Category Archives: Do Not Vote

A TIDAL WAVE OF POLITICAL LIARS LYING

A tidal wave of political liars lying

by Jon Rappoport

June 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Political liars lie because they’re forwarding secret agendas and don’t want us to catch on. They also lie because they’re tailoring their messages to what they think we want to hear. We know that. Everybody knows that.

But if everybody knows that, why do so many people act as if they don’t know it? It’s a strange phenomenon.

If you had a friend who talked to you every day in a way you knew was disingenuous, if he said things obviously intended to cater to your opinions and beliefs, at some point wouldn’t you hold up your hand and say STOP? It would be maddening, wouldn’t it? It would be like eating too much molasses.

Sure, we like to have people agree with us, but there is a limit. There is especially a limit when we know they’re pretending to agree with us. There is REALLY a limit when we know they’re agreeing with us because they want something from us.

Of course, the “science” of PR makes no distinction between the truth and a lie. PR is based on the notion that you say things only and always to engender the effect you’re looking for (while concealing your true intent). And now much of the world runs on PR. That’s the engine. This is essentially what campaign advisers are there for: to show their candidates how to lie, how to get away with it, and how to make people like the lies.

The question for a politician is: how well am I lying; not, what am I lying about.

Nixon was a bad liar. He even seemed like a liar when he was saying what he really thought. He was basically trapped in being a liar at the core. He made you think a PR agent had created him whole out of cardboard and glue.

Reagan was a somewhat better liar, but still, when you got past his best moments, he was grossly inept.

Gerald Ford was a surprisingly good liar. He seemed to be a simple fool who actually believed what he said. That’s an art.

Jimmy Carter was a good liar and then a not-so-good liar. He had his good days and bad days.

George Bush I was an awkward liar. He was like Nixon in many respects. Put him behind a microphone and everything out of his mouth came across like a lie. Ditto for his son.

Bill Clinton was, all said and done, like Carter. Good days and bad days—until Monica. After that, he was Bubba, the prime Grade A non-stop bullshitter.

Obama, when the high oratory of his early days melted away, played it so close to the vest he entered a neutral zone where what he said carried neither the impression of being true nor false. It was dead fish. Unless you actually listened, and then you heard chains and chains of Chicago-baked prevarications

I’m talking about style here, not content. And style, for these men, is an artifact of PR. “Can I tell a good lie?” “Can I get over?” “Can I make it seem real?”

We’ve come so far in the cartoon world of political PR that John Q Public tends to judge politicians on the basis of how well they’re lying.

“He makes it seem he’s telling the truth. I like that. He’s doing well.”

“He’s an intelligent liar. He knows his facts and he can juggle them and manipulate them. That’s good.”

Then you have liars like Henry Waxman. (I ran against him in 1994 for a Congressional seat.) Waxman is a pretty good liar. He does it with a chip on his shoulder, with some anger, as if he’s outraged at his enemies. He can do earnest. Like many other politicians, he can actually keep himself from knowing the kind of truth that would expose himself to himself as a liar. That’s an art.

Some of you might remember Everett Dirksen. He served in Congress from 1933 to 1969. He’d still be there if he wasn’t dead. Ev was not just a liar, he was a pop star of lying. When he spoke publicly, he was so over the top, with his super-syrupy baritone and his sing-song jive, he made your eyes water. He was like a 50-foot painted cement dinosaur suddenly showing up as you were driving down an empty highway. He was the cartoon of cartoons of American politics, and for that his colleagues named a senate building after him when he died. They sat around like a bunch of snake oil and shoe salesmen and told stories about the great Ev. The press called Ev “The Wizard of Ooze.”

Bill Gates is a combination of the old TV puppet Howdy Doody, Donald Duck, and Mad Comics’ Alfred E Newman. With real malice aforethought. In recent years, he’s slipped into the role of The Great Educator and the technocrat with all the answers for the “brilliant future of planet Earth.” Bill’s lies come across like much of fake science: earnest, insistent, impatient, authoritative, confident.

The current political system of the United States is built on so many false flags, hidden agendas, crimes, and cover-ups, the intensity and quantity of lies has escalated to keep pace.

