14 votes

Jesse "The Body" Ventura on CNN's "Crossfire" 10/4/13

How hot is S.E. Cupp?


http://youtu.be/TT9xSnV4JmQ




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Jesse?

I personally like Jesse, although there are some things I do not agree with him about. What I do like is that he represents the voice willing to call out a situation in it's basic form, or in other words, has and uses common sense.

Mostly, he does not represent himself as a "politician". He to his credit has avoided being totally sucked in. I have never seen him play the part or act out on any interviews.

I would like to see him run for President primarily for one reason...he would "shake" things up dramatically. You can't ignore this guy, his presence is to commanding. His life has trained him to be who is...and that is somebody who will not be intimidated or messed with. He knows what life is about and death, and pain is no stranger to him, which creates fortitude and stamina in a person.

Jesse I believe would stand up to the obstacles that threaten this country, even risking his life to do so. That is what I see in the man. Jesse is the kind of guy you want on your side when you get into a fight.

Jesse is a good one to have

Jesse is a good one to have on our team but he could never lead a country.

I hope this ends the debate about supporting a Ventura president

I would rather have him than many others but I could not openly support Jesse. He is a liberal. He is a Liberal I could talk to and come to similar agreements with, but is still a liberal. I also find it despicable that he would plagiarize a quote from a tv show.

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

You Don't Know It Was Plagarized

I bet it was properly quoted in the book.

Rothbard: "Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."

Ventura is all over the place

when it comes to the constitution, we can't pick and choose parts of the constitution. He himself is part of the problem, he can't grasp the fact he is doing the same thing the people he is complaining about are doing... having their own version of the constitution.

Not just in this interview but in the many I've seen over the years, Ventura misses the mark and consistently loses his own argument which then exposes his lack of credibility.

As stated in a previous comment, the American people are no longer mindful of what the constitution says therefore they are being led around by others false interpretations. When talking about politicians, Ventura talks tough about "holding their feet to the fire" and yet he apparently doesn't even know the reasons behind constituting that act.

not down with Jesse this time 'round

I love Ventura. I like reading his books, I liked his TV show, I like his style and he certainly pin points many correct things. Having said that though, I can tolerate his atheism, but I cannnot tolerate his ignorance to the PRINCIPLES behind the constitution! He claims all his wonderful knowledge about the founding fathers and the constitution, but then like a flaming idiot goes on to say that in such a "great country" its citizens should have the right to see a doctor--and an addendum that if we stopped all these wars we'd have "more than enough money" to pay for health care. Yes, Jesse, we would, but that's not the point--government should NOT redistribute wealth in ANY FORM, ever. It's theft. Period. And last time I looked every citizen in this country has the right to see a doctor in this country right now. They may not have the ability to pay, but no government goon is chaining them down from getting care. The quagmire that people have to face is the COST and that has been distorted from decades and decades of government interference--in the name of Johnny and Sally Do-Gooder--in those markets. You want to help people? Get rid of the whole damn thing and let the market adjust prices (while punishing perpetrators of fraud as the government should). Unintended consequences of the Do-Gooders in this world have CAUSED the mess that we're in. Jesse should know this, but he doesn't. If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to provide solutions to problems the say way Dr. Paul explains them. So, no Jesse isn't very thrilling at this point because he is NOT a liberty candidate even though he rashly extends his middle finger to the establishment--and it's fun to watch for sure ..... but liberty minded? No, not enough for me......

Ventura is a pro-gun liberal

I like Ventura, too. However, despite his unconventional TV show and books, he is a conventional anti-war liberal. He really is quite ignorant on economics and the Constitution (I'm not big on the Constitution because it allows for too much government). He speaks from his heart and from his gut. His instincts sometimes lead him to take positions coincident with the liberty movement. But make no mistake, he's a "good government small "d" democrat".

OK, Mr. Constitution, prepare to back up your hot air

The Founding Fathers intended that tariffs be the primary means of funding the federal government. All personal income, sales, property, and estate taxes are unconstitutional and should be abolished. How do you intend to fund your federal government without any personal income, sales, property, or estate taxes, Mr. Libertarian?

