Despite all our hopes, it turns out that Ron Paul is just as crazy as the worst of his followers.
In recent weeks the thundering Ron Paul freight train has kind of derailed. Even though Paul announced that he was ending his campaign on March 8, his supporters are apparently convinced that he's still a viable candidate, despite his repeated public statements that they should move on and try to do some good working within the GOP. Nonetheless, many of them are pushing for a final surge and a surprise (and entirely delusional) victory at the GOP convention this summer. Admittedly, Paul is still making a lot of speeches and pushing his agenda, so maybe that's contributing to their confusion, but he's made it pretty clear he's campaigning for his ideas not an office.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - nzer
I didn't know a whole lot about the JBS but I do know a lot about Ron Paul, and when I hear that he supports a group this much it improves my opinion of that group immensely. I don't think that's what you're trying to acheive with this article, but for the majority of readers I'd say that's what you will get. Nice work.
However when I did do some research on JBS, it seems to me that the only "paranoia" is to be found in their critics...
27 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
What is with all the Ron Paul supporters on this site? I guess an anti-immigration anti-abortion anti-government anti-tax candidate is too good to be true for some people. Lets go back to the 1700s.
28 - Alex
This article is on par with those that claimed that because Dr Paul was against giving a Congressional medal to Rosa Parks, he is racist. Wrong.
If you take headlines from pro-establishment papers like WaPo as a fact, you may as well say 'It was on TV!'
It's true the RP campaign is definitely lower-key now, but Dr Paul said he'll stay in as long as his supporters want him to. I do.
And, to quote Yogi Berra: "It ain't over until it's over."
:-)
29 - Tannim
Sorry, Dave, but your sourcing WaPo just proves you didn't do your homework at all. Never rely on the Old Media in any format for the news as they tenmd to not only get it as wrong as you have here, but the spin and censor as well.
As others have commented here, Dr. Paul has not dropped out. Every other GOP candidate has, except the RINO McCain, and if you check the link and poke around the blog I provided you'll see why he'll be gone soon as well.
In your case, beating on JBS because of their spun history (spun by those that disagree with them, of course), is just a completely bogus guilt-by-association argument. Nevermind that they are correct about most things globalist--we can't interrupt your rant with something as trivial as facts.
Try again. You're giving the blogosphere a bad name. A retraction for your errors is a good idea.
BTW, if you can't take personal attacks, then don't make them either!
30 - Scott Harmon
As I grow older, I'm becoming less and less concerned about the hysterical labeling of various "fringe groups" and more concerned about those who do the labeling. I've gotten information from the JBS, and watched their videos--didn't seem that ridiculous to me. Maybe not my cup of tea, but really, the scaremongering here? Just like all these fanatical labeling jobs over the past 30 years--people are branded racists, nationalists, Nazis, paranoids, etc.--but, do we ask, who does the branding? That is the key question.
As I recall, some 20 years ago, there was an enormous outcry about Libertarians. Now that I have come to know them, I don't see what all the fuss was about. People have different views about personal relationships, society, government, and so forth, so I don't see any reason to categorically eliminate these people from the debate. What's next: pick on the Amish? Really, I'm more keen on dissecting the labelers, the fake news outlets, the spin-meisters, the smearbund, and the propagandists. We don't have to like the messenger, but we should be willing to listen to the message. If the response is to attack the messenger, then there is probably something afoul with the one who attacks; namely, that the attacker is not intellectually capable of responding to the message.
31 - Akston
I missed the portion of your article that detailed the actual facts which expose the JBS as a lunatic organization. From their website:
"To bring about less government, more responsibility, and -- with God's help -- a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles."
I'm sure there is something ominously evil there, something which is hidden by "a well developed propaganda machine, multiple front groups, and a cell-like organization", but as I tend to dismiss grand conspiracy theories without proof, I'll need your help here.
Naively perhaps, I see the Birch Society as being a pro-constitution, anti-collectivist, pro-American sovereignty group bent on disseminating information regarding these issues. My source is their website. Perhaps you could direct me to specific facts which show the dangers lurking secretively beneath their seemingly patriotic front?