In key ways, the coming lie-fest between Obama and Romney falls into neat compartments. On one side, we have the cracker-barrel old fashioned white-bread-crust android Romney. And on the other side, we have the hip knowing forward-looking hero-of-the-downtrodden personable alert utopian Obama. Two fronts, two poses, two roles, two acts, two liars. They’re really clones of Globalism.

But they’ll play out the drama, and they’ll rivet the public attention with the lies they’re telling, and more importantly, the way they’re telling them.

PR specialists have discovered that people like their lies cooked differently. Some groups want Denny’s-type lies. Others want McDonalds or Burger King. Subtle differences. The amount of grease is important. Then there are organic-greens lies. There are home-cooked meat-and-potatoes lies. There are rib-shack lies. There are all sorts of flavorings.

The public is so used to lies-as-lies they become connoisseurs. It’s not whether the politician is lying, it’s the brand and feel and sensation and attitude of the lies as they fall on the palate.

Some people prefer the Don Rumsfeld approach: “Of course I’m lying, we all are, but I’m giving you my crap straight from the shoulder and I don’t care whether or not you believe me.” Others like Dick Cheney’s attitude: “I can lie until the sun goes down but I have the power to make it stick and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

On the other side of the aisle, you have Nancy Pelosi: “I lie with anger and outrage and a dismissive twitch. I lie because women need to be able to lie as well as men can. It’s a social movement.” Or there is Harry Reid: “My lies come out of a hole in the wall at the baseboard where I’m sitting like a mouse. But watch out. I have an army of mice behind me. We look weak, but we can eat up your whole kitchen.” Chris Dodd was a guru: “I lie with a blizzard of facts and the hard-nosed experience to back it up. My lies look exactly like the truth, if anyone around here were speaking the truth.”

The four-cornered feedback loop among PR-schooled politicians, PR advisers, the press, and the public is so busy that the public is now sitting like panel judges on a show called The Liars Club, deciding which are the best lies and liars. The public is honored to be there.

However, as successive waves of alternative deeper online news and research are drenching the public, the confusion is building. Could the truth really work? Is that possible? If the lies stopped, would the entire economy and political apparatus of the country go down overnight? Are we that entrenched? We’re going to find out.

In 1956, author Eugene Burdick, who would go on to write The Ugly American and Fail-Safe, published his first novel, the quickly forgotten The Ninth Wave. Two young friends, Mike and Hank, explore the emerging culture of California. Mike, however, discovers he has a knack for politics, and he quickly graduates up the ladder to boy-genius kingmaker. Using polls and surveys in a unique fashion, pinpointing voters’ hopes and fears and hatreds, Mike becomes a supreme and successful election manipulator. His friend Hank, who basically stands for truth and justice, is horrified. He realizes Mike may have to leave this Earth abruptly and violently if America itself is to be saved from The Attack of Public Relations.

We’ve come a long way, baby, since 1956. The novel’s theme seems completely absurd now. Of course political advisers (and their candidates) give up all principles in order to win. Of course polls and surveys are used to prey on voters’ emotions. Of course such calculations are the (vampiric) lifeblood of politics. Of course lies and counter-lies cover hidden agendas. Of course politicians are bought and paid for. Of course only the cynical and the venal survive in Washington. Of course the lamp is lit for the winners and doused for the losers. Of course they survey you and then feed you back your own preferences as if they’re their preferences, too.

You’ve got voters who are willing to trudge into rooms and take part in focus groups, where they watch political debates and push buttons to signify their reactions to individual sentences, phrases, single words. Lambs to the slaughter.

All this is business as usual.

But new winds are blowing stronger. People are beginning to think there may be something out there on the far side of all this lying, something we lost and could get back. No, it wouldn’t look like Leave It To Beaver, it would look, perhaps, like people do when they’re hearing the kind of joke that makes them fall off their chair and roll on the floor. I’ve often wondered what might happen, if, in the middle of a nationally televised presidential debate, the audience just started howling with laughter at both candidates and couldn’t stop.

That would be an interesting beginning, a kickoff, you might say, a spark that lights a fuse that results in an explosion that has nothing to do with terrorism. It would be on the order of a play that opens on Broadway, and by universal acclaim closes down after one night, because it’s so absurdly and preposterously pathetic—to which the only response is laughter.

