Thread: Why I Joined the 'Ron Paul Revolution'

YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT HE IS NOT LIKE DICK CHENEY HIDING HIS PROFILE.
WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM ABOUT NORTH AMERICA UNION AND POST IT?

Originally Posted by minnie

YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT HE IS NOT LIKE DICK CHENEY HIDING HIS PROFILE.
WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM ABOUT NORTH AMERICA UNION AND POST IT?

I don't have to PROVE anything. You are the one who is attacking him WITHOUT any facts/proof----only what "you" think. Therefore, it is up to you to provide the proof.

And, posting something about him giving a speech somewere, is NOT proof!!

Hey folks, PhredE Admin guy here -

I pulled this thread off the boards temporarily as I was a little concerned about the 'virtual shouting' and intense exchanges taking place here.

People are going to have a preference for one candidate vs. another. It's a fact of life. Please respect other poster's opinions on this and related topics.

Finally, let me ask folks to please cease with the shouting (CAPS, and LARGE CAPS) and let the conversation settle back to something resembling a normal - even if spirited - debate.

Many Thanks.

PhredE
Your humble, if largely overlooked and abused Moderator/Admin guy

Your humble, if largely overlooked and abused Moderator/Admin guy

awww Phrede, we luv ya lol....you do a lot for us and it is noticed and appreciated.

Originally Posted by PhredE

Hey folks, PhredE Admin guy here -

I pulled this thread off the boards temporarily as I was a little concerned about the 'virtual shouting' and intense exchanges taking place here.

People are going to have a preference for one candidate vs. another. It's a fact of life. Please respect other poster's opinions on this and related topics.

Finally, let me ask folks to please cease with the shouting (CAPS, and LARGE CAPS) and let the conversation settle back to something resembling a normal - even if spirited - debate.

Many Thanks.

PhredE
Your humble, if largely overlooked and abused Moderator/Admin guy

Thank you in regard to the caps!!

CFR Stacks The Deck With Both Democrat And Republican Presidential Candidates

1920 Afghanistan Aipac Barack Obama Big Brother Bonesman CFR Council on Foreign Relations Democrat Enslavement Fred Thompson Globalism Hillary Clinton Intellectual Osmosis Iraq Israel Knowledge is Power Mitt Romney National Sovereignty notable members of the CFR include preemptive strikes republican Ron Paul Skull and Bones Spotlight
Now Public


Editor's Note: 2004 was the year of the Skull & Bones presidential candidates, and now 2008 seems to be the year of the CFR presidential candidates. Democrat or Republican, it matters not which rook they choose to elect. We lose either way. The 2004 elections were marred by the stench of a fixed fight. Bush and Kerry both Yale Bonesmen and related by blood running for the presidency. Now the Council on Foreign Relations has nearly every presidential candidate in their pocket. We need to elect Ron Paul. Let's redeem America and restore the Constitution. Ronald Reagan said, "It's Morning In America." Now we are mourning America as she descends into tyranny.


The 2004 Democratic National Convention may be remembered most for a young and energetic senator that immediately drew comparison to the Kennedys. Obama's speech launched his name and image into the public spotlight, and his fresh style of rhetoric filled a growing anti-war political void - He voted against the Iraq war and wasn't afraid to criticize it's handling. Excitement and support for the senator eventually snowballed into his current presidential campaign. He enjoys a popular image as a liberal democrat, and his harsh criticism of the Iraq war has earned him support from a population united in it's discontent with the current government. To a select crowd of Americans, Obama preaches against the handling of the Iraq war. To other more private groups, Obama advocates military strikes on new middle eastern countries. Obama has aligned himself with several lobbying firms and nongovernmental organizations who seek further US militarization of the world. In several speeches and essays, Obama makes his foreign policy goals clear - and he is not anti-war. Is Obama intentionally sending a deceptive message to his constituency?

In a recent speech given to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, Obama outlines a plan for U.S. hegemony. He suggests polarizing political alignments that are already breeding anti-U.S. sentiment. Specifically, Obama pledges unfaltering military support to Israel. The U.S. has long supported Israel - this year they were given $30 billion for defense of the young state. To put this in perspective, less than $7 billion has been federally granted to rebuild homes destroyed after hurricane Katrina. Although the U.S. has always given billions in aid to Israel, his alliance backs preemptive strikes against countries deemed a threat. Israel is unpopular in the region, and is threatened by Iran's desire for modern nuclear energy in the future. Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Obama states "We should take no option, including military action, off the table". The US has already constructed massive permanent military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve as hubs for such an operation. The fleet of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf continues to grow, while politicians and media simultaneously hype a nonexistent enemy. This reckless policy leaves the U.S. on the brink of full scale war at all times.

