And Ron Paul could be the mild-mannered nice guy that is the “easy in” for mainstream media to bring the change in news reporting on the “real” state of the Union
We tend to look for change by voting for the best opposite, but are we really getting the opposite view in the supposed opposing party?
We can all see that things do not change. Often they get worse. Are we being fooled to pick Coke or Pepsi political parties when they both have the same underlying purpose? Can there be hope for us without new blood?
Well, in the U.S. there is a resurgence of liberty. This is being propogated by the Tea Party Group. Freedoms and the support of the U.S. Constitution are at the root. But do not think you will find much support for this group in the mainstream media though.
Glenn Beck mentions Time Magazine’s 2009 a Year in Pictures as he points out that there were no pictures of the Tea Party Group. Of obvious interest reflecting a changing year in politics, the obvious question is, why not?
Are we to believe the Tea Partiers are an insignificant force in the U.S.? Well, Congressman Ron Paul is getting major support in the media now, and has been regularly appearing on major news stations and journals as being right. Wow! Ron Paul has professed his critical assessment of U.S. politics for the past 30 years and he was viewed as a crazy radical, with strange ideas.
That was then, this is now. Larry King has Ron on his show regularly. And, MSNBC just a couple of days ago interviewed Paul, and in this segment he discusses the “no difference” aspect of the two major parties in the U.S..
As Paul explains, what’s the point of voting for John McCain who still supported the bank bailout? When the bailout was a bad idea, what’s the point when both parties support it? Is that going to affect true change in a country that should be concentrating on the welfare of its’ citizens when they seem more worried about sending money to offshore interests disguised through the private Federal Reserve system? Heck no.
As said so well,
Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws. Mater Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
Ben Bernanke is the head of the Federal Reserve, and he has said if you audit the Fed, it (the audit) will shut it down. His argument is that you cannot have Congress setting fiscal policy. Why not? Fiscal Policy makes or breaks the welfare of it’s citizens. Is it much better to have large offshore private bankers determine the fate of Americans? And, the bigger question is, what if these power elite decide to use this power and control, in the words of Maxwell Smart, “for evil and not niceness”?
The Rothchild family is at the root of the Bilderberg Group. Is it a coincidence they are in control of the money supply of the U.S.? It is a family preocupation to control the fate of the country.
Here is Ron Paul on the Fed:
And a more in depth argument by Ron Paul can be found here.
We had better pay attention to the fate of the U.S. and their freedoms as being fought for by the Tea Partiers, as we all know how “tied to the U.S.” our economy is. And, let’s not forget this is fast becoming a Global Economy, and the Global Government is forming. Some like to call it the New World Order. Whatever you call it, the theme is becoming the same – the stripping of soveignty and individual rights. You need not look farther than the headlines to see evidence – from full body scanners at the airports, to parents getting arrested in the U.S. for home-schooling their kids. Yes I did say “arrested”. For shame on those parents, eh?
Now this article is called the “plays the thing”, a play on Shakespearean jargon. Well again, when we looked at U.S. politics the question to the voters is what flavor do you want? You will still get cola, but will it be Pepsi or Coke?
If they are both so similar you can’t tell the difference, are we getting duped to believing we have a voice? Are there “plays” going on between parties to justify the means, and the means are from one outside influence? Are the parties a distraction to hide the true drive to affect an agenda that is worldwide in scope? Would that explain why President Obama and Prime Minister Harper seem to be close in attitude towards Constitutions and censorship of media? Yes, it would. And would it be a coincidence? No, it would not. Not if there is a “global” agenda by the power elites.
Let’s look at some current examples.
We have Dick Cheney criticizing President Obama for being too soft on terror. What effect will this have? Will it give Obama the excuse he needs to not look like the bad guy when he takes away more human rights? It would seem so. How about the public outcry and the admission that “they messed up” and didn’t follow the procedures and look at the evidence and information to know the underwear bomber would be a threat? Will that create the panic and expectation that the Obama administration needs to instill more right stripping procedures and laws? Oh yes it will.
And isn’t it great that the public cries out for more rights violations.
The world’s a stage. The players between political parties, since no different at the end of the day have full opportunity to fool us, and the criticism a “stage” to evolve a “process”.
What is the ultimate process? That is the question.
We know now that it involves less liberty, more rules, more taxes, and ultimately the governments telling us what we can and cannot do.
That’s scary. But more disturbing when we realize the world government will be a bureaucracy and not “elected” by the people.
That would sure give the unethical and disturbed a playground to impose bad things on people now wouldn’t it?