And then, of course, other things would follow. But that would be a start: Romney and Obama, two clowns trying to act straight, two chronic hypocrites and liars peddling their sop and crap and shell game and fake differences, rushing offstage to escape the massive waves of laughter pouring over them, as the panicked networks cut to commercials for floor wax and Lipitor.

You Ron Paul delegates attending the GOP convention in Tampa? Don’t try to sink a plank in the Republican platform, don’t sit on your hands, don’t fidget, don’t boo, do something real. If your heads are on straight and you’re looking at the scene for what it really is, you WILL start LAUGHING at Romney, without even trying. Give your Democrat counterparts something to think about, when Obama begins yapping in Charlotte about the economy coming back strong and his great vision for a better tomorrow and how much help he needs in the fourth quarter as he’s trying to get free to sink the three-pointer at the buzzer.

Obama and Romney are both laughing up their sleeves at us. I think it’s time we return the favor. With a vengeance.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fx-oapl1nw&w=415&h=241]

As HL Mencken wrote, “One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

VOTE OR DON’T VOTE: ARSENIC OR CYANIDE?

 

VOTE OR DON’T VOTE: ARSENIC OR CYANIDE?

By Jon Rappoport

June 14, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Well, we must vote in the upcoming presidential election, right? How can we abdicate our right? How can we leave the battlefield to the robots? If we don’t vote, we can’t criticize what happens in the next four years.

 

On the other hand, if we’re standing in a room behind a table that holds two levers, and if we pull lever 1 a bullet is going to come out of the wall and kill us, and if we pull lever 2 a flame is going to shoot out of the wall and burn us down, it becomes a matter of idiosyncratic preference, doesn’t it?

 

Aren’t we entitled to consider that levers 1 and 2 conspire to produce a false dichotomy?

 

Or is that act of considering an indication that we’re too intelligent for the society we live in, and therefore we should sign up for “re-education?”

 

No matter how much passion we have for choosing a true leader who is independent of “the bullet and the fire,” suppose there is no lever 3?

 

Should we exercise our passion by pretending lever 1 or 2 is really the object of our desire?

 

“You know, at first I thought Candidate A was a dangerous idiot and a puppet of larger sinister forces, but after brainwashing myself into oblivion, I realize he’s quite a patriot and has godlike attributes. How could I have missed that?”

 

(By the way, it turns out that, since 1960, the three highest-percentage turnouts among the voting-age population, in a presidential election year, were 1960, 1964, and 1968. And those three weren’t anything to write home about: 63.1, 61.9, and 60.8.)

 

We’re told that political change comes slowly, and working within the two-party system, we have to satisfy ourselves with the slightly better candidate, or the lesser of two evils. This is what responsible adults do. But suppose this system is terminally corrupt, and suppose that is precisely the reason for the “slow change?”

 

Of course, the media will try to whip(saw) us into a frenzy about Election 2012, with oh-so earnest reportage on the campaigns and the issues. We will be told (and I have heard this since 1956), the present election is, in rank of importance, the most vital of our lives. On its outcome hangs our future as a nation.

 

I’ve seen the nation hanging like a man with a rope around his neck since 1964. Before then, I was too unconscious to know what I was seeing.

 

I can assert with confidence that, in this election, I would prefer Donald Duck to Barack Romney.

 

The most important political issues are the unspoken ones. In particular, since 1945 at the very latest, and actually, much earlier, the biggest issue on the table has been what we now call Globalism. It sounds, on the surface, like a fairly interesting subject for debate among scholars and pundits and economists. Actually, Globalism is about suffering, poverty, slavery, and death. It’s about created crises whose resolution leads to an overarching planetary management system, under which the individual has only a vague lingering memory of freedom, and all goods and services are rigidly distributed from Central Planning, for “the benefit of everyone.”

 

And without exception, every modern president has been on board with the Globalist plan. In a few cases, the degree of presidential surrender to the agenda has been marked by passivity and stupidity. But surrender it was and is.

 

And this is, of course, what we are dealing with in 2012, as Mitt Obama runs for office.

 

Crown him or don’t crown him? The lemmings have already decided that question, but we don’t have to attend the coronation.

 

To offer what seems like a fairy tale, suppose enough of us expressed our political persuasion with a no-vote? What would happen if the turnout for Election 2012 was so low it was obviously a sign of no-confidence in The One Party With Two Heads?

