Disclaimer: This video is not-for-profit clip that is uploaded for the purpose of education, teaching, and research, which falls under fair use according to the Copyright Act of 1976 and tips the balance in favor of fair use; all intellectual content within the video remains property of its respective owners.
Yep,,,, it says 911 was an inside job! And yes I wrote in Ron Paul in all the places I could.
So do the same, and make a video to tell the world you did.
Add your videos in the Comments. Create a video response is cool.
I love both of these freedom fighters very much, and Jay Leno has his moments too.
But Ron Paul makes so much sense, it restores my confidence in the American people again. I have been so disappointed with politics, and popular culture in the USA.
Our national debt has exceeded our GDP, we are spending way beyond our means, we are policing the world, policing personal behavior, and policing just about everything. Our country NEEDS someone with integrity to bring our country back to our original principles that WORK. Im not talking about "change", Im talking about the constitution!
Thank you Ron Paul, thank you Joe Rogan!
FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Joe Rogan told Ron Paul all about Nibiru and told him about the Awakening of Conciseness. He said A strong cosmic connection exists between each one of us and the All.
We Are Awakening As One.
Joe Rogan said , Watch these videos below, and wake the F@CK UP!
WASHINGTON — Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican and author of “End the Fed,” will take control of the House subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve. House Financial Services Chairman-elect Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican, selected Paul, 75, to lead the panel’s domestic monetary policy subcommittee when their party takes the House majority next month, the committee chairman said today.
“This is the leadership team that crafted the first comprehensive financial reform bill to put an end to the bailouts, wind down the taxpayer funding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and enforce a strong audit of the Federal Reserve,” Bachus said in a statement. Paul, in an interview last week, said he plans a slate of hearings on U.S. monetary policy and will restart his push for a full audit of the Fed’s functions.
“We are ready to hit the ground running, and I look forward to continuing our work in the next Congress,” Bachus said.
Paul, who has introduced legislation to abolish the Fed, became nationally known during his 2008 presidential campaign. His campaign to audit the Fed picked up steam as the central bank deployed trillions of dollars in emergency loans in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Paul’s bill gained the support of 320 of 435 members of the House and a portion of the measure ended up in the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul enacted this year.
Paul’s assignment comes as the Republican Party has stepped up attacks on Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and the central bank in the wake of the Nov. 3 announcement that it would buy bonds in an attempt to bring down unemployment and prevent inflation.
“Congress must act to rein in Chairman Bernanke and the Fed before they destroy our currency and permanently damage our economy and financial system,” Sen. Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican, said in his farewell speech on the Senate floor today. “Public awareness of what the Fed is doing is increasing while public opinion of the Fed is falling.”
Bunning’s views are reflected throughout the country, according to a Bloomberg National Poll that reveals deep skepticism about the Fed.
Americans across the political spectrum say the central bank shouldn’t retain its current structure or independence, according to the poll. Asked if the central bank should be more accountable to Congress, left independent, or abolished entirely, 39 percent said it should be held more accountable and 16 percent that it should be abolished. Thirty-seven percent favor the status quo.
Paul, who has been passed up twice before for the subcommittee chairmanship, may cause a problem for Republicans who have traditionally defended the central bank, Rep. Barney Frank, the outgoing chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said today in a Bloomberg Television interview. “I think you’re going to see a significant dispute within the Republican Party,” said Frank, who was re-appointed by his party as the senior Democrat on the committee. “I do not believe that Ron Paul’s views on the Fed represent the views of most Republicans.”
Bachus will keep the senior Republicans on the panel in leadership positions. Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas will take over as the panel’s vice chairman, replacing fellow Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer, who moves over to lead the oversight and investigations subcommittee.
Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey will become chairman of the capital markets panel, which would oversee any work done on government-owned mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Reps. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Judy Biggert of Illinois will take over the financial institutions and housing subcommittees, respectively. Rep. Gary Miller of California will take over as chairman of the international monetary policy panel.
This is a high quality version of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing of May 5, 2009.
