Conspiracy nut Henry Makow smears Ron Paul

[randomname]

This doesn't even make sense. LOL

Ron Paul, Freemasonry & the Gold Standard

Alex Jones and Ron Paul promote the Illuminati's gold standard.

Letter from Glenn:

Ron Paul's family are members of Freemasonry and the Order of the Eastern Star, according to someone who should know--Penny Freeman, his Congressional campaign political director and district volunteer coordinator for 10 years: (Penny Freeman's husband, Dr. Gerald Freeman, belongs to the Freeman Illuminati bloodline.)

Some interesting information vis a vis Ron Paul:

Ron Paul's family are members of Freemasonry and the Order of the Eastern Star, according to someone who should know--Penny Freeman, his Congressional campaign political director and district volunteer coordinator for 10 years : (Penny Freeman's husband, Dr. Gerald Freeman, belongs to the Freeman bloodline which Fritz Springmeier has shown to be an Illuminati bloodline in his book, The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines.)

On April 20th, 2008 the oak says:

Liberty Oak Ranch

Quit using Ron Paul as a forum for your bigotted beliefs. You don't know anything about him or his ideals obviously. You also know nothing about the Freemason or Eastern Star organizations.

1. Ron Paul's father was a Freemason and Dr. Paul has said himself many times that he respects the organization and has been to many of the open meetings in his district. I should know, I was his scheduler for ten years.

2. His wife, Carol is a member of the Velasco Order of the Eastern Star and maintains her membership in the Freeport area lodge.

3. Their daughters, Lori and Joy, were both Rainbow girls, another organization associated with Freemasonry.

http://watch.pair.com/synarchy-6.html


Alex Jones revealed "The New Pearl Harbor" document from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" as part of the New World Order's agenda. Alex Jones fails to mention the other PNAC document, written by PNAC board member Lewis Lehrman, called "Money and the Coming World Order: The Creation of International Monetary Order". The document is hosted on web site called, "Gold Standard Now," which is a project for the Lehrman Institute. The title is quite revealing that PNAC wants a New World Order based on the gold standard. According to Lewis Lehrman, we'll be on the New World Order's gold standard in five years.
Lewis Lehrman also partnered with Ron Paul to write The Case for Gold. Alex Jones is a dedicated promoter of Ron Paul and a return to the gold standard. Alex Jones and Ron Paul also both have significant investments in gold, with the producer of the Alex Jones show being a gold trader. It seems that Alex Jones knows a lot about the endgame of the New World Order and the blueprint for global enslavement. What Alex Jones does not tell you is that the gold standard is part of the endgame and blueprint for global enslavement, and that Ron Paul and Alex Jones are heavily invested into it. Since they actively promote a gold standard, they are not merely invested in gold just because they fear a new world gold standard. They are complicit in that agenda.

Ron Paul also gave public support for globalization and a one world currency, gold, in the public record.

"There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.... "

http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/...-pearl-harbor/


(Ed Griffin appears to be part of this Ron Paul cabal along with Peter Schiff- unfortunately I can't find Schiff's direct connection with the Illuminati given his surname):

Fred Koch founded the John Birch Society in 1958. Ed Griffin was educated there. He later wrote a famous book, "the Creature of Jekyll Island". This was a rehash of Eustace Mullins' brilliant 'Secrets of the Federal Reserve', with one exception: it left out all Mullins' analysis of the Gold Standard as a Banker operation and how Britain's demand for taxes payed in Gold were the cause of the war of Independence. Instead it called for the reinstatement of a Gold Standard. This is a key part of the story how Austrian Economics managed to take over the 'Truth Movement'.


HOW THE MONEY POWER CREATED LIBERTARIANISM & AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS

http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/...ian-economics/

-------
Comment from JB-

I've been asking Ron Paul fans for some time - and it always falls on deaf ears... "How does a gold standard benefit the people when the elite have hoarded most of the gold?".

In effect, a gold standard would leave the elite as the only ones holding any significant amount of "real money". Its just handing them the world on a platter. Which would perhaps explain why Ron Paul is allowed to live.

If RP was an enemy of the elite, the media would not be promoting him so heavily. I know that its a popular idea that they suppress Ron Paul. But that is based on viewing things from a child-like simple perspective. What they do, in fact, is use the "stiffs" on the news to diss him while using the "cool" guys to promote him. Guys like Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, Bill Maher, etc have well promoted Ron Paul. Of course the media know what the public perception of their players are. They realize that the kind of people who are likely to identify with Ron Paul are repulsed by the stiffs on the networks - Whereas the audience for the stiffs is the common sheep. They also know that when the stiffs diss Ron Paul that the RP supporters will react strongly and it affirms in their minds that RP must be on their side since the big bad establishment is trying so hard to stop him. Its an underdog effect. Its so laughable and yet so tragic.