 

Would never happen, you say. I agree. Not this year. But here is my thinking, which I expressed in a piece the other day. You have to calculate whether we are closer to putting truly independent president in the White House—a president who values individual freedom and drastically limited central government above all else—or are we, in fact, closer to putting a puppet in the White House who squeaks in with only, say, 25% of the eligible voters showing up at the polls? Because 25% could not be swept under the carpet. 25% would let the world and the solar system and the galaxy know we are not happy. We are not satisfied. We are not playing along with an oligarchy that is terminally corrupt. We are intensely desirous of offloading the whole stinking mess.

 

Yes, both of these alternatives are long shots. But we are living in a long-shot society.

 

I gladly don’t vote for president. I enjoy not voting for president. I haven’t yet reached the point where I revel in not voting. I don’t feel the ecstasy yet, but if enough of us were of the same mind and the same no-action, I’m quite sure I would begin to feel that Chris Matthews tingle run up my leg.

 

As an added bonus, I would eat much popcorn while watching beautifully coiffed network news anchors and analysts and pundits and Party hacks trying to spin and worm and feint their way out of that one.

 

“Well, Jim, there was bad weather across the nation today. Gas prices have risen as well. The illiteracy rate is so high millions of people can’t read the punch cards and touch screens. If only we’d had twelve presidential debates instead of eight. Some states actually required ID before allowing people into the voting booths. The outbreak of cancer and heart disease from raw milk has been spreading across thirty-four states. The mid-air collision between eight drones over Chicago captured the attention of the nation today. We were forced to cover it, so in fact we may have contributed to the problem of the astonishing low turnout. Mea culpa. And you know, new polls show seventy-nine percent of the American people believe the world is ending on December twenty-first, 2012. So that could certainly be a factor. And here’s a breaking story out of the Harvard School of Psychological Assessment. Hmm. Never heard of that school before. A last-minute survey reveals a significant proportion of Americans are confused by the very similar spelling of ‘Obama’ and ‘Romney.’”

 

Yes, I would consume many tubs of popcorn watching that show.

 

The two candidates for president this year, as always, are in the Globalist club. They don’t talk about it, of course. They talk about everything else. Which is a clue.

 

I have a dream. Other people have theirs. Mine is watching some piece of Globalist dreck stumble into the Oval Office after 15% of eligible voters have shown up on election day.

 

And the crowds in the streets are composed of…us.

 

Cheering madly, wildly, waving our signs that read: NOPE. NO. WE ARE THE 85%. DID YOUR MOMMY AND HER THREE FRIENDS VOTE FOR YOU, MR. PRESIDENT? WHADDYAGONNADONOW? THE GREAT SERENE VOID HAS TRIUMPHED. RULE THIS. COULDN’T BUILD A BURGER THIS YEAR.

 

My sign would say, WE BLEW A HOLE IN THE CARTOON.

 

It’s called theater with a purpose. That happens to be what reality is.

 

THE VOTERS’ COALITION FOR NOT VOTING. A MAJORITY OF NONE. A COALITION OF THE UNWILLING.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THANK YOU, RON PAUL

 

THANK YOU, RON PAUL

WHY RAND PAUL ENDORSED ROMNEY

THE ILLUSION OF “WORKING WITHIN THE SYSTEM”

WHO’S BUYING THE FAIRY TALE

 

by Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

After my last article about Ron Paul, and after my conversation with Alex Jones two days ago, I’ve had a chance to reflect further on this whole fiasco, and I’ve seen a deeper operating level. So I’m writing a follow-up.

 

The Paul family and the Romney family are friendly, so it isn’t much of a stretch to imagine Romney telling Rand he agrees with Rand on many points, but that it will take time to introduce “real change we can believe in” to the current American political system.

 

This is a classic bait and switch. “Join us for the long haul. We need men like you. We’ll win the fight.” Then Rand joins, and lo and behold, the inside game isn’t what he thought it would be. It’s something else entirely.

 

Meanwhile, Rand is thinking that if Romney loses to Obama in the election, he, Rand, could strengthen his position within the GOP and launch a run for the presidency in 2016, while retaining his father Ron’s wide base of support all over America. Rand is thinking that maybe the Republican Party can’t win national elections without the liberty movement, and he is the liberty movement.