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations have the right to exist? Corporations ARE governments -- they have a Board of Directors, elected by the shareholders, who appoint a President and Vice-President. Like politicians, corporate officers are granted by the State legal immunity from personal liability for their actions. Corporations are creatures of the State. Why should corporate officers have the State-granted privilege of no personal responsibility for their actions while the citizens and mom and pop businesses do not enjoy that same State-granted privilege?

Where in the Constitution does it say the government has the right to keep and bear arms? The Declaration of Independence says you have the right to life.

what

What does Jesse truly believe? I lost my trust in him. Because GOD is not part of his being!!! To each his own however I think we must get back to a nation under GOD or we are doomed. Mr.Ventura is a self proclaimed atheist that is only throwing his hat in the ring to complicate matters. We the knowledgeable must stay focused on supporting a Righteous leader for 2016 Liberty, Love, Peace and GOD bless us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then you're an idiot. A

Then you're an idiot. A large % of libertarians fighting for your freedom are not religeous, including me. We don't need your god to reclaim our republic, we need to spread the understanding that people do not have a right to deprive others of their life, liberty or property... no matter how impressive their hat or badge seems to be. The philosophy of liberty and natural rights are logical positions you can reach through human reason. If you had your notions of these things handed to you by your pastor, grand. Others did not.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Ventura; for example, he didn't immediatly tell those morons that raising the debt ceiling is NOT paying American's debt obligations, its shovling more onto them to be paid for by our @#$%Sing kids. Thats my biggest issue with him. I don't doubt his sincerity for a moment. I doubt his understanding of economics and political systems.

I get where you're coming

I get where you're coming from my friend but Jesse had WAY more problematic comments in this panel than his dismissive attitude toward religion. He's a coreless man. I mean, Murray Rothbard was an atheist but he had more guiding principle than 80% of Christians these days. Ventura is very unimpressive for a lot of reasons now, based on this interview.

Dean advising the Ukrainians?

Well that explains alot, if you look at recent tax developments there.

here's an example
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/lack-of-property-taxes...

Cutter says something interesting at 4:45

She is asking Jesse about the need for Congress to raise the Debt Ceiling "to make good on their debts, that they've already obligated the American people to".

The first part of her statement is true, it is THEIR debt. The second part of the statement is not true.

If I obligate you to pay for my dinner, are you compelled to pay for it? If I can force you to pay for my dinner, for which you never authorized, knew about, or benefited from, then we live in a world without consent and our Constitution is moot.

Ladies & Gentlemen, the biggest problem we have today is that most Americans, as individuals, are not interpreting the Constitution or actively consenting to its Mission. Most are simply allowing others to interpret it for them, and obeying them.

Caught Lying

Dean parrots the lie of hypocrisy which is essentially the opposite of the genuine concept of democracy.

"They [prejudice/collective punishment/blaming everyone in a group for the actions of individuals] HATE!"

The claim that "They HATE!" is made venomously, or with hatred, or malice aforethought aimed at a group, to punish the whole group, and the claimant exemplifies the HATE himself.

The reporter caught Dean on the lie, and then Dean showed his true colors defending the lie.

It is a craft. Deception in the form of blaming a THING for the actions of people, so as to divide and conquer.

Ventura is off too, but not on principle unless it can be confessed honestly that Ventura considers INVOLUNTARY "Taxation" as being morally, or even legally, just. If he does, he is either duped into that lie, or he is himself guilty of being in command of a criminal mind.

Beyond the very tangled web of deceit within the current false "shutdown" advertizement campaign there are principles at work that could be understood by more people, so as then to have more power commanded by those well informed people.