The irony is almost too much for me when I see people talking about having "woken up" and speaking with disdain about the common sheeple and then to realize that not only are the "woken up" people being used as tools and still dreaming - but that more than anyone else, they are being used as the point men in helping bring about this agenda.

But for the vast majority of his supporters, there is no convincing them. Ron Paul has become a religion for many.Its a fallacy that facts carry any weight when dealing with human beings. Feelings are king and always have been. The elite are indeed experts at human psychology and have outsmarted the truthers.

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul also gave public support for globalization and a one world currency, gold, in the public record.

"There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.... "

Hmmmm.....the above in context.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...=425&Itemid=60

Not sure what to make of that. I'm no fan of globalism and one world currency under any circumstances. Ron Paul has talked before about "competing currencies" though.

The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money PDF Print E-mail

March 13, 2001

The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money

The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money

The golden new Era of the 1990s has been welcomed and praised by many observers. But I'm afraid a different type of new era is arriving-a dangerous one- heralding the end of 30 years of fiat money. If so, it's a serious matter that deserves close attention by Congress.

There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency. But a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism, and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.

Efforts to achieve peaceful globalist goals are quickly abandoned when the standard of living drops, unemployment rises, stock markets crash and artificially high wages are challenged by market forces. When tight budgets threaten spending cuts, cries for expanding the welfare state drown out any expression of concern for rising deficits.

The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.

Great emphasis in the last six years has been placed on so-called productivity increases that gave us the new-era economy. Its defenders proclaimed that a new paradigm had arrived. Though productivity increases have surely helped our economy, many astute observers have challenged the extent to which improvements in productivity have actually given us a distinctly unique new era. A case can be made that the great surge in new technology of the 1920's far surpassed the current age of fast computers, and we all know what happened in after 1929.

A truly new era may well be upon us-but one quite different than what is generally accepted today.

The biggest error in interpreting today's events is totally ignoring how monetary policy in a fiat system affects the entire economy.

Politicians and economists are very familiar with business cycles with most assuming that slumps erupt as: 1.) A natural consequence of capitalism, 2.) An act of God, 3.) Or as a result of Fed driven high interest rates. That is to say, the Fed did not engage in enough monetary debasement, becomes the most common complaint by Wall Street pundits and politicians.

But today's economy is unlike anything the world has ever known. The world economy is more integrated than ever before. Indeed, the effort by international agencies to expand world trade has had results- some good. Labor costs have been held in check, industrial producers have moved to less regulated, low cost, and low tax countries while world mobility has aided these trends with all being helped with advances in computer technology.

But the artificial nature of today's world trade and finance being systematically managed by the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, and driven by a worldwide fiat monetary system, has produced imbalances that have already prompted many sudden adjustments. There have been eight major crisis in the past six years requiring a worldwide effort, led by the Fed, to keep the system afloat, all being done with more monetary inflation and bailouts.

The lynch pin to the outstanding growth of the 1990s has been the US dollar. Although it too is totally fiat, its special status has permitted a bigger bonus to the United States while it has been used to prop up other world economies. The gift bequeathed to us by owning the world reserve currency, allows us to create dollars at will- and Alan Greenspan has not hesitated to accommodate everyone despite his reputation as an inflation fighter. This has dramatically raised our standard of living, and significantly contributed to the new era psychology that has been welcomed by so many naive enough to believe that perpetual prosperity had arrived and the bills would never have to be paid.

One day it will become known that technological advances and improvements in productivity also have a downside. This technology hid the ill effects of the monetary mischief the Fed had enthusiastically engaged in over the past decade. Technological improvements, while keeping the CPI and the PPI prices in check, led many, including Greenspan, to victoriously declare that no inflation existed and that a new era had indeed arrived. Finally, it's declared that the day has arrived that printing money is equivalent to producing wealth and without a downside. Counterfeiting works!

But the excess credit created by the Fed found its way into the stock market- especially the NASDAQ, and was ignored. This set the stage for the stock market collapse, now ongoing. Likewise ignored has been the excess capacity, mal-investment, and debt that permeates the world economy.

Could we indeed be facing a truly New Era, but one unanticipated by all the authorities and one much more dangerous?

The collapse of the Soviet system and the emergence of United States military and economic preeminence, throughout the world, have permitted the dollar-driven financial bubble to last longer than anticipated. But instead of a glorious New Era, as promised, we ended up with a huge financial bubble and an artificially integrated world economy dominated by an unstable dollar. But instead of a single commodity currency driving a healthy world economy, we have an economy that has numerous imbalances generated by the US dollar, unsustainable trade agreements and total instability in the currency markets.