 

This is all a delusion. First of all, the Republican Party doesn’t need Rand Paul or his ideas. It needs the Democratic Party. And vice versa. That’s the game. As long as both Parties control the dialogue and the conflict between them, and as long as these Parties can exclude outsiders, they have things exactly as they want them. The last thing they want is a sudden demand for the Constitution.

 

And if Rand believes he can pick up the liberty movement again, like a coin lying in the street, after he’s joined the mainstream Republicans, he’s in for a surprise.

 

This was the year for an Independent candidate for president, and his name is Ron Paul. But Ron walked out on that notion. Ron should have bolted the Party and declared his candidacy as an Independent. Not as a Libertarian, not as a member of any party.

 

And to those who would have screamed that he was handing the election to Obama, Ron should have said the Romney doll and the Obama doll were made in the same globalist factory.

 

The takeaway lesson from this Ron/Rand fiasco is: don’t invest all your trust in anyone close to The One Political Party With Two Heads.

 

How many times, how many blowups, how many scandals does it take to convince us that the Republicans and the Democrats are chronic globalist racketeers?

 

To try to revolutionize the Republican/Democratic Party on a national level is a mission Don Quixote would have rejected out of hand.

 

The liberty movement, in all its forms, is far from finished, but it will remove itself from Republican/Democrat national politics, if common sense prevails.

 

When you try to reform an endemically corrupt system by working inside it, by cozying up to it, you find yourself receiving marching orders, and if you don’t march, they kick you to the side of the road.

 

The two major political parties in America are striving to place the nation under the control of a global management machine. That is their unspoken agenda, and it has been their agenda for a long time.

 

Rand Paul is working from a playbook others have studied. They have failed, and so will he. The playbook is called “reforming and enlightening career criminals.”

 

Note: I’m not talking about what can happen on a local political level, I’m talking about the national scene, and especially about presidential politics.

 

Frankly, many people in the liberty movement have opted for the easy way out. That’s right. They saw Ron Paul as a man who could utilize “the equipment” of the Republican Party to move into the presidency of the United States. The Republican Party was already there. The apparatus of the GOP was already there. There was no need to reinvent the wheel. No need to start from scratch with a truly Independent candidacy, which would have required the herculean task of waking voters up from the delusion that Republicans or Democrats are somehow legitimate agents of the American Republic.

 

The idea of Ron Paul “slipping into the presidency” via the Republican Party…that’s why many people in the liberty movement went along with Ron Paul as a Republican candidate. That’s why, against their better judgment, many people looked the other way and fed themselves a fairy tale about presidential politics.

 

I understand that fairy tale. I’m not blaming anybody. And you see, Ron and Rand told themselves the same tale. Apparently, they’re still telling it to themselves.

 

So you had an embrace-of-illusion between Ron, Rand, and a large number of their supporters. They were all in it together. That’s why the people who now feel betrayed and angry should stop for a minute and assess what really happened here. When you buy a false myth, you need to own up to it. You can’t go around being a betrayed martyr for the cause. That gets you nowhere.

 

Instead, you have face up to the reality that a person with the vision to run for the presidency of the United States, on behalf of liberty, in the face of the operating system called The One Party With Two Heads—and all that Party really stands for—a person who is going to take on that task as a true candidate IS going to have to start from scratch, as an Independent.

 

Ron Paul isn’t superman. Over the years, he’s bounced in and out of the Republican Party. He’s seen—and then not seen—that his real road was as a complete Independent.

 

When it comes to presidential politics, the Tea Party has expressed exactly the same in-and-out ambiguity.

 

So be it.

 

You live, you learn.

 

Some day, if he’s awake enough, Rand Paul will learn, too.

 

Where many people in the liberty movement have stopped short in their thinking is on the issue of what globalism really means, and how the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties are committed to it, day after day, year after year, presidency after presidency. Liberty advocates see it and then they don’t see it. They create a blur in their thought process. They avoid the fact that any presidential candidate who throws his hat in the ring, on the side of either major political party, is asking for a fall.

 

It’s as if a free and strong long-distance runner said to himself, “I’ll put myself in a wheelchair for a little while, and then I’ll stand up.”