Rep. Alan Grayson asks the Federal Reserve Inspector General about the trillions of dollars lent or spent by the Federal Reserve and where it went, and the trillions of off balance sheet obligations. Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman responds that the IG does not know and is not tracking where this money is.
Ron Paul comments on the recent revelations about the Fed's emergency loans and muses about a potential "Wikileaks for the Federal Reserve".
Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, a return to sound monetary policies, and a sensible foreign policy that puts America first.
For more information visit the following websites:
On Sept. 14 in Somalia, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a long-sought link between al-Qaida and its East African allies, was in a vehicle bombed by a helicopter flying from an American ship off the Somali coast. As Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick reported in a front-page Washington Post story – "Under Obama, more targeted killings than captures in counterterrorism efforts" (Feb. 13) – another U.S. helicopter "set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of (Nabhan's) remains for DNA verification."
That news story offered a telling consequence: "The opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever." And a senior military officer, careful not to give his name, lamented: "We wanted to take a prisoner. It was not a decision that we made."
That decision came from Obama, our commander in chief, who, as I've previously reported, has authorized in his first year more such assassinations than Bush and Cheney in their last years. The result, as the Washington Post noted, "has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions."
After all, there can be no fierce arguments about whether a charred corpse should be tried in a federal civilian court or by a military commission. Some American citizens, believed to be highly connected to al-Qaida or its affiliates, are also on these "hit" lists. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, pilotless U.S. drone planes have perpetrated these assassinations.
These are highly classified operations, but thanks to the First Amendment, an increasing number of these summary executions have been revealed in the Washington Post and on the Internet. There have already been probing, through unanswered questions, from the ACLU, human-rights groups and other constitutionalists about this corollary damage to such an anchor of our rule of law as the separation of powers when the executive branch alone decides who shall die instantly rather than having been permitted time-consuming and costly due process of law. And there are no defense attorneys to raise objections, even when an American citizen is marked for oblivion.
Resistance to these terminal operations – which often inadvertently but effectively end the lives of innocent civilians – intensified in February when a high-ranking American official at last confirmed that targeted assassination is a legitimate American way of self-defense.
During a Feb. 3 hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified that the U.S. intelligence community, when dealing with direct terrorist threats to the United States, does "take direct action against terrorists" (Washington Post, Feb. 4).
And "if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that." Blair – sensitive to the Obama administration's delicate use of language in these matters – did not use the word "assassinations," but the message was lethal enough.
Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer turned news analyst, avoids euphemisms. "Special permissions" without judicial authorization, says Greenwald, amounts to "basically giving the president the power to impose death sentences on his own citizens without any charges or trial" (Salon.com, Feb. 4).
Focusing on American targets, Ben Wizner, a staff attorney of the ACLU National Security Project, in a Feb. 4 press release emphasizes: "It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.'"
I would add that if the threat has indeed been specified, the deceased target will have had no chance to test its accuracy. Is this America?
Wizner continues with an especially pertinent point. On what basis in our rule of law or by congressional statute do Obama – or George W. Bush before him – justify these killings? Wizner explains:
"This is the most recent consequence of a troublingly over-broad interpretation of Congress' 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. This sweeping interpretation envisions a war that knows no borders or definable time limits and targets an enemy that the government has refused to define in public. This policy is particularly troubling since it targets U.S. citizens, who retain their constitutional right to due process even when abroad."
Adds Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project: "While there is little doubt that a U.S. citizen fighting for an enemy army could lawfully be killed on the battlefield in the course of fighting, this policy goes far beyond the ordinary parameters of battlefield combat."
Does President Obama agree with George W. Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, that America, along with the rest of the world, is the battlefield for extra-judicial action against terrorism suspects, including Americans? And the silent Obama avoids any responsibility for the growing number of innocent civilians killed by the insistently growing number of strikes by our pilotless drones.
Next week: Penetrating questions to the Obama administration in an ACLU Freedom of Information Act Request filed on Jan. 13. When will members of Congress also ask these questions? And how about we, the people, getting involved in finding out whether some of these killings committed in our name are – by our own laws and international treaties – actual war crimes? Where is our chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, Republican leaders and the tea-party legions opposed to boundless big government?
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of many books, including "The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance."