If the people (free, liberated, voluntary contributors to any government offer of any government service of any kind whatsoever, to be accepted, and paid for voluntarily, or to be rejected, and not paid for in any way), if the free people, if they, each, as individuals, decide not to pay another drop of sweat, blood, or tears, or red cent, or silver dime, or gold coin, or promise to pay according to a contractual obligation (that does not constitute slavery hidden behind false wording, or fine print) then less power, one individual person at a time, flows to the hired help, the servants, sitting, or lounging, or vacationing, on the government dole.

Talk about welfare?

In simple terms, very simple, very easy to understand, the people who actually empower government simply stop empowering government, and then government has no power.

Here are words of what was once the meaning of a Democrat:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Before "Democrat" became a synonym for CRIMINAL (Involuntary Tax proponents, no matter what they say, are promoting the crime of robbery, and if what they say is understood by them to be false, then added to the crime of robbery is the crime of fraud), before Democrat became a synonym for CRIMINAL the term was a synonym for a person who is no longer enslaved by a Tyrannical Government, meaning that the person, the Democrat, no longer empowered a Tyrannical Government, which means that the individual, the free human being, decides to no longer pay for a Tyrannical Government.

Jesse Ventura is wrong when he says that George Washington and John Adams were not members of a Political Party. They were both Federalists.

People need to understand the principle differences, not the counterfeit versions of the differences, between one person and another person.

This is fundamental stuff, and a child can learn these principle differences.

The Federalists were planning and then producing Tyrannical Governments and they were individuals working cooperatively to reach that same goal.

If every one of the four people (Talking Heads) in the Video linked in this Topic all agree that "Taxes" (so called) must be paid, without question, because that is the way government must work, by necessity, then each one in that specific group is a member of the same group that plans for, and works for, the invention, and the production, and the maintenance of Tyrannical Governments.

That is only 4 people, all Talking Heads, merely spreading the lies that work to maintain Tyrannical Governments.

If you are also in that group, and you can either be honest with yourself, or you can fail to be honest with yourself, then you are a member of the same group. I call that group Legal Criminals.

Legal Criminals, if they admit it or not, to the themselves or anyone else, work for a flow of POWER flowing into a FUND that is enforced by falsehoods, threats of violence upon those who refuse to pay, and by violence upon those who refuse to pay, and the targets of those falsehoods, and the targets of those threats, and the targets of those acts of brutal violence are always the targets who just so happen to have the ability to produce something worth stealing.

If all 4 of those Talking Heads, including Jesse Ventura (Who I think will shake things up considerably this next Election Cycle or Psycho), if all 4 "believe" or "know" that "Taxes" must be paid, or else, without question, then each one is THE PROBLEM personified, each one supports, in that specific way, from that specific LIE, each one supports Tyrannical Governments or merely, honestly, and accurately, Crime being made Legal, Fraud being made Legal, Extortion being made Legal, on and on.

If anyone watching, commenting on, reading, acting, living, is also a member of that group, that Political Party, whereby the idea, the principle is to TAKE that which does not belong to you, then each one is a CRIMINAL in that specific, and accurate, measure.

The concept of democracy, where a person understands the concept, and becomes a so called Democrat, in history, is someone who regains control of their own POWER to either fund, or to not fund, a government.

Proof of this exists in written form, as I've already quoted from one of the PRINCIPLE publications that led to the next PRINCIPLE publication:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

HATE is a principle, and it belongs in the body of evil people who are criminals, and their mode of operation can be called Might makes RIGHT according to them, and their armies, so they say, with malice aforethought, you had better pay, because you will pay, one way or the other, and if you dare question the payments, you will pay that much more, so pay when you are told to pay, and don't question the payments.

There has always been a Political Party that has operated upon that principle of HATE.

There has always been opposition to that Political Party, the names change, because the HATERS steal the names of those who defend against the HATERS.

The classic example of stealing the names of the defenders occurred in the united states history.

Those Federalists, including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams, were not driven by the principles of federalism, since federalism was opposite of what those people were working to invent, produce, and maintain.

Those false "Federalists" where working to invent, produce, and maintain a legal extortion racket which involved the enslavement of everyone by them.