 

The kind of limited central government that is needed to restore personal freedom is the nemesis of the core of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

 

For a long time, both Parties have been building out the federal government so that it locks hands with other governments, with international organizations, with financial controllers, with military establishments, in order to create empire. This, at times, has looked like an American empire, but as perverse as such an ambition is, that goal has been superseded.

 

Remember It Takes a Village (to raise a child)? Well at this point in time, the adage should be, It Takes a Village to Allow One Atom of Freedom for an Individual. That’s the blueprint. That’s the globalist goal. False flag operations, manufactured crises, whatever it takes, the plan is to derive the operation of planet Earth from Central Planning.

 

The real movers within the Democratic and Republican Parties are on board with this objective. They will stay on board.

 

Whether the Ron/Rand blow-up turns into a stew of lost opportunities, simmering with self-pity, anger, regret, and betrayal is simply a question about the second half of a fairy tale, about how a fairy tale ends, when the ring that was supposed to restore real justice and freedom is finally placed on the finger of the hero, and everyone sees that the ring was never the transformative object it was said to be.

 

Do the people become stronger, or were they never in it to become stronger?

 

Are they doomed to want to live in the first half of the fairy tale?

 

A year ago, Ron Paul could have stood up and given a speech that started out something like this: “My name is Ron Paul and I’m an Independent. I reject the central program of both political parties. I reject the idea that America is supposed to be part of some bigger scheme, because I assure you, that bigger scheme involves giving up your freedom. That’s why I’m running for president. I will never bow to the dictates of either party. I will not seek to belong to either party. And I think you understand why, and I think you are with me on this. You want individual freedom to prevail, and you want the kind of limited government our Founders created, to sustain that freedom. This is not an obsolete idea. It’s an independent idea, and that is precisely why I’m running as an Independent…”

 

But you see, he didn’t make that speech. You can blame him for not making it, but what good does it do to fashion him into someone he wasn’t? I’m not criticizing the man. I’m just saying people still have the choice of taking a scintillating vision of liberty and turning it into actuality. They don’t have to over-praise or attack Ron Paul. He walked his road, and he woke many people from their slumber. Nothing about that will ever change.

 

If the marathon for liberty develops the component of a relay race, we can crack open consensus reality that way, too. We can live with that. We can thrive. Ron Paul carried the relay-baton a long way. We don’t have to submit to the notion that his son now has the baton. We can take it.

 

I know some people are wondering whether Ron was really a “designer product” aimed at ultimately driving the liberty movement into a ditch, a dead-end. I know some people are wondering whether the Ron Paul movement was created as a safety valve, to blow off harmless steam from the tightening control operations of the federal government and the globalist elite. Unless hard evidence is brought forward to prove that, I say no. Ron Paul was a man who did what he could, within his own assessment of the political realities, to expose what has been happening to America and put it back on the correct path. He did this brilliantly. Not perfectly. Perfect is part of the fairy tale. Ron lived a lot of years inside the Dragon of Washington DC. Not many people with his ideas could have done that. He saw, up close, how the Dragon works, and if he came away believing that certain compromises are necessary, in order to win the day, so be it. We don’t have to eat our own to prove how pure our own vision is. The battle is not lost. The game is afoot. Freedom never dies. The free individual is forever. That’s not a fairy tale. It’s a fact that can sustain us through any crisis. And it will.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

IS RON PAUL FINISHED ON THE NATIONAL STAGE?

 

IS RON PAUL FINISHED ON THE NATIONAL STAGE?

by Jon Rappoport

June 11, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Last week, Ron Paul announced he had lost his battle for the nomination. He urged his troops not to disrupt the Republican Party machinery in Tampa at the convention. In a coordinated declaration, his son, Senator Rand Paul, endorsed Obama’s twin, Romney, for president.

 

This has caused an explosion in the ranks of Ron’s supporters, Tea Parties, other Constitutionalists, and people who prize individual freedom and also vote. That’s a lot of people.

 

But was Ron ever intending to re-shape the Republican Party? Was that his proactive goal? Was he campaigning to win the nomination and become the titular head of the Republican Party and call the shots? Was he truly working to become the next president? Was he striving all-out to clean out corruption in Washington? Those are all heavy objectives.

