My continual comments are an attempt to paint all Paul supporters with the same brush? Point out one instance where I have said that all Paul supporters are the same. I’m voting for Paul and I certainly don’t consider myself a “truther” (nor a spammer). Hell, I barely us part of the same species.

I’m just a guy who’s sick of trying to convince people to vote for Ron Paul, then hearing “Oh, he’s one of those 9/11 truthers, isn’t he?” Then they start getting angry with me and asking me if I’m a “truther” (and these are people who’ve known me for years, some of whom were in the military with me). Then I have to spend another half hour explaining to them how I’m not insane and I don’t believe the government blew up the Twin Towers. Most of them still seem to have their doubts about me after we’re done and needless to say, few of them are even considering voting for Paul because of all these assholes who’ve poisoned the well and because the Paul campaign hasn’t exactly been doing a stellar job of separating himself from the nutjobs or even moving beyond the grassroots and the Internet. FACT…political candidates who don’t buy ad time on television or do well in conventional polls are generally dismissed by voters as “lunatic fringe”, no matter how good their ideas are.

If you haven’t figured this out by now, I’m assuming that either you don’t talk to a lot of real people or you don’t pay much attention to the world outside of blog-dom. In either case, I’m not the one with my head up my ass.

P.S. When you hope for war with Iran just so your preferred political candidate has a better shot at winning, it’s generally a pretty good indicator that you’re one of those idiot problem children I’m talking about. Frankly, I think Ron Paul would probably say the same thing.

First, I’d like to say that this website is registered under a .org which is usually reserved for tax exempt organizations if I’m not mistaken. This may be one reason why there hasn’t been outright support for any particular candidate. I can’t say for a fact but it seems like that may be a logical reason and that supporting a candidate on a tax exempt website might run afoul of the IRS. As always, I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong.

Next, I want to thank Doug for some positive reporting on a candidate who truly deserves it.

Now comes the friendly criticism. It has to do with “Conspiracy Theories.” I can’t comment too much on the Bilderberger group for I have not studied them all that much. And as for 9/11, I’m with Ron on this. I do not think it was an inside job. I’m also with Ron in that I think there was some major incompetence on the part of our security agencies in not preventing it. There was widespread news coverage concerning FBI reports in Minnesota that stated middle eastern men were learning to fly planes but not land them prior to 9/11 and nothing was done about it being just one example. An investigation into the incompetence is warranted and the people responsible for the screw-ups should be removed from office.

But (puts on tinfoil hat) when it comes to the conspiracy FACT that there are people working to bring about world government, and someone telling me or anyone else that one who believes in this conspiracy shouldn’t be involved in the campaign or speak out about it, I take offense. This is such a well documented fact by now that it’s no longer really in any dispute. Anybody who does dispute it either has their head in the sand (which makes their butt a target), are afraid to admit it because of fear of ridicule from the globalists, are cahoots with the globalists or are they are just plain ignorant. There is literally mountains of evidence spewed from the Pratt House which is the home of the Council on Foreign Relations or CFR for short, which backs up this claim. Some of the most damning of which can be found right in their quarterly publication, “Foreign Affairs” and other various publications authored by the Council. Here are some examples:

“Obviously, there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states… the real problem today is that of world government.” (Foreign Affairs Dec. 1922)

“The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization. Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further popular education.” (”American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments” New York: CFR, 1944)

And the one that really got my blood boiling and started me on this campaign to shine the light of day on these globaloney cockroaches in the CFR:

“We are witnessing an outbreak of shortsighted nationalism that seems oblivious to the economic, political and moral implications of interdependence… In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than the top down… an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece , will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.” (Richard N. Gardner “The Hard Road to World Order” in Foreign Affairs April 1974) I actually have a copy of this article. Had to print it from microfilm because I just couldn’t believe that a GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIAL (he served in some capacity or another in both the Kenedy and Carter administrations) would write such a thing. It is tantamount to treason.

