The other groups in the same study applied to roughly 100% of the population, whereas consumers of raw milk only represented 3% of the population. In order to get an apples-to-apples comparison, you need to estimate what the effects would be if 100% of the population consumed raw-milk. So to amplify 3% to 100%, multiply by 33.3.
But I definitely want him to head the NSA.
Let's get a vote to secede on the ballot in Alaska. ;)
Cruz's only job is to split the liberty vote and deliver the nomination to a moderate. He has no intention of winning. Once you understand that, you will begin to ignore him. I no longer mention his name when talking about 2016.
How quickly some forget:
That's TWO political parties dependent on voter fraud.
If he were truly sorry, he'd fix the problem. So the apology is just another lie.
Nowhere in the article did it state that the victim "ran at the officers". The man was shot for "wielding a shovel". There is no indication that he attempted to attack anyone.
Every citizen of these united states! RPGs and SAMs would be nice too, but we need to legalize them first. Sigh... maybe one day US citizens could have the same freedom to own/bear arms enjoyed by the people of Afghanistan.
It's light and has a lot of firepower. Great home defense weapon when paired with a 100-rd beta-c magazine.
Imagine for a second that the government creates a fake group calling themselves "The Patriot Movement". It then commits horrible crimes under that banner in an attempt to discredit non-violent political groups with similar beliefs. Doesn't that sound like the sort of stupid, misguided atrocity our government would commit against its own people?
...and it's gonna get down-voted. Moving on.
The police break the law, terrorize the innocent, and disturb the peace. How can civilization survive under such conditions?
If those in power don't obey the constitution (the rule of law), then an article V convention will change nothing. The constitution we have is excellent, we just need to remove the law-breakers from office.
Quit listening to Levin, he's an idiot.
What I mean is the constitution does not "grant" or "confer" any new rights. The constitution criminalizes attacks on our natural rights (which existed prior to the constitution).
Your natural rights exist with or without the constitution. When the government ceases to protect your natural rights (as lawfully required by the constitution), then the responsibility falls to "the people". When government fails to uphold the constitution, the rule of law has failed, and society must engage in revolution to restore their rights.
In short, the founders understood that all governments must recognize and protect the natural rights of citizens in order to preserve peace, prosperity, and justice.
Our "natural rights" are not created by the constitution, and cannot be destroyed by any law. The right to own/bear arms, the right to free-speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to privacy are all "natural rights" (meaning they exist with or without a constitution).
The constitution is a document of law which exists to criminalize attempts by government agents to infringe those pre-existing rights. So there are no "constitutional rights", only "constitutional crimes".
For example: It is a "constitutional crime" to disarm lawful citizens, because the constitution deems such act a criminal violation of the "natural rights" of all people.
If a government fails to observe the natural rights of its people, and the same government also fails to prosecute criminal violations of the constitution, the only protection of "natural rights" is for the people to enforce "natural law".
Do you know anybody who claims to be a part of something called the "Patriot Movement". I know people who are patriotic, and I know people that I would describe as patriots, but I have never heard of a "Patriot Movement".
It sounds like a term invented for a specific political purpose, such as the term "conspiracy theory".
Cruz was saying all the right things, so I'm sure Ron/Rand had no reason to suspect Ted might be a neo-libertarian.
Just realize that Beck doesn't believe anything he says. If we forced him to take a different posture, it doesn't mean that he has changed. Yes we are winning, that is why he is trying to assume leadership in the movement. His job is to steer the crowd right back toward the progressive agenda. He is no longer a neo-con, he is now a neo-libertarian.
He will still try to find ways to twist the message in order to discredit libertarian ideas. Come to think of it, when someone with no credibility (like Beck) assumes our ideas, isn't that a way of discrediting us?
Will Cruz side with liberty and free-markets, or will he choose to serve the bankster elites?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the o