 

Most importantly, when it surfaced there was the possibility he had actually won the Primaries in the first several states and had been robbed by his own Party; and when, much later, his campaign workers were going into states where delegates weren’t legally bound to vote for the announced Primary winner and grabbing off those delegates, did Ron come out and say, YES, LET’S DO IT, LET’S RECLAIM THE STATES THAT ARE OURS AND LET’S UPSET THE WHOLE APPLECART? DID HE? DID HE STAGE AN ALL-OUT REVOLT? DID HE SAY THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES ARE ONE BODY WITH TWO HEADS? DID HE LEAD THE CHARGE FOR A PALACE REVOLUTION?

 

Was that his goal?

 

We saw no real evidence of it.

 

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT0TQSZhwfM&w=415&h=241]

 

Unless Ron comes out now and makes a tremendously convincing speech that explains his current position and reaffirms his underlying values, his political career on the national stage is finished. And if he imagines his son, Rand, who has just sold out by endorsing Romney, can take up the sword of the father in the future, he’s delusional. In one day, Ron has ditched his own political career and his familial legacy.

 

By 2008, Ron Paul had enough cache to start a run at the presidency on his own terms as an Independent, but he didn’t do it. He would have blown apart his status as a (barely) mainstream voice, but so what? Was there ever a chance the GOP establishment and its media allies would have permitted him to gain the Party’s nomination for president?

 

Running as an Independent is a different game. You’re no longer “a lone voice in the wilderness” of the two-Party system, because you have stepped outside the system. Something more is required of you. In this day and age of Internet access, you need to reach out for every inch and minute of space and time you can get online. You are supposed to stand strong and establish your beachhead and state your claim to, yes, power. The power to make real, not phony change happen.

 

Is this Ron Paul? Or has Ron decided that he has to shape his son’s future within the framework of the Republican Party?

 

Is Ron ready, as an Independent, to take the slings and arrows that would be shot his way by those who claim he’d be handing the presidency over to Obama by splitting his own Party’s vote?

 

The Republicans now have their ducks in a row for the convention. There are no candidates who are holding out. (Ron’s supporters could make some serious noise at the convention on their own, of course.) But the GOP has taken out its last symbol of opposition.

 

Think about this. Ron and Rand could have kept their mouths shut between now and Romney’s nomination. They could thus have given the impression of being “beautiful losers” and retained their base. But something intervened. Was that something Rand’s political future? Were the Pauls, father and son, told by GOP operatives that Rand would be blackballed and shut out of the Party forever if he didn’t climb on board and prove that he was a good Party man? Was that it?

 

Is membership in the Club now the overriding factor for Rand? And, therefore, for his father?

 

Months ago, someone from the Ron Paul camp gave (and/or sold) the very valuable and large list of its supporters to the GOP, a list that is worth millions of dollars. Whether Ron knew it at the time, he certainly found out. Did he come forward and speak up and fire people? Did he publicly say this was a betrayal of his campaign? No.

 

If Ron Paul wants his voice to mean something from this point on, he would need to leave his Party and run as an Independent. So far, there is no inkling that is in the cards.

 

I know a little about electoral politics. In 1994, I ran for a seat in the US Congress, from the 29th District of California, which was overwhelmingly Democrat and had elected Henry Waxman to the seat for 20 years. I decided I had no chance as an Independent or a Republican. My only shot was to go up against Waxman in the Democratic Primary. As a Democrat.

 

That was a mistake. The true path would have been as an Independent.

 

It always is, in this landscape.

 

Aside from the obvious insanity of trying to convince Democrats that, for example, the 2nd Amendment is a key and vital fact of life, running within the two-Party framework allows voters to think, in their sleeping state, that you somehow represent interests and ideas that fall within the mainstream, you believe answers lie within the fundamentally corrupt framework of the One Party With Two Heads, you are in the same space and time Democrats and Republicans occupy.

 

Which is not true, if you are really an Independent.

 

By the end of my campaign in 1994, and about to lose to Waxman and witness what I would decide was vote-count fraud, my position had radicalized to the point where my main ambition—if I won—was to go to Washington and hire large trucks that would circulate the city every day all day. On the sides of these trucks we would place huge posters titled:

 

CORRUPT CONGRESSMAN OF THE WEEK.