Sure we have enjoyed cheap imports and they have raised our standard of living and our foreign debt. We have on the short run benefited from our trade and current account deficits since the world has been only too eager to gobble up our inflated dollars and loan them back to us. But soon the countries of the world will decide that enough is enough and they will recognize the bad deal it is for them to continue to accept our dollars. The mal-investment, already becoming apparent, will prompt even more radical adjustments in all markets.

There are many countries only too anxious to get back at the United States for our military and economic aggressiveness, and some unknown economic or military event will one day knock us off our pedestal and a dangerous New Era will be upon us, instead of the golden one dreamed about.

For thirty years the world has operated on a pure fiat monetary system and all the ill effects of such a system are now becoming apparent. Current adjustments will be different than all other previous currency adjustments, which were local or regional. This one is worldwide and may well be the biggest economic event in modern history.

It's reasonable to assume a worldwide slump will ensue as a result of the worldwide monetary mischief our authorities have engaged in the past 30 years. Never before has the world gone so long without money having some tangible value attached to it. Trust in politicians and Central Bankers may have been a benefit in the inflationary part of the cycle but this trust will quickly dissipate in the corrected phase. Monetary heroes can quickly become villains as the price is paid for previous excesses and extravagance.

However, hope springs eternal, so no effort will soon be made to restore sound money. A giant worldwide slump will merely prompt massive monetary inflation and deficit financing. The Congress and the American people should anticipate this will happen even though it should not.

Conditions today could easily lead to rampant price inflation as the dollar depreciates. Trade chaos, already apparent, considering the number of complaints pending before the WTO, will surely worsen, leading to a greater cry for protectionism and militant nationalism which will then jeopardize international trade even more.

The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation. Real free trade without barriers or tariffs and a single sound currency is the best way to achieve international peace and prosperity.

When that day comes we will have a true New Era, unlike the fictitious New Era of Greenspan's dreams and certainly opposite of the dangerous New Era that stares us in the face as the world fiat monetary system falters.

[Lishy]

Where's Jessie Ventura when ya need him to slap the living daylights out of this guy?

[DerailingDaTrain]

I've heard this before. I've also seen videos proclaiming that Ron Paul and Peter Thiel both attend Bilderberg meetings but in the same video they claim that the Bilderberg group is a fake name thought up by Alex Jones who is a member of the Illuminati along with Ron Paul and is brainwashing everyone to not hate Jews. I stopped watching it about 30 seconds in. Horrible video.

[mearow]

The Penny Freeman quote is "copied and pasted" on blogs all over the internet, as fact. The fact has never been proven. Anyone could sign up on dailypaul (where the post was originally posted) and make that claim. Has it ever been proven that Mrs. Paul is in Eastern Star or the daughters being in Rainbows? Or that Penny Freeman was the original author of the post?

[WilliamC]

Funny thing is Ron Paul doesn't advocate a strict gold standard whereby the government and the bankers fix the price of gold in some secret meetings and force everyone else to use gold at the fixed rate.

Ron Paul advocates a free-market gold standard whereby governments have the legal authority to enforce contracts, including the authority to establish honest weights and measures for coinage. But the free-market (itself reliant on some form of government to enforce property rights and contracts) would set the actual value of gold in relation to other commodities via open, global trade.

While it is almost certain that gold would become the de facto monetary standard, based on it's history, it would not be a de jure monetary standard because there would be no legal tender laws mandating payment of taxes in gold at some arbitrary, fixed government rate.

I can't seem to figure out if some of Ron Pauls critics are simply not understanding this difference or if they understand it and deliberately lie in order to spread FUD and to block progress towards restoring a sound money system. I suspect it's a mixture of both.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Funny thing is Ron Paul doesn't advocate a strict gold standard whereby the government and the bankers fix the price of gold in some secret meetings and force everyone else to use gold at the fixed rate.

Ron Paul advocates a free-market gold standard whereby governments have the legal authority to enforce contracts, including the authority to establish honest weights and measures for coinage. But the free-market (itself reliant on some form of government to enforce property rights and contracts) would set the actual value of gold in relation to other commodities via open, global trade.

While it is almost certain that gold would become the de facto monetary standard, based on it's history, it would not be a de jure monetary standard because there would be no legal tender laws mandating payment of taxes in gold at some arbitrary, fixed government rate.

I can't seem to figure out if some of Ron Pauls critics are simply not understanding this difference or if they understand it and deliberately lie in order to spread FUD and to block progress towards restoring a sound money system. I suspect it's a mixture of both.

