prepare for things to keep getting worse on the same course.
It feels very hopeless, listening to polished speeches, half truths, lies and false promises. The only one I’ve discovered who has integrity, wisdom and guts enough to get to the root of our problems and honor our Constitution is Dr. Ron Paul.
He is still in the Republican race because the support behind him is growing every day. What we need is a debate between McCain and Paul. The best person doesn’t always win, but some fair airtime would be the American way.
Ditto to Jane Sell, Hawley, Minn. Thanks in advance for your permission.
http://www.in-forum.com/Opinion/articles/196385
April 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm (#)
Ron Paul’s association with people who speak and act like badunit guarantees a limit to his popularity.
Call me names all you want, that’s the reality…
April 1st, 2008 at 9:23 pm (#)
To Publius, who said:
“…He appears frequently on the Alex Jones show, he talks in supportive tones with ‘9/11 was an inside job’ types, and has claimed that all governmental investigations are cover-ups.
While libertarian views are gaining a foothold, Ron Paul was never the right candidate. His judgment and character are too often questionable…”
****
Though I think you are a thoughtful poster, not a total jerk, and not opposed to freedom itself, Publius, I must nevertheless take issue with your comments…as follows:
First, do you have a specific charge against Alex Jones? What did he say or do, exactly, that you disagree with? Don’t be coy, man.
Publius, since it is a demonstrable fact that not one American in a hundred can explain the process of how money is created in this country, how can it be such a stretch that there are things, perhaps even significant things, that we do not know about the Sept 11th attacks?
The fact is that we just don’t really know much of anything, do we? Let’s be honest here. Please - do not pretend, Publius, that Osama Bin Laden is not at the very least, a former CIA asset from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That much is known, established fact. It doesn’t prove that 9-11 was an inside job; it is merely an example of a piece of data that is what it is - troubling, and it isn’t the only one.
(I myself am on record (Neocon War Dance)as saying that my main point about the affair is unaffected by whether it was an “inside job” or not. The fact is that completely disarming the planes, even the pilots, was the key to the whole affair. Even if it were an inside job, it wouldn’t have been feasible without complete disarmament. At the other end of the spectrum, even if there were no Al Qaida, the plane or planes were still at risk of being commandeered by any other nutcase or group of them who managed to sneak weapons on board, or who had a tremendous physical advantage of some type.)
Don’t get all high and mighty with indignation at those who suspect the government of foul play - they are right plenty often. I for one totally agree with the statement that every government investigation is pretty much a coverup, especially when they are investigating themselves or their failed policies. Of course, Publius, you are not actually quoting the good doctor there in any case, now are you?
I doubt it very much.
Finally, it is an amazing statement to say that Ron Paul’s “…judgment and character are too often questionable.”
WTF? No Criminal Record. One wife. A twenty plus year consistent voting record in congress. A brilliant leader of the libertarian movement.
I think his character is just fine. I doubt seriously that there is any finer character available to vote for in our earthly world. I’ve read the stuff in those old newletters, and it’s mostly all true. There’s no real racism in there at all. As for the 9-11 issue, I think that there’s plenty we don’t know, and it’s usually people like Alex Jones who find these things out for us, not government commissions and investigations anyway.
I hate to break the news to everyone, but 99.9% of our lives is controlled now in a statist “Matrix” that acts like a conspiracy. Just because most of the people involved don’t know they are - doesn’t change a thing about the results of their actions - which is morphing very quickly now into total tyranny.
Sept. 11th has definitely sped the process up a lot. Does saying that make me a 9-11 truther?
April 1st, 2008 at 10:32 pm (#)
To Tom deSabla:
I’m not sure how to respond, but I’ll try…
I didn’t think I was being coy. Alex Jones is well known as a conspiracy theorist, as you allude to in your post.
The rest of your post doesn’t refute anything I said. You defend conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. That’s fine. I noted That Ron Paul actively courts them. I don’t think anyone can refute that statement.
As to his judgment and character, if he believes what was in those newsletters, he should say so. It’s hard to conceive that he didn’t know what was being printed in his name for years. If he was unaware, that’s just another example of poor judgment.
If you are content with allowing a different standard of proof for 9/11 truthers than the government, that’s your call. The ‘truth’ movement has changed theories so many times, it’s laughable. Dr. Paul’s willingness to associate with this movement, as well as other fringe elements, shows a significant lack of judgment.