32 - JP
Wow, what a piece of shit article. I questioned your motives when in the first few sentences you spewed the "Paul dropped out" nonsense. I think thats called wishful thinking, not facts. You know very well that Paul has not ended his campaign. At no point did Ron Paul ever state "I am ending my bid for the presidency" or "I am stepping aside" or anything similar. Keep dreaming buddy.
33 - Alex
Just wanted to add - I just listened again to the 'Wise Enough' RP hip hop video [link]. I think I'll donate another $100 soon.
34 - Pablo
Dave said:
"As a Paul supporter, aren't you even a little bit disappointed to find out that he has allied himself with the most irrational and deranged elements of the far right?"
That would be your pals the neocons bubba, and your cfr pals. I was brought up hating the birchers, and for the most part with good reason. Imho they have changed, if you can find a recent (the last 15 years or so) prominent member who claims to be a racist or anti-semitic (different than anti-zionist) I would like to know Davey.
You are always the first to call names and disparage those that you disagree with, so its no surpise to me that you would defame them as well, after all its your forte bubba.
In my opinion (something that Davey boy will never preface his remarks with) the problem with most of the old birchers besides some of them being racist was that they did not understand communism or where it came from. It came from Wall Street, and the Rothschilds wanting to depose the Czar. As you obviously do not know your history Davey and are out of your element, it does not surprise me that your resort to your usual rude comments.
Your about as libertarian as Orin Hatch Bubba, just my two sense worth Davey boy. From puppet dictators in Iraq for FREEDOM.........you make me laugh Davey boy.
35 - Dave Nalle
Sorry, Dave, but your sourcing WaPo just proves you didn't do your homework at all. Never rely on the Old Media in any format for the news as they tenmd to not only get it as wrong as you have here, but the spin and censor as well.
I also referenced Paul's own video statement where he clearly says he is no longer trying to win the presidency. You can deny it all you want, but he did say it and he has repeated that message in speeches since the original video was made.
In your case, beating on JBS because of their spun history (spun by those that disagree with them, of course), is just a completely bogus guilt-by-association argument. Nevermind that they are correct about most things globalist--we can't interrupt your rant with something as trivial as facts.
Oh come on, they thought Eisenhower was a communist. They now believe in ridiculous crap like the North American Union.
Try again. You're giving the blogosphere a bad name. A retraction for your errors is a good idea.
If you can prove some errors I'll retract them.
Dave
36 - Pablo
I have come to the opinion that Dave is nothing more than a shill. He claims to be a libertarian, I would assume being one myself that means liberty for everyone, yet he has no compunction whatsoever in advocating installing puppet dictators in other countries. Libertarian my buttocks Dave.
He is a friend of the FED, the CIA, and the CFR, and has said so. He thought David Rockefeller was dead last week LOL. Yet he thinks that he is the most astute well read, and insightful author on this site. He is far from it IMHO.
Why dont you just come out and say your a shill Davey? I could respect that. You were probably in your home element at your republican caucus in Texass.
You come across almost always as above others, as in looking down on them, self-righteous and for the most part arrogant in the extreme. Why don't you get off your high horse and learn something.
A month ago I pondered sending you a book via pdf that was written about the Tavistock Institute of Public relations. I changed my mind however and knew that it would be wasted on you, as your mind is about as closed as anyone I have ever encountered Davey. Enjoy your arrogance bucko.
37 - Pablo
Dave making a retraction is almost as remote a possiblity as him prefacing his remarks by saying its his opinion, almost always he states what he writes as facts. They arent. They are just opinions of a muddled politico.
38 - Dave Nalle
What bothers you, Pablo, is that I'm a libertarian who actually thinks about things, rather than just repeating slogans from the JBS and Alex Jones and other far-right whacko propagandists.
For you no one can be a libertarian unless they repeat all the same mantras and have nary an original thought in their head.
I find it ironic that those who proclaim libertarianism seem to be the first to descend into the morass of intellectual fascism, proclaiming themselves so free while their minds are utterly closed.
Dave
39 - Clavos
Over or not, RP has as much chance of getting elected president of the United States in 2008 as Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il do...
40 - Pablo
Hmmmm,
"Intellectual fascism". Now there is a concept Davey. However I fail to have the intellectual prowess to conceive of such a concept. Is that per chance a school of thought? Maybe a new policital party you started?
