imported post
Longwatch, I hope not to take the thread off-topic but my premise here is that voting for anyone other than Dr. Paul is a vote for CFR policy. CFR policy is to disarm America, destroy the Constitution and establsih the New World Order. Our guns stand in their way.
All the candidates, democratic and republican are CFR members, except Dr. Ron Paul. The CFR wants to disarm America sooner rather than later but they are willing to take their time. They don't care if it takes decades. I believe Hillary would get them there sooner than another CFR candidate.
The CFR policies filter down to all our govt.
Here is their own publication talking about how great it would be if America had guns banned. I see a vote for anyone other than Dr. Paul as a vote for thinking like this.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5246/what_if_bush_were_as_eager_to_control_guns_as_wmd.html
Here's a couple of quotes from the article.
...
After all, it is only within the borders of the US that the government can realistically corner the market on force. And the need for such a monopoly has never been greater than today, as the recent sniper attacks have made tragically clear.
Stanching the flow of firearms in America would be a crucial first step in this direction. And yet the Bush administration - though ready to go to war to disarm rogue nations - allows itself to be outgunned by rogue citizens in its own backyard.
Consider the Bushmaster rifle used by the Beltway snipers. Billed as the civilian version of the M-16, this gun rivals anything used by police. It's the domestic equivalent of chemical weapons: a relatively cheap and portable tool than can wreak havoc and inflict great harm on a more powerful opponent.
____________________________________
So any of the candiadtes other than Dr. Paul is going to have these folks doing a little more than whispering in their ear.