They were not "Federalists" as proven by their actions, and as proven by their broken promises, and as proven by their secret words hidden from the victims.

George Washington almost lost the Revolutionary War.

Here is some evidence:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-tro...

"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington’s conservative and highly aristocratic soul."

After George Washington was made King of a Corporation known as The United States of America (no longer sovereign constitutionally limited states united into a voluntary union) he "conscripted" (enslaved by dictatorial order to obey without question) an army of invaders (for profit) to crush a money competitor in Pennsylvania.

Here:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

"And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;"

Alexander Hamilton, another so called Federalist, was the principle actor working to make a Kingdom out of a working union of constitutionally limited states.

Proof:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

John Adams, another so called Federalist, was working as KING of the sat-elite corporation (a corporate entity controlled by the Bank of London), this United States of America corporation, not yet securing it's own Central Bank power, as "democratic" ("anti-federalist") forces (siding with France) began to resist oppression by speaking out, and by voicing warnings of the workings of the DESPOTS in POWER.

Proof:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp

"The strong steps that Adams took in response to the French foreign threat also included severe repression of domestic protest. A series of laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalist Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President Adams. These laws included new powers to deport foreigners as well as making it harder for new immigrants to vote. Previously a new immigrant would have to reside in the United States for five years before becoming eligible to vote, but a new law raised this to 14 years."

The People (free people), not the Legal Persons (slaves or targets or those who produce anything worth stealing), resisted.

The people resisted.

The people who resisted spoke out, and what did the Tyrants in POWER as President of a Corporation (with an as yet not secure domestic sat-elite of the Central Banking fraud), what did the Tyrant John Adams, Federalist, himself, do?

The Tyrant made it a crime to speak the truth.

Did the free people obey without question?

What were the free people called?

What was the Political Party of the free people?

Democrats, Republicans, and Anti-Federalists, where some of the labels used to label the free people.

Democrats were demanding their rights to speak the truth.

Republicans were demanding a constitutionally limited state, or republic, that could join, and pay for, or not join (secede) and not pay for, a VOLUNTARY UNION of constitutionally limited REPUBLICS into a common law, common sense, mutually beneficial, defensive UNION of STATES.

United States are States United.

The United States of America is a corporation with a Central Bank Fraud used to cover up an Extortion Racket.

Proof:

http://www.ushistory.org/tour/first-bank.htm

"The war left us in debt. Some states were bankrupt. We needed one unified currency ... Hamilton suggested a central bank."

Hamilton may have said "we are broke," which is a familiar lie, because Hamilton, and all the other high paid liars, don't mean "we" as in "We The People" when Hamilton and the other high paid liars claim that "we" need a central bank.

Where do you think the COMMUNISTS like Marx, Engles, Stalin, George Bush, and Barry Soetoro got their ideas on how to perpetrate legalized fraud and extortion?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

What do you call that, while some people call that legitimate, official, and legal?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

"Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

If you question that, according to some people, you are a criminal.

What do you call that?

Thought crime?

What is the penalty for thought crime?

You pay "Income Taxes" to a corporation that is only different from Wal-Mart in that their budget is less accurate and their employees wear different uniforms?

If anyone uses, right now, a fraudulent World Reserve Currency Note, such as a so called Federal Reserve Note, then that "person" is an employee of that corporation in some way, by some measure, even if the only measure is the amount of POWER the note had when the person received the note (it is worth this much now) and when the note is used to buy something the note is worth more, or the note is worth less, and therefore the EMPLOYMENT is either a gain or loss by the EMPLOYEE or the EMPLOYER.

If the criminals running the World Reserve Currency Fraud "double the money supply" then they win, because they get to buy things with that money they create (out of paper and ink, or out of digits in a computer terminal), and it may be a good idea, for the EMPLOYEES to know how much "double the money supply" really is, as it is, in fact, as much money as everyone else combined.

Like this:

2008 is a year that The Federal Reserve suddenly doubled the money supply, as one example of what is being done.