Who are the socialists Davey? Are they the huddled masses yearning for a free handout from the rich? Is that how you really see it? Or some self-deluded liberal agenda to share the pie brother? I will grant you that many poor people have socialist ideas, such as a socialized police force, federal and state, a socialized fire department, and even some of them oh noooooo God forbid, socialized medicine. YIKES.
No Davey, the socialists are the ultra rich elites that I have been referring to for months, over your head I might add. They are the same group, yes I did say group, that brought you National Socialism, known and NAZI. Just ask Georgy. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. Problem, reaction, solution. Your CFR buddies chief among them. Do you know where the money came from to start communism Davey? Oh thats right Im making it up, yeah buddy sure I am.
If you were in any more denial (that is if your not a shill), you would be totally blind. Be that as it may, perhaps since your so educated, and "well informed" perhaps you could explain to a peon like me what you mean by "right wing". I am a novice, and I need your help Dave. What I was taught to believe about "far right wing" politics was that it usually involved a combination of rascism, intolerance, and increasingly totalitarian and un american, as in unconstitutional politics.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but um Alex Jones (yes I know his father was in the JBS) has never been a rascist (yes I know he does not like La Raza which means The Race, and does not like illegal aliens), a bigot, or ever advocated ANYTHING but upholding the constitution of the USA. I do not recall Mr. Jones advocating, (as many of your friends in the republican party do) getting rid of Habeus Corpus, the fourth amendment, the sixth amendment, and others. I do hear him say that a cabal has taken over the reigns of our government, and it is out of control. You can call that whacko buddy, I call it OBVIOUS.
You go boy!
41 - t
dave is this truly your opinion? and if so it makes me wonder who you really are. man that was a case of a mind fucking if ive ever red one.(these guys must be really scared of the revolution boys)rp is still in it, and you dont like it. dont listen to these sheeple. thier like branded familiars.the elite's bitch if you will. you dont like rp because they tell you not to like rp. i bet you got a brown stain on your nose. long live ron paul long live the revolution brought to you by FTFR
42 - Knee Jerk
He only accepted an invitation to speak, not to join their ranks. He did it win votes, not to validate their views. Just because he said something nice to them doesn't mean he embraces their entire idiological world view. One of the hallmarks of a good public speaker is to be able to speak to a crowd of people you don't necessarely agree with and get them to agree with you. That's what Ron Paul did.
That Ron Paul can't win the Republican nomination is true. However, if Ron Paul were to abandon the Republican party, as it has abandon him, and run for President as an independant, he would stand a VERY high chance of winning the Presidential election.
43 - Bill
The media attacks the JBS membership regularly.
They never dispute their research though.
Perhaps this is by design?
The latest polls state that 67% of the American public does not trust the corporate owned media for the truth.
Dave, you need other sources.
44 - david
perhaps there will be a debate with McCAIN an RON PAUL to set the record straight.If they think John can hang ;let them get it on an put this issue behind the people.We as a nation are in the mists of imploding.
45 - Dave Nalle
Dave, you need other sources.
My sources here are the JBS website and Ron Paul. Who would you suggest as being closer to the issue?
As for Paul's 'campaign', as far as I can tell, aside from going to speak to the JBS, he's doing exactly the right thing. He's telling his followers to carry on with their work and push their agenda and to do it within the Republican Party. I think that's fantastic.
Dave
46 - Bill
I was referring to the Washington post.
47 - david
the media crys an pushs the word conspiracy.would a better word be OPINION THEORY..DAVID
48 - chris lawton
REVOKE McCAIN DELEGATES
Whereas; Senator John McCain was placed on the ballots in States without obtaining the required signatures to accept Federal matching funds.
Whereas; Senator John McCain obtained delegates in the States after winning the primary as a result of being placed on the ballot.
Whereas; Senator John McCain willfully withdrew from accepting Federal matching funds, therefore, exempting him from being placed on the ballot without the required petition signatures.
Whereas; Senator John McCain deceived the people to be placed on the ballot under false pretense, claiming to accept Federal matching funds.
Whereas; Senator John McCain did not qualify to be placed on the ballots.
