The worst form of “ineptness” may be in deceiving those who look up to you
It is my belief that the support of Ron Paul by the Patriot Movement has been based largely on the assumption that Paul was really a truther after all.
After his comment in the early part of 2012 related to 911: “Bush knowing about this?”, I have to solemnly question where exactly he remains on the issue of 911 truth.
In the now, dare I say famous can of worms interview with Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley dropped an important bomb of infomation that would suggest Ron Paul may not be the man with the mission many of us thought he was.
Specific allegations from Tarpley were based on fact. Ron Paul supported the Afghan invasion because he truly believed bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on 911. He has not changed his point of view on that despite Alex Jones’ reasoning in the interview that Paul was aware of false flag attacks. Even in the GOP debates, with Paul in battle with Rick Santorum, the infamous booing of Paul occurred because of his mention of the US’s aggressive foreign military policy. What it really did was slap 911 truth in the face, and solidify the false belief that bin Laden was the culprit. In hindsight, it could have been brilliant political theater.
The reason a critical eye of Ron Paul must be had now is because of the supporters he has accumulated that would likely buy into everything he suggests. Dare we ask how many Paul supporters are on food stamps out of the 60% + that would be out of luck with the $ 1 Trillion slashing of the Federal budget?
In the GOP debate, we can think back on how much time was spent on national defense strategy. Odd when the economy was tanking, you would think it would be down on the list of priorities. Again, it solidified the argument that 911 was instigated from cave dwellers in Afghanistan not because of a conspiracy. Have we all been duped into believing that Ron Paul secretly agrees with us, while over the years dodging the bullet, or in some cases coming out boldly to whole-heartedly spell it out? And if Ron Paul can be persuaded to vote for war because of bin Laden, would Rand be equally accomodating at the suggestion Iran held dangerous nukes?
If we look at Tarpley’s argument that Ron Paul was there to take votes away from Romney’s GOP competition, that should make us more careful not to assume Paul was there to support the Patriot movement unquestioningly. He has not given us assurance that he is indeed on our side. That is, that there is a global mission to a One World Government. Liberty and Freedom at home is not good enough, when you don’t admit the bigger picture. However, he has discussed his fear of a North American Union, but isolating that issue without admission of the bigger picture is in itself suspect.
And, the cash infusion from Bilderberg at this stage is extremely suspect. The stretched argument that Paul cannot control who injects $2.7 million into his campaign is weak, and as Tarpley points out, it did not come from just any Bilderberger, it came from Thiel, who sits on the Bilderberg Steering Committee.
Ask some waitresses in Europe how generous a Bilderberger who just hit the winfall like Zuckerberg was, when he wouldn’t tip. $2.7 million must come with some strings attached for sure. And rumor has it that the Bilderbergers weren’t too generous inside the Marriott in Chantilly either. So the big campaign infusion is very questionable. Ride off in the sunset, huh? Imagine how Alex Jones would use that information against any other candidate that got the windfall from a Bilderberg steering committee member.
Friend or no friend, it’s time to separate the job from the bias and get down to work. We will see if the friendship of Tarpley and Jones can endure the truth that Tarpley dropped. And, if I might add, having analyzed the interview again, Tarpley is genuinely a friend to Jones, and his suggestion Alex should have run for President seemed rather heartfelt. Tough love if you will. I think Jones needs to do some soul searching on this one, and decide which friend is more honest and forthright – – the guy who eludes to be on his side, or the one who blasts reality square between the eyes.
And, are we left with a mystery to solve on where Ron Paul and now Rand Paul really stand? Is that grey area really good enough at this point in American history? At a crossroads doesn’t even begin to explain the magnitude where truth is needed, and clarity should be a given.
Ron Paul is at best a mysterious, mythical father figure that we “hope” sees it the way we would like him to see it, and we must somehow read between the lines, because, “shhhh, he can’t lead on that he is really one of us, and he can’t bring it up”.
That argument has now become dangerous for a myriad of reasons, most of which were uncovered eloquently by Webster Tarpley.
As Dan Rather would now reflect on his memoirs of past, and future moving forward, “follow the money”.
Money and promise of payoff are there. Ron Paul may have conveyed some interesting ideals over the years, but he is ready to retire and hand it over to Rand from here.
Some say that it is Rand that is to blame and will ruin what dad has accomplished. I prefer to think based on the support one has for the other, that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The mission at this point might be to accept the limitations of not taking it to where it needed to go a long time ago. To compromise oneself on exposing full truth is not good enough. Or, to deceive or have some faction of supporters wishing you were on their side may even be worse.
We are talking life and death here.
Tarpley mentioned something that should be important to us all. He suggested that Rand may be persuaded to allow a war with Iran. That would mean he would be a bigger ally to Romney, and might explain why a meeting took place between them. You would have to surmise that the “meeting” was the result of past “working together”, and to get to the point of deciding if he would be second in command must suggest they are pretty good bedfellows regardless of the outcome. Stop making excuses that I hear, like, “well, if Rand turns out not to be VP, then we can all go back to the Paul love-in, right?”
I don’t think so. For now, I will leave you with this. Despite the exposing of the shill who is Glenn Beck, we can safely say he did his political hit piece in 2007 for a time like this:
Might explain why a third party run is not in the picture. It would take votes away from Mitt Romney, and it would not allow a show of how many Patriots would support Ron Paul. A shame if it was all a smokescreen.