Then there is this, from the horses mouth again, Admiral Chester A Ward former Judge Advocate General of the U.S.Navy who was also a member of the council for over 20 years until he finally had enough good sense to leave and become a very vocal critic. Ward stated the CFR has a goal of “submergence of U.S. Sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government… this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership…In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First.’” (Phylis Schlafly and Chester Ward,”Kissinger on the Couch” New Rochell, New York: Arlington House, pp 144-150)

And we must not forget about the Reese committee report. The committee stated that the CFR was: “in essence an agency of the United States government.” and it’s “productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist concept.” (Report, Special House Comittee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations, 1954, pp 176-177)

All of the above was just a small sampling of the explosive revelations found in James Perloff’s “The Shadows of Power” (Western Islands 1988). This book, in my opinion is THE best source for information on the push for global government and the role of the CFR in moving this agenda forward. Although it is an older publication, it is unrivaled still to this day as the definitive expose` on the CFR. I urge all to read this work, but I must also issue this warning: If one wishes to keep the “rose colored glasses” on and go along their merry way and you do not wish to see the roadsigns along the way that lead to the destruction of our freedoms, then this book is not for you. It will totally change the way you view the world. It’s like the red pill, blue pill thing in the movie “The Matrix.” Life for me was much simpler prior to reading “The Shadows of Power” but I have no regrets over reading it. If you do read it, please note its’ painstaking documentation. This is no opinion piece, it is an assemblage of cold hard facts of which I have just skimmed the surface here. There are over 300 footnotes documenting less than 170 pages of actual text.

Some may say at this point, “This is all ancient history.” And to that I say, go do a google search on the NAU and the SPP to find out what the Council has been up to in more recent times. There is even an official website for the SPP. Robert Pastor (a CFR member of course) is leading the way on this. They are passing it off as an economic cooperation of sorts between Canada, The U.S. and Mexico. These globaloney butt-clowns have a strategy and that strategy is: “economic unity before political unity.” Doubt me? Check how the EU was formed. It started out as the “European Common Market”(economic union). It is now the “European Union” (political union). The nations of Europe have surrendered their sovereignty to a body in Brussels. Shameful. We are seing the beginnings of that here with the SPP. Mark my words, you may call me crazy now, but in a few short years, you’ll remember what was written here and you will then be calling me correct. Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,

Paul C Hanson

But you’re right that we can pull it off. The Republicans have been so unbelievably bad for the past 6 years, that the American people just might vote for such huge change.

Or maybe not. All I know is that I’m going to bust my a** and let the chips fall where they may.

P.S. You really shouldn’t talk about strategy and “secret weapons”. Let the establishment (no, UC is not one of them, but they could easily be keeping an eye on a site like this) keep thinking we’re foolishly optimistic. I want them complacent until it’s too late.

Big deal. Past history. Also irrelevant.

We have on both sides of the aisle the following candidates (in no particular order):

DP:

SENATOR Clinton
SENATOR Obama
SENATOR Edwards
SENATOR Gravel
CONGRESSMAN Kucinich
GOVERNOR Richardson
SENATOR Dodd
SENATOR Biden

GOP:

SENATOR Thompson
GOVERNOR Huckabee
GOVERNOR Romney
MAYOR Giuliani
CONGRESSMAN Dr. Paul
CONGRESSMAN Hunter
CONGRESSMAN Tancredo
SENATOR Brownback
SENATOR McCain
AMBASSADOR Keyes

OK, by your assumption of history repeating itself, let’s disqualify all Congressmen and Senators from this list. That leaves:

DP:

GOVERNOR Richardson

GOP:

GOVERNOR Huckabee
GOVERNOR Romney
MAYOR Giuliani
AMBASSADOR Keyes

Now look at the remaining 5:

Richardson: no campaign traction, no money, small-state governor. Some national experience but nobody talks about it. Some people can’t find his state on a map (unfortunately!)

Huckabee: little campaign traction, little money, small-state governor, already had a governor from his state as President, religious leaning may turn off some.

Romney: some campaign traction, lots of money, mostly his own, 2nd-generation career politician, unpopular medium-state governor, little if any national experience, issues flip-flopper, religious beliefs an issue.

Giulani: one-trick pony (9/11), abyssmal record on freedom, unpopular largest-city mayor, some national experience, noted cross-dresser, unable to handle simple phone ettiquette on campaing trail, no support from religious base.

Keyes: former ambassador to UN, rambles a lot, unpopular with religious base from condescending speaking style, known carpetbagger, low-poller, little national experience, never elected to any office.

