Just to keep you folks informed of the latest youtube video for Ron Paul

[galtgulch]

Barbara,

Obama... I don't have a clue what he would do. Not a damn clue. I see him all over the map, I don't care what he says.

Michael

Hi! Michael, Don't have a clue?! Keep in mind that Obama is reputed to have said, "You are your brother's keeper. But you haven't given enough yet!"

It occurs to me that you may have just been talking about his foreign policy agenda. Even so his altruism engulfs the entire planet. He wants to tax the American taxpayer to fund United Nation's give away programs around the world!

Contributions to the www.DVDs4Delegates.com project to persuade the Republican delegates to select Ron Paul instead of McCain are still welcome. Just click on DONATE! Give if you want a chance to vote for restoration of the Founder's principles and to restore the Constitutional Republic.

Wm

[Selene]

Folks:

As you may be aware, I picked BO out of the pack some 15 months ago [ :thumbsup: tooting his own horn]. One of my concerns, as this incredible Presidential year has played out, was, who was really behind this empty suit.

I know that Soros is involved, but the textbook BO campaign did not match Soros's "mo". Upon further probing, this recent article confirmed, to the degree that you can trust the Washington Post, that the empty suit is truly connected.

If, by some chance, he squeaks in, his administration will appoint, at least, some 3,500 key administrative positions into the repressive Federal monstrosity. These encysted folks will make small and large changes in this monster which most folks who pay for it never even hear about.

Until it is too late to act.

BO did his job in taking out the "smartest women on the planet[who failed her bar exam in Illinois and managed to pass it in Arkansas].

Given the choice, shall we go with the McCain, Barr or not vote?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8071301904.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Galt,

Since when does what a politician says correspond to what he does?

I'll tell you what they all do. Sink their arms up to the shoulder in the public treasury and try to pull out as much as they can without getting caught.

Michael

[galtgulch]

Galt,

Since when does what a politician says correspond to what he does?

I'll tell you what they all do. Sink their arms up to the shoulder in the public treasury and try to pull out as much as they can without getting caught.

Michael

Michael, Shame on you! For you to suggest that Ron Paul is of that ilk is unjustifiable given his record of ten terms in the Congress during which he has never voted in favor of any substantial Federal giveaway program not authorized explicitly in Article 1 Section 8. He has not participated in the government retirement plan, has returned part of his annual office allowance, never voted for an increase in salary for Congressmen, never voted to increase the Budget or taxes. He is simply not one of THEM to which you refer.

He is probably the only Congressmen in history who takes the oath of office seriously. What is the basis for your unfounded allegation? What you have done is a smear tactic which I thought was beneath you. Evidently I was mistaken about you.

I have pointed out a major shortcoming or flaw of Ron Paul and indicated my reason for supporting him in the current crisis despite his mistaken position on a woman's choice. I am one of his supporters who disagrees with him on that issue and keep trying to change his mind. But he is head and shoulders above the other candidates on so many other crucial issues, mainly his contention that we are in the mess now because politicians have failed to follow the Constitution, passed bills and laws not authorized or expressly forbidden to them, e.g. Article 1 Section 9 forbids a direct or capitation tax unless apportioned. The fact that the Sixteenth Amendment contradicts this does not change the prohibiton of this power to the Congress in the original.

Ron Paul may be the last best hope for restoration of Constitutional principles in this election cycle and you choose to lump him in with run of the mill thugs who quench their thirst at the public trough! Outrageous and unforgiveable. If he is not chosen in September I will hold you personally responsible!

Wm

[Selene]

Galt:

Love your passion, but, your statement:

"...he is head and shoulders above the other candidates on so many other crucial issues, mainly his contention that we are in the mess now because politicians have failed to follow the Constitution, passed bills and laws not authorized or expressly forbidden to them, e.g. Article 1 Section 9 forbids a direct or capitation tax unless apportioned. The fact that the Sixteenth Amendment contradicts this does not change the prohibition[sic] of this power to the Congress in the original." is self contradictory.

The amendment process to the Constitution modifies the original document.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Galt,

Paul talks good the talk about the constitution. I'll give you that.

He's still a politician, though, and the LewRockwell people are a very mixed bag.