 

Below the name and photo of the “winner” of the week, we would list his key conflicts of interest, his sources of funding and his votes magically aligned with those monies.

 

I’m sure we would have thought up even more enjoyable torpedo-efforts.

 

I had come to the conclusion that the whole political system of the country was terminally rotten, corrupt, deceptive, and sold out, and therefore the duty of any elected official, first and foremost, was to expose that corruption in specific detail.

 

I had become an Independent.

 

If you listen to mainstream voices, everything outside the mainstream is impossible. That’s the message. It’s sometimes calculated and sometimes reflexive, but the gist of the message is: stay in the system.

 

But a lie is lie. A con is a con. A piece of crap is a piece of crap. A delusion is a delusion. It doesn’t matter where it’s sold or who sells it.

 

In the political arena, one has the option of nurturing the disappointment that comes with watching an idol fall, of cultivating a despair that looks like innocence-lost, until it becomes a pool of ugly misery. There is that option.

 

Or one can find roads to walk where the fallen do not go.

 

A little history is instructive here. In 1976 and 1980, Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan. But after seeing that Reagan’s budget was leaking a huge deficit, Paul criticized Reagan heavily and eventually resigned from the Republican Party and ran for president in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. So he has, in fact, been willing to leave the Republican orbit.

 

In 2008, after ending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Ron refused to endorse John McCain. He told his people to vote for any of the third-party candidates: Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, or Ralph Nader. Eventually, Ron decided to support Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate. So Ron has been willing, after dropping out of the Republican presidential race, to withhold support for the eventual Republican nominee.

 

What about now? Because his senator son Rand has closed ranks with the Republican Party, will Ron refuse to endorse a third-party candidate? Will he simply remain mum on the subject of Romney?

 

This is 2012. The sheer volume of online communication is far greater than in 2008. There are many more people who are fed up with the perverted de facto political system America is operating under. It’s much harder to remain silent. Ron Paul needs to say something, and soon.

 

As hard as this may be to swallow, the best option for freedom may be to not vote at all. Every person who values freedom and knows what it is has to ask himself this practical question: are we closer to electing a president who is truly independent, who will go into the White House and lay waste to the criminal insanity that has become American politics, or are we closer to recording new drastic levels of non-participation in the vote for president? Of these two long shots, which is longer? I know my position. It has been the same since 1994. Don’t vote for president. Make the election a farce, if possible, by revealing that we refuse to condone business as usual.

 

I realize this goes against every impulse to take action for positive change. Abstention is not a strategy I employ in any other area. But when the presidency of the United States is so heavily controlled, vetted, and filtered, when every president who gets access to the Oval Office has had to agree to a philosophy of globalism, with all that it implies, we need to open our eyes and see the truth.

 

The people of the United States are, as usual, being whipsawed between two ridiculous alternatives. Every four years, this happens by design. Stir up the hatreds and the rancor, make it appear that a new face is the answer, pin hope on Hope, vote for a better day, pick a leader who will take us to the promised land.

 

This con game has been operating since the dawn of time, wherever and whenever the people have had a choice. Do we need to keep falling for it until the whole planet is structured under one roof, until we’ve sold freedom all the way to the end of the line, because we think we see a Daddy we can believe in?

 

The only answer to this eternal dilemma is decentralization of power along every possible front.

 

Update: Infowars is reporting that Jack Hunter has posted a video (entitled: “Why Rand Was Right to Endorse Romney”) on Ron Paul’s campaign site explaining why Rand Paul needs to endorse Romney: if Rand runs for president in 2016, he’ll have zero Republican support if he doesn’t get behind Romney now. This is more delusional thinking. It’s postponement of principle now on behalf of invoking principle later. And it works about as well as wearing a sign on your chest that says: I’M LYING.

 

“Well, yes, I’m endorsing Romney, even though I don’t support him. I don’t support him at all. I think he’s a miserable excuse for a presidential candidate. But I’m endorsing him, because I want to run for president myself later. I’m sure all you Republican stalwarts will support me later, after my completely disingenuous support of your man Romney now. Right?”

 

I don’t know whether Ron Paul’s people vetted this Jack Hunter video before posting it, or whether this is really Rand’s strategy, but are Ron and Rand’s operatives trying to commit political suicide? If so, they’re doing a pretty good job.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com