Some conspiracy theorists are just so far out there they'll believe in anything. For instance there is a conspiracy theory that Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange is a member of the Mossad and killed another member of the group Dan Wallace by injecting him with a drug to induce a heart attack:



I've seen people on the internet perpetuate this myth for some strange reason and even though that video is so badly made and there is no evidence to support their claim at all they believe it.

These people also believe that Ron Paul is in the Illuminati and make horrible videos of him speaking backwards:

[kro]

I've heard a few "Ron Paul conspiracies", seen a few "Ron Paul conspiracy" videos on youtube, etc., and one common theme is the lack of real evidence. For example, saying that Ron Paul is a member of the New World Order, "the system", etc., because he gives the "I love you" hand sign (which one video said was a secret society gesture) is not what I consider to be hard evidence.


What does "the system" want, in general?

1. Perpetual war
2. Central banking
3. Bigger government
4. Less freedom
5. People to think that they're weak and must depend on the government for everything

What has Ron Paul been advocating for the last few decades?

1. Less war
2. A distrust/an end to central banking
3. Smaller government
4. More freedom
5. People should be strong and not depend on the government for everything

Not to mention, that many people who are very strong Libertarians, as well as Anarchists, were introduced to the message of liberty by Dr. Paul. So the puppet master would let a puppet preach the message of liberty for decades, to the point of converting millions of people to the liberty message, which will make it harder for "the system" to control the population, which is the opposite of what "the system" wants? At the end of the day, people need to have a little common sense. And yes, I've heard the, "Yeah but there was a movement based around President Obama, so it's the same thing". Was Obama talking about smaller government and more freedom for decades? No. I don't even think I've heard the words, "We need smaller government" out of Obama's mouth. Was the media (in general) trying to black out and discredit then unelected presidential candidate Barack Obama? No. Was the media (in general) pushing then unelected presidential candidate Barack Obama? Yes. Does Ron Paul give teleprompter-like answers to questions? No. Is Ron Paul a slick speaker? No. I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

[JebSanderson]

Never thought I'd see the day when RPF woukd use "conspiracy nut" in a derogatory way.

[BlackTerrel]

These people also believe that Ron Paul is in the Illuminati and make horrible videos of him speaking backwards:

A big part of many conspiracy theories is that anyone who has success is part of a conspiracy and achieved their gains by ill means. Even many current Ron Paul supporters of the conspiracy variety will turn on him if he becomes President. I truly believe that. What will Alex Jones do if Ron Paul becomes President? Will he say that the US President is a good guy? I doubt it. That doesn't fit his view of the way the world works and people don't go to his site to read about how the President is going good things. He'll turn on him and so will others.

Here's a video with 3.5 million views. Read some of the comments - people actually believe this $#@!. They want to believe that these guys achieve their success through ill means rather than hard work and talent:

[NoOneButPaul]

hahahaha... they're only conspiracy "nuts" when they don't agree with us... gotta love it.

[jmdrake]

A big part of many conspiracy theories is that anyone who has success is part of a conspiracy and achieved their gains by ill means. Even many current Ron Paul supporters of the conspiracy variety will turn on him if he becomes President. I truly believe that. What will Alex Jones do if Ron Paul becomes President? Will he say that the US President is a good guy? I doubt it. That doesn't fit his view of the way the world works and people don't go to his site to read about how the President is going good things. He'll turn on him and so will others.

Here's a video with 3.5 million views. Read some of the comments - people actually believe this $#@!. They want to believe that these guys achieve their success through ill means rather than hard work and talent:

Ridiculous argument is ridiculous. Alex Jones is successful himself. Do you expect him to turn on himself? Just because some folks have the good sense to know that a government that admitted overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran and installed a brutal dictatorship, and admitted to supplying the explosives for the first WTC bombing plot in 1993 that killed 7 Americans might continue to do nefarious things and then lie about it, doesn't mean they are just hating on people for being "successful". Has Alex Jones ever accused Ghandi of being a part of a conspiracy? If yes then provide a link. If no then admit you're just making crap up as you go along.

[NoOneButPaul]

Also if any conspiracy actually existed it would involve Ron running 3rd party and essentially handing Obama all 50 states...

[jmdrake]

Also if any conspiracy actually existed it would involve Ron running 3rd party and essentially handing Obama all 50 states...

If Ron Paul doesn't run 3rd party and Romney wins, what's the difference? If Ron doesn't win the presidency in 2012, our last best hope is Rand winning in 2016. Romney winning in 2012 might put the brakes on that. It would require Rand challenging an incumbent republican president in a primary. Really hard to do.