Whereas; "John McCain is a campaign finance criminal by violating the very regulations he championed, Jane Hamsher commented while delivering the complaint. He believes the law is for someone else, not him. It's the height of hypocrisy." Firedoglake.com
Whereas; The McCain campaign incorrectly stated that McCain is doing what Dean did when he withdrew from public financing in his presidential bid, but they have the facts wrong. Dean did not use the promise of matching funds as collateral for a loan. As required, Dean obtained permission from the Commission to withdraw from matching funds before any funds were disbursed. Also, Dean spent resources to get his name on the ballot after withdrawing, unlike McCain who had free ballot access in some states because he pledged to accept matching funds.
Whereas; In order to receive matching funds, John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC to accept spending limits and to abide by the conditions of receiving those funds. The FEC makes clear that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be granted by the FEC. In other words, McCain can't just unilaterally withdraw. FEC Chairman David Mason made this clear in a letter to McCain advising him that the law requires the FEC to approve his request to withdraw from his contract.
Whereas; The FEC Chairman David Mason sent McCain's campaign a strongly worded letter (PDF), letting them know that McCain didn't consider his word on accepting public financing binding. The FEC was not about to let him off the legal hook. He ignored the letter, secured a loan to obtain public financing and then leu past the public financing law spending limits...and he's still raising campaign cash, too.
Whereas; By FEC rulings, the McCain campaign does not allow withdrawal of matching funds. It already violated a key condition for being let out of the program - pledging matching funds as collateral for a private loan. McCain obtained a $4 million line of credit -- drew $2,971,697 from it - and documents make clear that the promise of public financing was used to secure his loan.
Whereas; The FEC has (1) reason to believe, pursuant to U.S.C. §437g(a)(2), that Senator John McCain and the McCain Campaign have committed a violation of Chapter 96 of Title 26 and of the Commission's rules, and requests an investigation; and (2) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9040(c), petition the appropriate U.S. District Court for injunctive relief to implement and enforce the provisions of Chapter 96 against Senator McCain and the McCain Campaign.
Whereas; Senator John McCain has the obligation to abide by and respect the election laws.
Whereas; Senator John McCain has the obligation to respect and honor the integrity of the Republican party.
Whereas; The Republican party has the responsibility and obligation to hold any member of its party accountable for any violations of the law in any state.
Whereas; The Republican party will hold anyone in the party accountable for violations of law so as to maintain the integrity of the Republican party.
Therefore,
Be it Resolved:
We the people of the Republican party of Washington State hereby revoke Senator John McCain from receiving any delegate votes from any county, state, or national convention in the year 2008. All States are invited to do likewise.
49 - chris lawton
JOHN McCAIN: THE MOST FLAWED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HISTORY
50 - The Gibbernator
"Dave making a retraction is almost as remote a possiblity as him prefacing his remarks by saying its his opinion, almost always he states what he writes as facts."
Pablo making any sense is almost as remote a possibility as most of the insane conspiracy theories he trumpets having any basis in fact.
51 - George
I will be the first one to admit that mixed messages have come from the Ron Paul Campaign as to his standings. A large part of that can be blamed on the influence of the MSM, who act as though he is crazy for thinking that he has a chance. Everyone is quick to label Ron Paul and his supporters as fanatics. So, aren't we labeled as even more fanatical in believing in him, despite the fact that he and his supporters persevere, determined to write him in ourselves on the ballot in November, if need be.
However, to clear up any confusion, one only has to go to his official site, and see that not only does the Banner Ad talk about winning delegates for your precinct for Ron Paul, but also that "Now There Are Two" with Ron Paul and John McCain is boldly and prominently displayed on the site.
Also, if you click on my site, you will see, all the way to the right, that Ron Paul was on Neil Cavuto's site as recently as last night. Neil even brings up how the MSM has deliberately tried to make him a fringe candidate from the very beginning and ignored him. This YouTube video is definitely worth watching, as Ron Paul articulates a lot of his campaign resolutions and a lot of the issues troubling our econonomy and our country.
And here is also an Idaho Falls, Idaho article from yesterday, talking about Ron Paul supporters protesting the IRS on April 15th. Ron Paul will be campaigning in Twin Falls on April 25th.
I have more campaign updates, if necessary, including his phenomenal success in Pennsylvania and the tremendous support he is receiving on the campaign trail.
