How would Ron deal with this Problem:
Submitted by amartin315 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 16:48in
So I was reading about how JP Morgan made a bet on France during the Franco-Prussian war to loan France a nice amount. It was one of those things that put old JP over the top, but my question is, would Ron Paul be for or against allowing our banks to do such things, assuming the banks were NOT set up as they are now where the Fed can just print them up some money.
What if BOA loaned a bunch of money to the Syrian rebels and the money was used to buy mercenaries and guns? Would we still not be intervening?
I$ U$ury $acred ?
add as a question. Private "Interest" has trumped all other forms /symbols /stations of authority. The govts today are like the management or political arm of the Usurious Sionist Agency=(U$A).
We find no clergy who are guardians of moral laws, only priest toeing the line of banksters. There are no tribal chiefs, or benevolent national leaders, or philosopher kings. We find petty politicians, corrupting media, dumbing schools, crooked & unjust legal system, etc. Who upholds the Universal Standard ? = that which is fair & just, embodies the Wisdom of the ancients, and easily recognizable by the masses.
The answer to your question is simple, = guilt by association, or - aiding & abetting terrorism /rebellion. That is the standard rule, and the govt of u$a applies it to others. I see no problem, maybe only a desire.
Ron Paul favors a policy of non-intervention, and The Golden Rule, that is why his supporters trust him, and is gaining respect world-wide.
Revelation 3:8, = Keep My Word, do Not deny My Name.
http://www.UsDebtClock.org -alarming Tick-Tock is On =
Ratchet-Effect increases Debt-burden & pressure. Turn Off.
I see nothing in the Constitution that would allow the federal
government to prohibit private citizens or corporations from loaning money to foreign interests, with the possible exception of funding attacks on the United States, which might reasonably be construed as treason.
Who is 'we'?
It would never be me, I can tell you that
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
Ok I think I meant, "would
Ok I think I meant, "would the United States still be non-interventionist in this case?"
I might make the case that if a bank were headquartered here, then she is benefitting from our military defense and we would essentially be defending an enabler of war. Perhaps this is too much of a reach and RP would think it's not necessary to prevent banks from investing as they wish. However I just think we might run into problems if we get blow back as a result of this.
23