[BlackTerrel]

Ridiculous argument is ridiculous. Alex Jones is successful himself. Do you expect him to turn on himself?

How successful? His audience is less than 1% of the population. He makes a good living and that's enough to have other conspiracists turn on him. If Ron was President I don't think Alex's audience would appreciate him saying "you can trust the President now". It for damn sure wouldn't be good for his ratings.

Just because some folks have the good sense to know that a government that admitted overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran and installed a brutal dictatorship, and admitted to supplying the explosives for the first WTC bombing plot in 1993 that killed 7 Americans might continue to do nefarious things and then lie about it, doesn't mean they are just hating on people for being "successful".

Alex Jones audience comes to his site for conspiracy theories and to hear that things are the opposite of what is being reported. Alex will never sell you that anything on the news is accurate. Let's do a hypothetical: let's say for the first time in the history of the world a Muslim committed a crime and decided to blow up an NYC subway and killed a bunch of people. Let's say this actually happens and is 100% accurate. Do you really think the headline on infowars would be "Government and media say lone terrorist blows himself up in NYC and kills 100 people - and they are telling the truth". This would never in a million years happen. His audience would be $#@!ing pissed because that is not what they go to his site for. His site would say that reports were wrong and that it was a false flag and the work of many people - that's what his audience wants.

Has Alex Jones ever accused Ghandi of being a part of a conspiracy? If yes then provide a link. If no then admit you're just making crap up as you go along.

This seems like a bit of a strawman.

[jmdrake]

How successful? His audience is less than 1% of the population. He makes a good living and that's enough to have other conspiracists turn on him. If Ron was President I don't think Alex's audience would appreciate him saying "you can trust the President now". It for damn sure wouldn't be good for his ratings.

So you honestly think that if members of the Paul administration went on the Alex Jones show that wouldn't be good for ratings? All you've proven is that you "damn sure" know nothing about the media business.

Alex Jones audience comes to his site for conspiracy theories and to hear that things are the opposite of what is being reported. Alex will never sell you that anything on the news is accurate.

Just yesterday he was quoting the New York Times as accurate for pointing out that the FBI has been hatching terror plots. He also quoted CBS as accurate for pointing out that the republicans are seeking to hold Eric Holder in contempt over Fast and Furious. In fact he often quotes mainstream media as being accurate...when it is. For instance he'll quote the New York Times report that shows that the FBI provided the explosives for the 1993 WTC bombing and demanded that real explosives be used even though the informant wanted to use fake explosives. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Let's do a hypothetical: let's say for the first time in the history of the world a Muslim committed a crime and decided to blow up an NYC subway and killed a bunch of people. Let's say this actually happens and is 100% accurate. Do you really think the headline on infowars would be "Government and media say lone terrorist blows himself up in NYC and kills 100 people - and they are telling the truth". This would never in a million years happen. His audience would be $#@!ing pissed because that is not what they go to his site for. His site would say that reports were wrong and that it was a false flag and the work of many people - that's what his audience wants.

In that situation he would reserve judgement long enough to see if the story held up. If there were holes in the story he would be the first to point it out. But he's not above saying that Muslims can be terrorists. In fact he's pointed out that John Doe # 2 from the Oklahoma City bombing looked middle eastern. Again you don't know what you are talking about.

Further it was Alex Jones that pointed out the mainstream media reports that Al Qaeda was in the forefront of the Libya uprising. That was a MSM report that you had trouble believing if I recall correctly. So who's the conspiracy theorist?

This seems like a bit of a strawman.

How so? You said that Alex Jones is the type that says if anyone is successful they must be part of the conspiracy. Well Ghandi was successful. Admit it, you just make this crap up as you go along.

[NoOneButPaul]

If Ron Paul doesn't run 3rd party and Romney wins, what's the difference? If Ron doesn't win the presidency in 2012, our last best hope is Rand winning in 2016. Romney winning in 2012 might put the brakes on that. It would require Rand challenging an incumbent republican president in a primary. Really hard to do.

You guys really have to get over this Robamney thing... Romney sucks, I'll never vote for him, period. Romney and Obama are essentially the same (about 95%) but they are not the same.

I can guarantee 2 things... 1- Romney would not make a good President and 2- he would make a better President than Obama and wouldn't spend 1trillion a month.

Electing Romney gives this country a considerably greater amount of time even if he wouldn't offer up any real change.


As for the 3rd party stuff... Ron can't get 270 electoral votes that way or win the POTUS in any way imaginable so as you ask "what's the difference?" the difference is a guaranteed Obama victory versus a very-sure Obama victory... that's a huge difference. Romney cannot win with 20% of the country going another way.