Let's try to please embrace his message and evaluate the critical issues which he is bringing to the forefront of everyone's minds, as opposed to nit picking him for appearances and trying to tear him down for every little thing we can think of in a slanted attempt to assassinate his campaign.
Thank you.
52 - NH
This article is bogus and needs to be deleted.
Dave please retract right now... or lose all credibility as a writer.
53 - NH
Why is it a terrible mistake to endorse the JBS? You are fraught with paranoia...they are grounded in reality....perhaps you need a dose of that yourself?
The JBS is excellent and none of their research is ever wrong, so what's up with that?
Dave look at me, sweetie, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.
Many people cannot.
But please leave the paranoia about who the JBS is at the door. They are wonderful people and are very active in NH.
54 - AG in ID
This article is sooo far off. I'm guessing the author has done nothing but listen to the main stream media for all his information.
Of course the masses will believe this stuff too, because it was written. Never thinking to go to a reliable source to fact check this guy's opinions.
This is a typical example of the dumbing down of Americans.
55 - Clavos
This is a typical example of the dumbing down of Americans.
...as is the blind support of a candidate who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election...
56 - Bill
Clavos: There was a time in our nation's history where citizen's supported candidates because of issues, not just because they could "win" or not.
This idea that only the candidates that the media tells us can win should be supported is the MAIN reason this country is in the toilet, and the main reason that the government is running roughshod over its citizens.
57 - Dave Nalle
Dave, you need other sources.
My sources here are the JBS website and Ron Paul. Who would you suggest as being closer to the issue?
As for Paul's 'campaign', as far as I can tell, aside from going to speak to the JBS, he's doing exactly the right thing. He's telling his followers to carry on with their work and push their agenda and to do it within the Republican Party. I think that's fantastic.
Dave
58 - Clavos
Clavos: There was a time in our nation's history where citizen's supported candidates because of issues, not just because they could "win" or not.
Not in my lifetime (more than half of the last century and all of this one to date), they haven't.
Americans vote their pocketbooks; the candidate who promises the most, wins.
59 - George
Let's not forget about the other two candidates in history who didn't have "a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election":
Abraham Lincoln
Bill Clinton
60 - Clavos
Let's not forget about the other two candidates in history who didn't have "a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election":
Abraham Lincoln
Bill Clinton
Wrong on both counts.
Both were mainstream (as opposed to fringe) candidates.
61 - Dr Dreadful
Bill:
Remember that the US is the second largest country in the world that elects its government by means of a completely free democratic process (the largest is India). Like it or not, with such a huge population the mass media is far and away the best and most efficient way of disseminating information about political candidates. As remarkable as the grassroots efforts of the Ron Paul campaign have been, no other method can even come close in terms of effectiveness.
That may change in time as the internet becomes a more significant campaign tool, and history may come to regard the Paul '08 campaign as a pioneer in this.
As irresponsible as they can sometimes be, blaming the media for Paul's failure to win the GOP nomination is unrealistic. They respond to market trends just as any other business does. If Paul's ideas really did have that much mass appeal, believe me, you'd have been hearing a lot more about them on TV and radio and in the papers.
62 - Pablo
Gibbernator,
Did you write that yourself? How clever!
63 - Pablo
Oh and Gibbernator?
I do know that the post you referred to was a bit over your head, ask one of your compatriots to expalin it for you. Then perhaps you will not feel such rancor towards me. I will try being more simple for the simpletons in the future Gibbernator. :)
.
64 - shane scheid
you may represent a "sinister cabal of superior writers" but the most eloquent and articulate of writing can not compensate for poor research. lies are still lies, nevermind who tells them.
ive me a shout next time you need help researching a Ron Paul article. Good writing is even better with real facts
65 - George
As far as Abraham Lincoln goes, he had so few delegates, it was considered a joke that he would even attempt to get the nomination. Sound familiar? Yet, because of a freak turn of events, he obviously got the nomination and won the election.