I sincerely hope our country can move toward less government, but hopefully under the leadership of someone who shows better judgment in his/her associations…
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 am (#)
Ron Paul on 9/11 feels as though the current administration used the attacks as an excuse to push an agenda. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a matter of fact. Regardless of who did 9/11, there is absolutely no doubt that the GWB administration has used it to benefit and push the neo-con agenda.
Furthermore, there was absolutely no accountability for the events, combined with the administrations desire to brush everything under the rug, while almost instantly claiming to know who did it.
Now me personally. I thought the towers were demolished from day 1. I just always thought the terrorists planted them. When I seen it happen I thought as such, just as the reporters did. I kept waiting for reports saying how it was done, and instead I was given that the planes did it. I trusted it, moved on and never thought much else about it until I heard about building 7. Since then, I have to say I very much question the official story.
I feel where Alex Jones goes wrong is placing blame. I don’t see any specific evidence that links people like GWB, but again there is little doubt that the neo-cons have benefited from the attacks more than anyone. That is where the connection comes in.
And the fact that they won’t release video, and cleared up the crime scene with obvious lies doesn’t help the cause. I only want to know the truth, and I know the official story is not it.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 am (#)
“I feel where Alex Jones goes wrong is placing blame. I don’t see any specific evidence that links people like GWB”
If the MSM is going to lie to you then how will armchair jockeys ever get “specific evidence”. If you haven’t already made up your mind from the little bit of crapola that has been fed thru MSM and do even a slight bit of research, right where you are sitting, on the net,there is ample circumstantial coincendences to give anyone with half a brain pause. Take the red pill you SOB’s the rabbit hole is REALLY deep…sorry Pube take the blue pill and go back to sleep. Alex Jones, bull in a china shop…thank god.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 am (#)
badunit,
Your debating skills are impressive. If anyone is looking for a reason that the R3VOLUTION is over…think:
A) People like badunit
B) People like Tom deSabla
C) Ron Paul’s associations with A and B
Psst…’The Matrix’ was fiction, and perhaps badunit should consider a few less pills.
‘Circumstantial Coincidences’….now there’s a standard of proof. Then again, I’m not sure what a circumstantial coincidence is, so maybe it’s the perfect standard.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 am (#)
Publius, you said (numbering is Tom deSabla’s):
“I didn’t think I was being coy. (1) Alex Jones is well known as a conspiracy theorist, as (2)you allude to in your post.
(3)The rest of your post doesn’t refute anything I said. (4)You defend conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. That’s fine. (5)I noted That Ron Paul actively courts them. I don’t think anyone can refute that statement.
As to his judgment and character, (6)if he believes what was in those newsletters, he should say so. (7)It’s hard to conceive that he didn’t know what was being printed in his name for years. If he was unaware, that’s just another example of poor judgment.
If you are content with allowing a (8)different standard of proof for 9/11 truthers than the government, that’s your call.
9)The ‘truth’ movement has changed theories so many times, it’s laughable. Dr. Paul’s willingness to associate with this movement, as well as other (10)fringe elements, shows a significant lack of judgment.
(11)I sincerely hope our country can move toward less government, but hopefully under the leadership of someone who shows better judgment in his/her associations…”
***
And then, Publius, you followed up with:
“badunit,
Your debating skills are impressive. If anyone is looking for a reason that (12)the R3VOLUTION is over…think:
A) People like badunit
B) People like Tom deSabla
C) Ron Paul’s (13)associations with A and B
Psst…’(14)The Matrix’ was fiction, and perhaps badunit should consider a few less pills.”
***
Well now, I must admit I might have been wrong about you Pubicus. You are no friend to liberty. In fact, you are an a-hole, first class. However, I still think you are a thoughtful poster, because the poison you spew is difficult for some to detect. I will do the service for those who may come across this board and not realize what you are doing.
Please forgive the length of this, but some things need to be said.
1. At this point, I think that using the term “conspiracy theorist” is losing it’s usefulness absent a definition of the term. Apparently Publius thinks that it is such a powerful slur that its mere utterance is sufficient to tar Alex Jones. I for one am still waiting on “Publius” to reveal some specific thing that Alex Jones has definitely said that can be proven wrong. When he reveals such a thing, I am fully ready to acknowledge it; until then, I am inclined to suspect Publius of trying to muddy the waters here, so to speak.