[jmdrake]

You guys really have to get over this Robamney thing... Romney sucks, I'll never vote for him, period. Romney and Obama are essentially the same (about 95%) but they are not the same.

Yeah that's true. In some ways Romney would be worse.

I can guarantee 2 things... 1- Romney would not make a good President and 2- he would make a better President than Obama and wouldn't spend 1trillion a month.

And you can guarantee that because..........? Romney at one point endorsed Obama's stimulus plan.

Electing Romney gives this country a considerably greater amount of time even if he wouldn't offer up any real change.

That's your opinion and you're free to have it. I disagree. I'm not sure why people disagreeing with you is a problem for you. One thing you can't deny though. Romney as president means getting someone in there who'll actually fix anything by 2016 will be very difficult.

Regardless, since you've already said you won't vote for Romney anyway, then why do you even care? Most folks are smarter than you give them credit for. There's not a lot of people who are considering voting for Romney who will run out and vote third party for Paul. Folks who who vote 3rd party for Paul wouldn't vote for Romney anyway. The idea of Paul "pulling" votes from Romney is a total fabrication. If Paul is on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate that just means that a lot of folks who, like you, would just stay home in November might go out and register a protest vote.

[BlackTerrel]

So you honestly think that if members of the Paul administration went on the Alex Jones show that wouldn't be good for ratings? All you've proven is that you "damn sure" know nothing about the media business.

What's he going to talk about for four hours a day? "Our government is good and honest and our President consistently does the right thing". Yeah that will go over well.

Just yesterday he was quoting the New York Times as accurate for pointing out that the FBI has been hatching terror plots. He also quoted CBS as accurate for pointing out that the republicans are seeking to hold Eric Holder in contempt over Fast and Furious. In fact he often quotes mainstream media as being accurate...when it is.

He'll quote mainstream media when mainstream media promotes news that is similar to his view. Not based on accuracy.

In that situation he would reserve judgement long enough to see if the story held up. If there were holes in the story he would be the first to point it out.

Really? 10 minutes into the VA Tech shooting he was saying conspiracy.

Further it was Alex Jones that pointed out the mainstream media reports that Al Qaeda was in the forefront of the Libya uprising. That was a MSM report that you had trouble believing if I recall correctly. So who's the conspiracy theorist?

I don't recall the specific post you're referring to but if you quote it I'm happy to respond. It's very likely I was wrong. I'm wrong many times. I change my views based on additional information. Conspiracy theorists will claim that additional information is fake and part of the conspiracy. It's a nice way to live life because all data against your world view is false data.

How so? You said that Alex Jones is the type that says if anyone is successful they must be part of the conspiracy. Well Ghandi was successful. Admit it, you just make this crap up as you go along.

I said that a big part of conspiracy theories is claiming that successful people are part of a conspiracy. I don't believe that Alex Jones dedicates his particular brand of conspiracy to every single successful person in the history of the world - particularly he does not spend much time covering Indian leaders from 80 years ago.

Success is what drives this stuff. Is it a coincidence that there is a YouTube video with 3.5 million views claiming the two best American athletes of the past 10 years are part of the illuminati and have received their skills and success by evil dealings? It has to do with success. No one would make a video about Flip Murray being a part of the illuminati because no one would care.

[NewRightLibertarian]

If Ron Paul were to become President, there will still be plenty of $#@!ed up $#@! going on in the world to fill a radio show

[jmdrake]

What's he going to talk about for four hours a day? "Our government is good and honest and our President consistently does the right thing". Yeah that will go over well.

1) If you think that just by Ron Paul getting elected the entire U.S. government including the House, Senate, judiciary, and unelected bureaucrats will all magically fall in line and follow Dr. Paul's dictates then you are more naive than I ever could have imagined.

2) Even if the entire U.S. government automatically fell in line behind liberty, there's still the U.N. to deal with as well as a host of treaties and alliances we would need to disentangle ourselves from.

3) There would be the ever present worry of "Will the globalists try to off Ron Paul".

4) If everything goes right, that means that on a daily basis Ron Paul would be reviewing and seeking to overturn unconstitutional laws and executive orders from the past fifty years. That would give Alex Jones more than enough to talk about for 4 hours a day.

He'll quote mainstream media when mainstream media promotes news that is similar to his view. Not based on accuracy.

You said he didn't use MSM. You were wrong. Just admit you were wrong and move on. And for the record he will quote the MSM when he disagrees with them as well for the sake of pointing out why he disagrees with them. Any other news commentator does the same thing. I'm not even sure what you are expecting or where you're trying to go with this line.

Really? 10 minutes into the VA Tech shooting he was saying conspiracy.