Bill Clinton was even more interesting. No one was paying attention to the Democrats at all, because Ross Perot, another fringe candidate, had Bush 41 on the ropes and was totally dominating the election. Ross Perot achieved so much support and recognition early on that he realized he might actually win the race, and put his campaign on suspension. When he wasn't convinced that Clinton could quite take Bush out, he came back in. Most Republicans claim that Perot stole votes from Bush and caused Clinton to win. To this day, I hear that. However, in my personal opinion, Bush was going to lose that election no matter who ran against him, as so many people were furious with him, and were voting "against Bush" as opposed to "for Clinton" or "for Perot". It's my personal speculation (obviously one can not document theories about altnerate realities) that if Perot had not come back in, Clinton would have simply won by a larger margin. And, just to set the record straight, so that the neutrality of my perspective can be placed properly, I did vote for Bush 41 both times that he ran.
As far as Dr. Dreadful's comments are concerned, have you not been paying attention? Ron Paul's support has been incredible. He raised $6 Million in one day, over the internet. That has never been done before, and, in fact, is being examined by both major political parties as a best practice and a model for the future. He apparently has the most donations from the military families over every other candidate. Even if you subscribe to the contradictory polls of two or three other sites, Ron Paul is still only second to Obama. Ron Paul has secured more donations from military families than John McCain, Billary, Huckabee, and the rest of the former or "suspended" candidates. Also, looking at the Fox voting polls. Ron Paul annihilated Giuiliani on multiple occasions. AND Ron Paul's campaign was significantly more solvent than Giuiliani's. The latest campaign finance filings showed Giuiliani in debt and not having paid significant members of his staff for one month, as opposed to Ron Paul, who is in the black, with no debt. And Fox News decided not to put Ron Paul in one of the critical debates right before a primary, as they said they didn't have room for some of the fringe candidates. Yet, they allowed Giuliani to participate. Giuiliani had just been beaten by Ron Paul in a primary and Giuiliani dropped out completely soon afterwards.
That hardly sounds like someone whose ideas don't have mass appeal. Quit drinking the Kool-Aid, Dr. Dreadful.
66 - Dave Nalle
I think the Lincoln comparison is fairly apt. Lincoln did come into the convention with very few delegates, but it was in Chicago, so he had lots of local supporters and they crowded the hall in huge numbers and shouted down Seward's name whenever it was mentioned so that eventually Lincoln got the nomination after a number of ballots.
What the Ron Paul supporters have tried to do at some of the district conventions is very much like what Lincoln's folks did in Chicago, and I imagine they'll keep trying the same tactics as long as they can get away with it, in the hopes of stealing the nomination as Lincoln did. Of course Lincoln, despite his homely appearance, was a hell of a lot more charismatic and a better public speaker than Paul - that might make a difference.
Dave
67 - Dr Dreadful
That hardly sounds like someone whose ideas don't have mass appeal. Quit drinking the Kool-Aid, Dr. Dreadful.
I don't believe I've ever drunk Kool-Aid, George. I prefer Crystal Light.
I never said that Paul's ideas don't have mass appeal - just that it's not as much mass appeal as has been trumpeted by his supporters. I acknowledge that his campaign has been remarkable. But all this cash, all this apparent mass support just did not translate when it counted - into votes.
You can't invoke all those millions of dollars raised and all those supposed millions of supporters and then, when they didn't materialize at the ballot box, claim that the media is somehow to blame.
68 - Pablo
Dread,
Nope the voting machines are to blame, however most people are in denial.
69 - George
Just to add fuel to the fire...
70 - JD
"The idea that America is threatened by a huge, covert, and many-headed conspiracy is selling like hotcakes."
It's not just America. The entire world is threatened by the designs and desires of a small group of sociopaths. They hide behind governments and corporations.
71 - Dirt
Dave, you say the JBS is racist and anti-Semitic, yet they have at least one black on their Speakers Bureau and at least one member of their National Council is Jewish. So, why the smears?
Also, JBS members don't necessarily believe that Eisenhower was a communist agent. JBS founder Robert Welch made that comment in a private letter. Welch later wrote a book (The Politician), which elaborated on Ike's career, and how the communist movement benefitted from Ike's activities.
72 - Pablo
I wonder if you Dave are aware of a new bood writting by a CFR hack named Philip Bobbit entitled "Terror and Consent"
In the book he basically lays out the case that the nation state is dead, and must be replaced by a global government run by multi-national corporations. Surprise surprise.
From one of the book reviewers at Amazon.com about this book:
"To save you the time required to read it. Here's a synopsis.