So 2007 there is X number of Legal Federal Reserve Notes owned, or used, by all the EMPLOYEES, you, me, anyone with Federal Reserve Notes. So add up all those Federal Reserve Notes that exist, everywhere, anywhere, all of those units, every one, not including the Counterfeit ones, all the REAL LEGAL ones, every one, add up every bank account, every retirement account, every dollar, everywhere, add it all up in 2007.

Then you have a number of Legal Money Units and just for laughs that TOTAL number of Legal Money Units in 2009 can be found in the actual Federal Reserve Account or FUND.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/department29.cfm

Rather than hunting down the official number, I use the number X.

X is the number and it can be 684,641,684,646,465,416.00, rounded off to the dollar, not counting accurately to the penny.

Who knows?

How much is the so called National Debt, a guess as to the current total number of dollars?

They know, that is the point, they know how much Money they Made, they must know, it is their account, you know how much is in your account, they know how much you owe them, they know, they know because the Make twice as much money suddenly, not knowing how much they already made and then suddenly reporting that now there is twice as much, proves that they knew how much they already made (and spent) and how much they have now (and are going to spend).

What do they buy? They buy wars.

The find out how much money everyone else already uses, and they, at that Political Party, those Federal Reservists, they write themselves a check, and they write the check on the "Tax Payers" ability to repay, without question, that DEBT.

Simple?

They, not ambiguously "they," not a group of ghosts, but a list of people in a Political Party, who are "they" and they create as much money as everyone else combined and they they spend that much money, and when they do so they effectively steal the POWER to PURCHASE that was once commanded by everyone else, because the addition of the sudden increase in "NEW" money, which is being spent by them, those people in that ONE POLITICAL PARTY, they, those people, get to spend that "NEW" money, and you don't, so the effect is that YOUR money, while it is YOURS, is "depreciated," as YOUR money POWER is cut in half, because THEY double the money supply.

So you work for the BANK and the CENTRAL BANK POLITICAL PARTY demands that you pay them for the privilege you get for working for them.

You give them the POWER to make you pay them for their generous gift that they give you in exchange for you giving them POWER, they offer back to you a generous gift from them, to allow you to pay them even more.

You pay them so as to then give them the power to employ you at a Job that they "subsidize," such as Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart is just another sat-elite of the Central Bank EMPLOYERS (Political Party) and since you are GIVEN that opportunity to work, you are GIVEN the opportunity to pay even more to those people, at that POLITICAL PARTY, THE CENTRAL BANK PARTY, you get to pay them more, even while you sleep.

So, if you have read this far, and you look over at the latest picture of the latest President of the Corporation, you can laugh at the jokes, ha, ha, ha, I have two words for you, PREDATOR DRONE, ha, ha, ha, so funny, ha, ha, ha, children being shredded and burned alive, ha, ha, ha, so funny, and look at the sad face?

What, the EMPLOYEES are not paying?

PREDATOR DRONE

Ha, ha, what a laugh.

Joe

Anyone have the link to when

Anyone have the link to when Rand was on this show?

Perfect storm of a-s-s-h-o-l-e-s

Stephanie Cutter is fresh out of Obama's Staff
Howard 'Psycho' Dean?
S.E.Cupp...female Glenn Beck
Jesse was diluted by the Kool Aid and quite frankly some of his troubling ideas were exposed.

“Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a central bank, and he can rob a country and the world.”
www.dailypaul.com/donate

hmmm

where was Newt?

And why does Stephanie Cutter always have that horsefaced smirk on her mug?

Ventura sounds clueless and

Ventura sounds clueless and totally uniformed!

Ventura vs. Dean

The thing is Dean made the whole thing a platform to go against the GOP, and kinda yes'd a few of Ventura's ideas. As career politician you might say Dean views this as free air time for the DNC whereas Ventura is expressing his own beliefs, even if they are of a mix of left and right. This makes Ventura very much a center independent. For example, Ventura supports neither party but probably fully supports single payer healthcare. He is also for abolishing the central banking system. People will have to realize that the independent ideology isn't as much about ideology as it is about individually formed principles. I bet that Ventura probably has very real reasons for the views he has formed, whether they may be sound or not, while Dean is more likely to repeat Democrat talking points to remain in the good graces of the DNC and his financial backers.