2. No. I did not allude to Alex Jones as a well-known conspiracy theorist. What I did do, is ask P-dog for a specific charge against Jones, and the discerning reader can easily see that he has offered none. I also said that when government screws things up and then lies about it, it’s usually muckraking investigative types like Jones who tell us about it.
3. I didn’t refute, because one cannot refute facts that are not there. I clarified the fact that the Pubmeister made non-specific claims that mean nothing without a definition of the (pejorative?) terms he used, like “9-11 truther” and “conspiracy theorist” and that asking for more character than Ron Paul has is a phony request - like asking for the moon.
4. I defend conspiracy theories and theorists? Aren’t you getting a little sloppy there Pubsterini? I did no such thing, and in any case, AGAIN, the charge is meaningless without a definition. I did defend Alex Jones, but only to the extent of asking for a specific charge against him.
5. Ron Paul actively courts a type of person? (A type of person, which, of course, “Pubby” has conveniently neglected TO DEFINE.) Perhaps Peeyuublius feels that some people in our society are so “out-of-the-mainstream” that they taint anyone they support or come into contact with. These people, apparently, should have no champions, and should not have input into the political process.
People like me and maybe you.
6. Again, a charge with no specifics. What untruths has Dookius uncovered in these famous Ron Paul newsletters. What is it that Ron Paul should not believe? Let’s go there. C’mon. GIVE US THE SPECIFICS PLEASE.
Oh, that’s right, Poopius doesn’t argue that way.
7. Now here there is finally some objective truth and a hint of a real argument. I too, do not know how he could have not known what was in those letters. But even this is really besides the point, because there is no real racism in those newsletters - which he didn’t write and no-one has ever argued that he did. And, they are pretty darn old too.
As to Paul’s supposedly terrible judgement -I’d like to read some stuff that Phooeyus wrote 15 years ago and see how much sense it makes now. Maybe what Publius is calling poor judgement is just Paul and his surrogates rejecting political correctness (before it became popular) and telling it like it is.
And, not to nitpick, but Gooblius says that the newsletters were “just another example of poor judgment.” “Just another” example? Piled on top of what existing mountain of poor judgements? Could we have an example? Of course not.
8. This is getting a little hysterical YouTubelius - I never said such a thing. Well, I did say that I didn’t expect the truth from the government, and that we were more likely to get it from Alex Jones. So, in a twisted sort of way, the P creature is right - I have A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF for private citizens than I do for government. Ha ha ; )
9. So now it’s the “Truth Movement” that’s changing theories? Unlike the government and it’s ever-shifting justifications for war? Unlike Noseblius, who has again failed to give any examples of changing theories, I will list some of my own.
A. WW1; Make the world safe for democracy.
B. WW2; We were attacked - (by a nation we were blockading) resulting in 2400 dead Americans. We then proceeded to lose hundreds of thousands more - all overseas and on foreign soil.
C. Korea; Police action and see A and D
D. Vietnam; Stop Communism.
Iraq. a. Get WMD. b. Get Dictator. c. Enforce U.N. resolutions. d. Secure nation against terrorists. e. Don’t leave without “honor.”
I’m getting a picture of changing justifications here - justifications for killing and dying. That’s much worse than just changing theories, especially when the charge has no support. Maybe one of these years, Booblius will support one of his stupid charges, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
10. By Bootlius’s implication, the Founders themselves would be “fringe elements.” This just another attempted slur with no definition and no substance. Think about this for a second - criminals are fringe elements, right? But now realize that there are so many laws that every single one of us disobeys SOME law SOMEWHERE - often every single day.
That means, when it’s convenient to do so, we can ALL be labeled as “fringe elements.”
11. I think this person - “Publius” - is a liar. If he really wanted smaller government - he wouldn’t sound anything like he does on this board. People who really want small government don’t deride their allies as “fringe” elements or attack their leaders with such empty rhetoric and vague charges.