The premise of the book is that we are in the midst of a transition to a market-based global order. This means that the nation-state (and even the entire notion of public governance) will be replaced by corporate surrogates (via outsourcing) operating on a global level. The basis for the legitimacy of this new order will be that it offers individuals more choices than ever before (the political parallel to a fully stocked supermarket). However, its emergence will be at the expense of minimal safety nets and communitarian efforts."
"This book is a blatant attempt to indoctrinate the ignorant into believing that we must give up our liberty and dismantle the U.S. Constitution to be safe. This of course is an outright lie. This book is biased towards a Globalist world view and reads like it was written by someone who had the entire Bilderberg Group and Council on Foreign Relations looking over his shoulder as he was writing.
To the remaining patriots out there and those who love freedom and justice, make no mistake. Mr. Philip Bobbitt is an enemy of the American people and an enemy of freedom."
And from the Guardian.co.uk dated 4/9/08:
"Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, while Europe's drops as fertility falls. "Flashmobs" - groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.
This is the world in 30 years' time envisaged by a Ministry of Defence team responsible for painting a picture of the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces. It includes an "analysis of the key risks and shocks". Rear Admiral Chris Parry, head of the MoD's Development, Concepts & Doctrine Centre which drew up the report, describes the assessments as "probability-based, rather than predictive".
Sure Bubba and I'm the tin foil hat guy, you go boy.
73 - George
Well, voting ballot machines aside (and there are definitely some concerns there), the problem is that most people vote like lemmings. They wait to see who the media will cover after many candidates have dropped out. Or they watch to see how the first few states vote in the first few primaries, and act according to how the dust settles.
I can't tell you how many times I have heard that "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils" or "I'm voting for the most electable, even though I disagree with him." or "I'm voting against ___ ." The one I have heard the most this year is, "I think Ron Paul has the most integrity, and is the best candidate, and I agree with all of his ideas, but he can't win, so I'm voting for McCain". And then there's "I'm voting for ___, because he's going to win."
This is real. This is how people vote. Where I work, for some time now, we have had the joke "All Obama... All the Time." And you don't even have to be a fringe candidate to be ignored. For the past several months, it's been about the Democratic Party Run. It's only been the past week or so that McCain started to get press again. And, back in '92, no one paid attention to Bill Clinton until he played his sax on Arsenio... AFTER Perot dropped out.
One piece of data which I would be interested to see, but I don't see how it is possible... what percentage of Ron Paul voters also donated... versus how many people voted for another candidate, yet didn't donate, didn't campaign, didn't attend a rally, didn't even believe in him/her.
Let's also not forget how consumed people are with "tricky manipulation", such as Republicans voting in Democratic Primaries to jinx one or both of the Democratic Candidates. And I've got hard core Democrats telling me that if their candidate doesn't get the Nomination, they are going to jump ship for the first time and vote for whoever the Republican nominee is. Gosh, I can't think of a BETTER reason to get someone like Ron Paul in the running.
This is how people vote. This is how people act. This is how people evaluate candidates and make decisions. That's the real world. And you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to notice this. In fact, I'd wager that most conspiracy theorists don't even catch these trends.
74 - spinnikerca
Well, I don't know much about the John Birch Society except that they were considered farther right than, say, my Grandfather (whom I considered rather far to the right.) I hadn't heard anything about conspiracies, and given that people say the same thing about Ron Paul supporters (of whom I am one) I tend to take that with a grain of salt.
HOWEVER, I think Ron Paul doesn't feel the need to approve of everything a person or group does, to approve greatly of something they do. I read his letter text somewhere else and he was commenting on a great Constitutionalist program they have. Frankly, I think the Constitution is the touchstone we need, at this point, and if the John Birch Society is a group of strict Constitutionalists, I can't see how they can be all bad.
There is that 1st Amendment, and the 4th, and the 13th and 14th....
75 - blakmira
You might want to take a look at the video filmed just last week at Penn State in Pennsylvania of Ron Paul speaking to the crowds. Directly behind him is a HUGE block of 4 HUGE signs that clearly say RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008.
Gee, maybe Ron Paul didn't notice these signs when he walked up to the podium or they were placed there surreptitiously by delegates and supporters who haven't yet "given up" on his run for president.
Sounds like the author of this blog may have hit his little head on the third rail and is suffering from delusions and/or amnesia. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]