In defense of Ventura, I

In defense of Ventura, I think he was being strategic and pandering a bit. This didn't sound like the Conspiracy Theory host, Jesse Ventura--more like the politician Ventura.

He said nothing about the birth certificate! Obama clearly released a fraudulent document on the Whitehouse website. Ventura went along with Dean's condemnation of anyone who criticizes the birth certificate.

I failed to see what priniciples Ventura was standing for if I was judging him on this interview alone. This had to be his worst interview. Though historically, I've LOVED Ventura's older interviews.

ConstitutionHugger's picture

Yuck.

I thought I liked Ventura, but not after that interview. He sounds like a democrat. He'd be easily manipulated if he ever got in the White House (fulfilling the "Idiocracy" prophecy).
But still, it's good for him to keep talking because at least it's a new perspective. God help us. And yes, I do believe in angels. So I guess I'm responsible in part for making this country so terrible.

Hugely disappointing.

I always thought Jesse's Achilles heel was economics, and an inability to make the Final Leap. Memo to JV: The government can't give you things, including health care, without stealing from someone else, and without having total power. . . . . I'd vote for Ms. Cupp over him. I'm afraid the only way to go will be Rand.

Bummer.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Brilliantly put. Total power

Brilliantly put. Total power indeed and I don't get why the "independent" (whatever that means) Ventura doesn't get that. What makes me saddest in all this is that the message of TRUE liberty will apparently die with Ron Paul. Rand's running with his own torch now and it isn't the one his father carried.

You don't give Rand enough

You don't give Rand enough credit.

Well, thank you.

I agree with what you said, and have feared for some time that the real message (politically speaking) will end with Ron Paul. I had hopes for Jesse but he refuses to learn. Jesse's been so good on other things, such as the Perpetual War, government spying and bullying, the Second Amendment, and false flags. But if you don't understand that surrendering economic and political power inevitably ends in theft and tyranny, it's all for naught.

Incidentally, I always thought Gary Johnson paled in comparison to Ron Paul. Compared to Jesse and Rand, he's starting to look pretty good.

I'm still bummed though.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

I like Ventura

but after listening to this, the fact is, he hasn't a shred of principle to stand on when it comes to understanding the evil's of government which includes the economics behind gov, run health care..

Not to mention the fact he went ahead and stupidly stated that the Republican should leave this issue alone because he believes Obama got a mandate when re-elected..GTFO with that BS...

HE needs to study a bit more before running.

good point!

I hate all the idiots in the MSM and all over the general population that parrot this same thing. "it's the law" "it was passed by both houses" ... "it was signed by the president"....."the supreme court said it was OK"

HELL'S BELLS HOW IGNORANT OF A COUNTRY DO WE LIVE IN?

Even RP (and Rand) talked about this recently. It is the House's DUTY (where all money bills must originate--from the *people*) to fund or NOT FUND what the people want to fun or not fund. There have been plenty of "laws" that are not funded in subsequent budget's after these things were passed into "law."

Our "constitutional lawyer" "occupier of the white house" doesn't care about that document or the rules it lays down. Everything he wants is constitutional. period. by Fiat.

And our supreme court? don't make me snort milk through my nose laughing. First off the supreme court was NEVER given the job in the Constitution to determine and give "the last word" on the constitutionality of a law. That final decision belongs to "We the People". I run into people at work all the time that believe the same line or horse crap that these people were spouting. The constitution is small and easy to read and easy enough so that my 6th grader could determine that O-bomb-a-care is not authorized by any hint of the imagination under the Constitution. We don't need 9 demigods in black robes to tell us what is and what is not constitutional, thanks......

Michael Nystrom's picture

I have a scream


http://youtu.be/KDwODbl3muE

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

"thats wifey right there"

"thats wifey right there"