Were you actually listening that day? Somehow I doubt that. If you were then you aren't reporting accurately what he said. He said it was suspicious. And it turns out....it was suspicious. VA Tech was the home of the CIA's admitted MK Ultra program. (Google it). That said, that wasn't the only angle AJ covered or even the bigger angle. The bigger angles was the effect of psychotropic drugs, (he predicted as soon as the shooting happened that the shooter would be on psychotropics...and he turned out to be right), and the fact that the media would use the to push gun control, even though gun control was really part of the problem. (The only reason the shooter could kill so many is because universities are largely victim disarmament zones).

I don't recall the specific post you're referring to but if you quote it I'm happy to respond. It's very likely I was wrong. I'm wrong many times. I change my views based on additional information. Conspiracy theorists will claim that additional information is fake and part of the conspiracy. It's a nice way to live life because all data against your world view is false data.

I'm glad you can admit you were wrong. Now if you could also admit you are wrong about so called "conspiracy theorists" you would be a more reasonable person. Additional information is "fake" only if it is actually shown to be fake. Let's take the Trayvon Martin case. When additional information came out showing that Zimmerman actually did have a bloody head, did I say "That's probably just ketchup"? No. I was more than willing to concede that point. Now that I've seen video demonstrations that someone can scan a document into Acrobat and it might automatically create layers I'm not talking about the birth certificate issue. When I had reason to think the online version was fake I voiced it. But you will jump at the flimsiest piece of "evidence" that "confirms" the comforting story you want to believe and cling to it for dear life. Oh Iran says it's got video of the compound the Navy SEALs raided. Without any direct quote from any Iranian you assume that must mean that the Osama narrative, in it's 10th form after the government finally settled on a story, must be true.

I said that a big part of conspiracy theories is claiming that successful people are part of a conspiracy. I don't believe that Alex Jones dedicates his particular brand of conspiracy to every single successful person in the history of the world - particularly he does not spend much time covering Indian leaders from 80 years ago.

He actually covers Ghandi quite a bit as an example to follow. Here's someone else Alex Jones has covered quite a bit. Peter Schiff. Do you think Alex Jones thinks Peter Schiff is part of some conspiracy? Because AJ has never said that. You want another example? How Lord Monckton, the British member of the House of Lords who's been debunking man made global warming? Has Alex Jones said "This guy is so high up he must be one of them"? No? Then your making stuff up as you go along.

Success is what drives this stuff. Is it a coincidence that there is a YouTube video with 3.5 million views claiming the two best American athletes of the past 10 years are part of the illuminati and have received their skills and success by evil dealings? It has to do with success. No one would make a video about Flip Murray being a part of the illuminati because no one would care.

Has Alex Jones ever accused Kobe Bryant or LeBrawn James as being part of the illuminati? NO! Come up. Don't be ridiculous. Just because somebody somewhere makes a YouTube like that doesn't mean that's par for the course for who conspiracy reporting works. You're being like the racist who says that a black person robbing a convenience store means black people rob convenience stores. Alex Jones works by putting together pieces of reporting that other people have overlooked together with his own sources to paint a picture of the world as he sees it. That's the way journalism works in general. Is he high strung at times? Yep. Does he get it wrong sometimes? Sure. And he's said it. Does he just say someone is part of some conspiracy because they are "successful"? No. That's a ridiculous assertion.

[jmdrake]

If Ron Paul were to become President, there will still be plenty of $#@!ed up $#@! going on in the world to fill a radio show

Exactly!

[Elwar]

Ron Paul was asked via a letter, I believe by a forum member, if he was a freemason. He responded and signed it saying he has never been a freemason.

[Elwar]

Ron Paul also advocates competition in currencies.

This would allow for something like Bitcoins, which is not the gold standard.

[Okie RP fan]

I tend to like A.J. and the Infowars team.

However, they have some visitors on that site who are beyond insane, there have been many posters in the comments section Ron Paul is a free mason and who wants world domination. I've also seen people say that "libertarianism is the end game for the N.W.O" I mean, really, people?

[NewRightLibertarian]

I tend to like A.J. and the Infowars team.

However, they have some visitors on that site who are beyond insane, there have been many posters in the comments section Ron Paul is a free mason and who wants world domination. I've also seen people say that "libertarianism is the end game for the N.W.O" I mean, really, people?

Those people might be paid trolls spewing ridiculous disinformation. You never know these days

[Feeding the Abscess]

You guys really have to get over this Robamney thing... Romney sucks, I'll never vote for him, period. Romney and Obama are essentially the same (about 95%) but they are not the same.