12. If the revolution is really over, then perhaps Publicass can explain how Paul’s supporters somehow became a threat to “take over” conventions in Alaska, Missouri, and Texas.
http://www.star-telegram.com/elections/story/552306.html
13. Really? You think so? Google “deSabla” mr. anonymius. You’ll find out the my ancestors founded the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. We built this f-in country beeyatch, so any candidate should be proud to associate him or herself with the name “deSabla.”
Who the f are you, punk? I’ll take badunit at my side over you anyday. We’ll take care of business, don’t you worry. You’re nothing but a poseur, a faker, a phony and a liar. We’re the big boys, dude. We’re coming to take this country back, and you better stay out of the way intellectually, because we can argue rings around you, and in all other ways too.
14. “The Matrix” was fiction hunh?
Yeah, well, so was Orwell’s “1984.”
Game. Set. Match.
****
Please, Dumbiass, don’t come back without defining your charges and using actual facts.
****
(I have used these offensive nicknames throughout because I use my name, and “Publius” is just some anonymous poster with no accountability for his/her statements)
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm (#)
My, how witty!
This is where i leave. You know full well what a conspiracy theory is, and conspiracy theorist falls out of that…
You used many words in your post, but failed to define any of them. Please define each word used, as it is required to clarify your post.
Here I’ll leave it to the reader to determine who’s being evasive.
To the reader, when the election is over and you’re left wondering why your candidate lost, think deSabla. Like too many of Dr. Paul’s supporters, he’s an anchor.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 pm (#)
My dear Fauxblius, your ramblings are becoming ever more desperate and incoherent. None of us Paul supporters control the mainstream media that froze our candidate completely out the the news. The censorship of Ron Paul is a matter of historical record, and has been chronicled by the Project for Excellence in Journalism among others.
To quote Axl Rose:
Don’t go away mad, Trollius, just go away. You’re busted.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm (#)
The term the term “conspiracy theorist” is being used, like the term racist, to categorize and dismiss anyone who thinks that there might be more to the crime than the crime its self. These terms eliminate discussion. These terms are also used as simple adjectives to marginalize people who will not be supported by the MSM special interest groups.
For some of us stubborn ones, no matter how many times you say, “fringe candidate Ron Paul and his conspiracy theorist supporters” or “black candidate Barack Obama and his racist minister”, will continue to believe what we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:11 am (#)
“The term “conspiracy theorist” is being used, like the term racist, to categorize and dismiss anyone who thinks that there might be more to the crime than the crime its self. These terms eliminate discussion”
Well said.
It would behoove us all to watch for these type of discussion-eliminating tricks, and beware the claims (and sometimes even the motives) of those who use them.
Another example of such a trick might be when people claim that Ron Paul is an “isolationist.”
The term is usually not defined, and the issue itself rarely debated - as in, what exactly are Paul’s positions; are they the right thing for America, and finally, are they really isolationist? In the end, again, use of the term serves mostly to end any real discussion/exchange of views.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am (#)
Note: I must admit that these terms do have existing definitions. According to Wiki and Dictionary.com
“conspiracy theorist,” refers to
1. “a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.”
which we will summarize as “an(one) event” conspiracy theory
or
2. “the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.”
which we can summarize as “MANY events AND trends” - which is much more expansive. What does this mean? Nothing, except that the term can mean almost anything the user wants it to.
After all, many actual conspiracies have existed in the world. By the first definition, belief in any one of them makes you a conspiracy theorist.
Wiki tells us, among many other things, that “For example ‘Conspiracy nut’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a ‘conspiracy theory’ reject the term as prejudicial.”
I say that if we are going to use even the very first limited definition of there being “one event” that we think may involve an unknown covert plot, we still should not use terms as “conspiracy theorist,” especially in an attempt to discredit an opponent in a public debate…
UNLESS WE FIRST SPECIFY THE EXACT CONSPIRACY THEY BELIEVE IN, AND WHY THEY ARE WRONG.
I leave another thought to ponder - what if…
a vast number of people and organizations behaved, in concert, over generations, as if they were part of a giant conspiracy to deprive Americans of all their individual rights and make us slave to our own governments, and that such a conspiracy HAS PRODUCED the attendant results that such a conspiracy naturally would,
but,
the majority of those people and organizations never understood that they were acting as part of the conspiracy?
Unfortunately, this is reality.
So….