So of those 5: A) Who is the best candidate and why? B) Can they get the nominations of their respective parties and why or why not? and C) Can they win the general election, and why or why not?

None of this is designed to show support for Dr. Paul. It is designed, however, to show that age-old adage: “Past results are no indication of future performance.”

The next President will be a Congressman or Senator, count on it!

Well, guess what? It isn’t true and it isn’t working. It’s more worn out than a Michellin at 60K miles.

You obviously have no idea what is going on here.

Fact is, Dr. Paul is getting the best advertising money CAN’T buy–word-of-mouth from us Paul-unteers. Dr. Paul just handed us an ingenious new weapon with his Tips Act. He’s also getting millions in in-kind donations from our signs, efforts, rallies, and so on.

Fact is, Dr. Paul has a great chance to win New Hampshire because of a secret weapon there that none of us are even talking about yet. The MSM does know of it but has forgotten about it, and when put in play it can be devastating to what’s left of the pro-war GOP candidates.

Fact is, Vegas sportsbooks, who do take bets on these things, and are in the business of making money on them, have Dr. Paul as 4:1 odds on the nomination. Longshot? Yeah, right.

Fact is, believe it or not, George Bush’s recklessness when it comes to rushing to war with Iran may be the best thing to yet happen to Dr. Paul’s campaign. If Iran gets bombed, Dr. Paul wins and wins big, and the necon agenda will continue to self-destruct as expected. Unfrotunately it comes on the body bags of more of our troops and innocent civilians, and more debt.

The dark clouds may be a-comin’ but the storm will cleanse the political landscape and remove the neocon scum to the sewer where they belong, and Dr. Paul’s umbrella has enough space for all of us freedom-lovers to fit under and enjoy the much-needed rain.

Nice weather we’re having, isn’t it?

I guess “The Great Media Conspiracy” must have been asleep at the switch that year.

That’s right…it’s all CNN and Fox’s fault. It has nothing to do with the fact that Paul isn’t spending much money on television advertising or that 90% of the U.S. population (who don’t read blogs or watch YouTube) have never heard of the guy and therefore couldn’t care less about his fundraising efforts. By all means, keep externalizing the blame and calling the rest of the world sheep…that’ll definitely win people over.

My beliefs are no different in person than when I’m online, nor are the ways or manner in which I express them. If you’re just another “truther” or spammer who can’t handle the fact that nobody with half a brain cares about or respects anything the “truthers” or spammers have to say then I won’t waste your time pretending to care about your character assessments or opinions on online etiquette.

But if you’re really a pro-Constitution, pro-freedom supporter of Ron Paul, that’s great. I wholeheartedly agree and I wish you all the best with your efforts to promote Paul’s platform in a constructive manner.

I don’t blame people for enthusiastically supporting Ron Paul. There’s nothing wrong with idealism as long as it’s balanced with realism, sanity, and the objective analysis of empirical evidence. Unfortunately, “truthers” and spammers aren’t interested in any of that, so I don’t consider it a disservice to them to point out their blindingly obvious (at least to everyone else) shortcomings. It’s a harsh approach and it probably won’t win many converts, but then again neither will open debate. Most of them are too invested in their self-imposed victimhood and delusional fantasies to ever question why most of the world looks at them with contempt and refers to them as “fringe”.

CNN has sunk to levels previously held only by FOX.

Use your time effectively, and by being able to talk to people and address their concerns rather than just loudly proclaiming the obvious brilliance of your position will make you a better person.

If you want people to listen, you have to stop calling them stupid, for starters. They hate that. But unlike UCrawford, I’m not going blame you for doing everything you can.

And I am entirely skeptical of media bias. The news companies are out to make money. If RP supporters want RP to get some attention give him a lot of money.

But “Collin 28″ is the RP revolution really going to be one and done – if he fails to get the nomination? What the hell? Whatever happened to perseverance and extremism in the defense of liberty? I’m somewhat divided whether the RP phenomenon is ephemeral or not. Does it hold up after RP is gone? Are his ideas bigger than the man? Because if they are, it should outlive his campaign.

TanGeng

I stand for the correct use of the Constitution therefore I stand with Ron Paul. I will do what I can and what I believe is necessary to bring Los Angeles with me. God bless you, Ron!

Have a nice trip to the “paradise” that is Panama, dipshit ( http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_994.html )