I can guarantee 2 things... 1- Romney would not make a good President and 2- he would make a better President than Obama and wouldn't spend 1trillion a month.

Electing Romney gives this country a considerably greater amount of time even if he wouldn't offer up any real change.


As for the 3rd party stuff... Ron can't get 270 electoral votes that way or win the POTUS in any way imaginable so as you ask "what's the difference?" the difference is a guaranteed Obama victory versus a very-sure Obama victory... that's a huge difference. Romney cannot win with 20% of the country going another way.

Romney would be worse than Obama. Romney won't cut a damn thing domestically, and wants to increase military spending.

That math equals greater deficits and greater debt.

[DerailingDaTrain]

I like Alex Jones when he talks about the police state.

[BlackTerrel]

1) If you think that just by Ron Paul getting elected the entire U.S. government including the House, Senate, judiciary, and unelected bureaucrats will all magically fall in line and follow Dr. Paul's dictates then you are more naive than I ever could have imagined.

2) Even if the entire U.S. government automatically fell in line behind liberty, there's still the U.N. to deal with as well as a host of treaties and alliances we would need to disentangle ourselves from.

3) There would be the ever present worry of "Will the globalists try to off Ron Paul".

4) If everything goes right, that means that on a daily basis Ron Paul would be reviewing and seeking to overturn unconstitutional laws and executive orders from the past fifty years. That would give Alex Jones more than enough to talk about for 4 hours a day.

But what if there's a terror attack and suddenly Ron Paul is the one calling the shots? I don't believe he'll stand behind him for long. He'll do business by attacking "the man" not supporting him. I saw it with a select few with Obama as well.

You said he didn't use MSM. You were wrong. Just admit you were wrong and move on. And for the record he will quote the MSM when he disagrees with them as well for the sake of pointing out why he disagrees with them. Any other news commentator does the same thing. I'm not even sure what you are expecting or where you're trying to go with this line.

What I'm saying is that his general tone is "the MSM and the powers that be are lying but I'm here to give you the truth".

Were you actually listening that day[VA Tech shooting]? Somehow I doubt that. If you were then you aren't reporting accurately what he said. He said it was suspicious. And it turns out....it was suspicious. VA Tech was the home of the CIA's admitted MK Ultra program. (Google it).

That's it. MK Ultra according to Google took place at more than 30 universities. You could play 6 degrees with Kevin Bacon with anything if you want to push the conspiracy angle. That's why it's so hard to debate it.

That said, that wasn't the only angle AJ covered or even the bigger angle. The bigger angles was the effect of psychotropic drugs, (he predicted as soon as the shooting happened that the shooter would be on psychotropics...and he turned out to be right),

Of course. I'm sure he also listened to $#@!ed out music and wore a lot of gray and black and not so much bright colored clothing. That's what crazy people do. Correlation doesn't equal causation. What % of people that shoot up their schools do you think like to wear black vs like to wear yellow? Does that mean black clothing causes school shootings?

and the fact that the media would use the to push gun control, even though gun control was really part of the problem. (The only reason the shooter could kill so many is because universities are largely victim disarmament zones).

Of course. EVERY TIME there is a big shooting gun control advocates push it to say there should be less guns and gun rights advocates say there should be more guns. That's what people with an agenda do. Both sides. It never changes public opinion. People have made up their mind.

I'm glad you can admit you were wrong. Now if you could also admit you are wrong about so called "conspiracy theorists" you would be a more reasonable person. Additional information is "fake" only if it is actually shown to be fake. Let's take the Trayvon Martin case. When additional information came out showing that Zimmerman actually did have a bloody head, did I say "That's probably just ketchup"? No. I was more than willing to concede that point. Now that I've seen video demonstrations that someone can scan a document into Acrobat and it might automatically create layers I'm not talking about the birth certificate issue.

Did Alex Jones admit he was wrong?

http://www.infowars.com/new-obama-bi...-is-a-forgery/

Our investigation of the purported Obama birth certificate released by Hawaiian authorities today reveals the document is a shoddily contrived hoax. Infowars.com computer specialists dismissed the document as a fraud soon after examining it.

Who were these experts who were so easily able to dismiss this thing as fraud so quick after examining it? These guys are experts and they don't know about scanning a document into Acrobat? Why didn't they take a few more hours to do some research given that they are "experts" and this is supposed to be their job?

The answer is people don't go to Alex Jones' site to hear "yep turns out he's actually a citizen". They go to get their fix of conspiracy theories and his "experts" will back him up because that's what they WANT to find.

[Indy Vidual]

Ron Paul also advocates competition in currencies.

This would allow for something like Bitcoins, which is not the gold standard.

Sounds great.