To Adam Smith’s “Spontaneous Order” I hereby add the “Spontaneous Conspiracy of Statism (copyright Tom deSabla).” It’s the evil conspiracy you don’t even know you’re a part of.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:03 pm (#)
Very fascinated by the discussion here. I believe that the failing freedom in our country is simply a natural progression of all societies throughout history and that those that seem to be involved in it’s failings are merely riding the wave and profiting off of what is inevitable. From it’s creation in 1787 to about the 1820’s our people enjoyed a very free society that respected the individual’s rights to Life, Liberty and Property. We then started to become a Democracy that respected the rule of the people over the rule of Law. Congress began changing the laws at the request of the majority. Thus a slow erosion of our Liberties were exponentially increasing over time. By the early 1900’s, the Congress allowed the Federal Reserve Act to take precidence over Constitutional Law without an amendment to Article I sections 8 and 9, thus literaly handing over their responsibilities and control of the people’s gold to a private Monolpoly. Thus, this took us from a Democracy to an Oligarchy with the illusion of a Democracy. We are now comming into the last stage of our natural progression of all societies where the Military leader of the country uses the military force to take control over the Oligarchy in this case forcing money into the military beyond any approved budgets and thus establishes a Monarchy. We see this as the Federal Reserve panics to maintain it’s control over the country’s monetary system. But don’t worry the Monarchy will have the newly developed Amero to rescue us from utter destruction and from Terrorists both Domestic and Foreign(which will definately mean you and I!). A Monarchy will have full control over all media, money and property, and all the rights intact through the protection of a strong military force. Those in favor of the President will gain powers to rule over others and to grant powers to other below them as well. The people will be known as subjects or legal citizens of the state. Eventually, after a few hundred years this soil will once again have Individual Liberty again.
Now , there is one chance to beat a king, and this country did it once before. When the colonies were subjected to the king’s monopolizing monetary system and thrust the colonists into instant debt, they organized a grassroots effort to protect the local cities and counties from abuse. Halted any collection of taxes and disallowed the use of the king’s money within their cities. Because real power comes from the consent of the governed, as you may have seen in our Declaration of Independence, without the control of local city and county governments, the kings men were powerless to have anything enforced in the colonies, and when the national armies were called into action against the desenting cities, a call to arms of all the citizens was called to defend the cities. The national army, though better equipt and trained, were outnumbered and not as agressive.
So even though I fight to get Ron Paul into the whitehouse, do not underestimate the importance and power of a city. True patriots can have a direct effect and control in a city over a congressional seat any day. Just think of this for a second. If you are the Mayor, who is in control of the local city police, and you deem the seatbelt law to go against personal freedoms of the individual, you don’t require the police to issue tickets regarding that law. In fact, you can encourage the Alderman, who may even be good friends, to pass an ordinance to specificaly disallow such laws to be enforced within the city boundries. If you are a police officer, you have alot of control as well. Who’s going to take you to court cause you refused to give them a seatbelt ticket? We all as Individuals must make an effort together to protect each other from an overzealous government that is potentially thousands of miles away from you, depending upon where you live that is. We are meant to be a FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Federal means that ultimate power lies in the people and they grant their city government powers, thus giving counties some of that power, and then the State some from the counties and then the states give the national government some powers. None being able to give any more power than what they hold themselves. The Constitution guarentees a system in which both federal and state governments must abide by in order to operate for the people and a republic meaning that all powers in government must be divided up to ensure that all individual’s inherent rights are protected from being taken away by others(whether it be by using force, charisma, or wealth).
So it’s maybe time for you to get to know your neighbor, start a local group to educate others nearby and rally people for your local elections. Protect Individual’s inherent rights to Life, Liberty and Property at all costs. The local police are your friends not your enemies, they are your first line of defense and get the sherriff’s office to get on board. If they won’t run someone who will against them the next election. They may shut us out of a political party, but this party is one little piece of a larger puzzle. BTW learn about jury powers and jury nullification as well. Your local court system needs to be run by the people, not overzealous judges.
Hope I didn’t ruin your conversation….
April 21st, 2008 at 8:09 pm (#)
Oh, then you can be defined as a Conspiracy! But I suggest to make your intentions public since you would like to get everyone in your city onboard.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 am (#)
[...] Posted by kandylini on April 1, 2008 From Liberty Maven [...]