Nothing I have seen so far has convinced me to believe in him and I just can't get enthused talking about him.

Politicians bore me...

Sorry...

Michael

[galtgulch]

Galt:

Love your passion, but, your statement:

"...he is head and shoulders above the other candidates on so many other crucial issues, mainly his contention that we are in the mess now because politicians have failed to follow the Constitution, passed bills and laws not authorized or expressly forbidden to them, e.g. Article 1 Section 9 forbids a direct or capitation tax unless apportioned. The fact that the Sixteenth Amendment contradicts this does not change the prohibition[sic] of this power to the Congress in the original." is self contradictory.

The amendment process to the Constitution modifies the original document.

Adam

My argument is that if the Founders wanted the Federal government to be able to tax the citizens of the states directly they woule have said so. As I understand it Lincoln submitted a Federal Income Tax Bill which was struck down by the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice at the time made it explicitly clear, in 1865 or so, that as long as he lived he would hold any such income tax to be un Constitutional!

So the politicians waited for him to die, which he did in about 1909 or so. I am sorry I do not know his name. Then the power grab Sixteenth Amendment was written and adopted in 1913, a bad year for freedom with the Federal Reserve creation as well.

I know an Amendment "modifies" the original. In this case the politicians violated the spirit of individual freedom by granting to themselves a power originally forbidden to them for a very good reason. Witness the horror which has followed.

Ron Paul would abolish the IRS after bringing home the troops from the 826 military bases in our overseas Empire and reducing the yearly budget by the trillion dollars it takes to support those troops in over 130 countries!

Michael you have to watch more Ron Paul youtube.com videos such as the ones in which he takes Ben Bernanke to task this week. I appreciate that you don't know him. You don't! i assume you have not donated to the attempt to persuade the delegates to the nominating convention. I assume you consider that McCain is the superior candidate. You are wrong. Watch McCain vs McCain on youtube.com.

In language you no doubt understand: CHECK YOUR PREMISES!

Wm

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael you have to watch more Ron Paul youtube.com videos such as the ones in which he takes Ben Bernanke to task this week. I appreciate that you don't know him. You don't! i assume you have not donated to the attempt to persuade the delegates to the nominating convention. I assume you consider that McCain is the superior candidate. You are wrong. Watch McCain vs McCain on youtube.com.

In language you no doubt understand: CHECK YOUR PREMISES!

Galt,

(sigh)...

There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to begin. Let's just say you presume way too much about me and get a lot of stuff wrong.

To be blunt, I do not recognize myself at all in your words. That being the case, why would I listen to you about someone else?

I can't help but think, if you got that much wrong about me, what did you get right about the other person?

I am only mentioning this because you are so enthusiastic about this topic, I actually would like to see you convince someone. I'm rooting for you. Really. (But it won't be me barring a miracle.)

You certainly won't convince anyone by making wildly incorrect presumptions about what is in their heads. That's a major turn-off.

Incidentally, with reference to the post before this last one, calling people nasty names based on wildly incorrect presumptions is a turn-off, too.

You sink any chance of convincing a person that way.

Michael

[Selene]

Galt:

Michael makes his usual effective points, which is why this is the only forum that I participate in. Passion about ideas is essential to a free mind. You appear not to "hear" folks when they question anything about your "sacred cows". Many of us have significant agreement with Dr. Paul's convictions. I know he is an honorable man. Unfortunately he can't "orate out of a paper bag".

Just a "teacherly" [might be a new word that I just created lol] bit of advice, look at your answer to my statement about the 16th Amendment:

"I know an Amendment 'modifies'" the original. In this case the politicians violated the spirit of individual freedom by granting to themselves a power originally forbidden to them for a very good reason. Witness the horror which has followed."

The only logical conclusion is that citizens should begin the amendment process to repeal the 16th Amendment. Yes, it may take a decade, but if the citizens of this republic decide that it is the intrusive horror that it is, let us repeal it.

Chief Justice Melville Fuller declared the income tax law unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429[2]. Here is the Wiki site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Fuller.

Please take this in a non-personal nature.

Finally, I cannot vouch for this site, just stumbled across it looking at the 16th Amendment history, but it is impressive - http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html.

Adam