Obama differed from many of his peers by admitting the Iraq war was heavily motivated by Iraq's oil reserves. Iran's oilfields, and the military buildup of the Persian Gulf creates and incentive for military action. It has been questioned if the U.S. military even has the capability of securing the strategic oil reserve. Iran has some of the most lucrative oilfields in the region, and provides energy to Asia and Europe. International economies would be disenfranchised with the US military disruption of its energy supplies. Meddling in other countries' foreign affairs has spurred backlash against the U.S. This phenomenon is referred to as "blowback", or, the consequences from provoking actions. Ignoring this cause and effect, Obama advocates troops in Iraq be redeployed to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight amorphous groups of "terrorists" . Regarding the war on terror, Obama differs from his colleagues in that he does not believe nuclear weapons should be used - a small concession for an ambitious military operation. This policy still backs preemptive strikes and the further militarization of the middle east, all at the expense of US resources.

Obama outlines his ambitious geopolitical plans in a recent essay for Foreign Affairs magazine. Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations, which describes itself as a non-partisan group of which he is a member. Established in the 1920's and headquartered in New York, its membership includes prominent politicians and business elite, including heads of academia and media. The organization seeks to centralize both political power and market power to craft legislation outside the checks and balances of democracy. The CFR is rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, making it difficult to fully gauge its influence. When it is mentioned in the press, it is likely whitewashed as trivial or irrelevant. Notable members of the CFR include:


Dick Cheney

John Kerry

Bill Clinton

Al Gore

Ronald Reagan

George H. W. Bush

Gerald Ford

Richard Nixon


John, David & Nelson Rockefeller

Condolezza Rice

Paul Wolfowitz

Alan Greenspan

Colin Powell

Henry Kissinger

Angelina Jolie (Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as an ambassador)


Its membership list is a who's who of Washington and Wall St. elite going back nearly a century. It should not be surprising that most presidential candidates in the 2008 election are CFR members. Candidates do not advertise their CFR membership to the public. They pose as "liberals" and "conservatives" to control all aspects of the debate. The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election with several members in the race from both sides of the aisle:

Democrat CFR Candidates:

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Chris Dodd

Bill Richardson

Republican CFR Candidates:

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

Fred Thompson

Newt Gingrich

The mainstream media's self-proclaimed "top tier" candidates are united in their CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political diversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned to instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in plain view. Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is the only "top tier" candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

Although many politicians hold membership, It must be noted that the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization. The CFR's membership is a union of politicians, bankers, and scholars, with several large businesses holding additional corporate memberships. Corporate members include:


Halliburton of Dubai

British Petroleum

Dutch Royal Shell

Exxon Mobile

General Electric (NBC)

Chevron

Lockheed Martin

Merck Pharmaceuticals

News Corp (FOX)

Bloomberg

IBM

Time Warner

JP Morgan/ Chase Manhattan

& several other major financial institutions

Members are united in their interventionist intentions with the goal of a consolidated global governance. The CFR's mission is to influence policy through the reach of its members and publications. Those who study the CFR ideology are recruited and cultured for membership. The best and brightest university students are taught to propagate the CFR model. Individuals who both subscribe to the CFR ideology and can bring an element of capital (political status, business influence, money) to the group will be given membership. Members meet at the CFR headquarters in Manhattan and Washington DC, and round-table style discussions are held for its membership to discuss foreign affairs and make recommendations on policy. The CFR often creates "task forces" to report " findings and policy prescriptions" (cfr.org) for specific current world events, and also publishes the periodical Foreign Affairs magazine. CFR authors are often found in mainstream media publications. In a recent issue of TIME magazine, one CFR member writes: "The US should make (Pakistani President & US intelligence asset) Musharraf the best dictator he can be". Another author, this time in Newsweek magazine objectively argues to the readers that the world really isn't all that bad in an article titled "Don't Worry, Be Happy". Currently, the front page of CFR.org features essays on European anti-terrorism measures, radical Iranians, and the reemergence of the nuclear threat (CFR members in government control the nuclear football). Many prominent publications are influenced and controlled by the CFR:


Time

Newsweek

US News & World Report

Atlantic Monthly

Forbes

& several major publishing houses


Members of the CFR in the media intend to inject it's pro-globalist arguments into the mainstream consciousness. Although the CFR is self-described as a non-partisan association, it unabashedly promotes a one-world-government agenda without regard for US sovereignty or the desires of the American people.

The goals of the CFR is best described by its very own members. Bill Clinton's Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: "The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.". Quigley differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed. In his book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peers in that he believes the new world order plan of global government's "role in history is significant enough to be known". Quigley also admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to be controlled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals. As Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to "throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of extreme shifts in policy.". Controlling Washington elite allowed private central banks to " dominate the political system... ...and economy of world as a whole" and implement a new system of "feudalist fashion" through "secret agreements". Although he believes the CFR's intentions should be more public, Quigley understands the average person doesn't understand feudalism or serfdom and will never read his book.

Surprisingly, many of its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democratic process. CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Chester Ward writes "The main purpose of the (CFR) is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into and all powerful, one world government.". This high ranking military officer went on to explain their procedures for influencing policy, claiming: "Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the US government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.".

The CFR's strategy is also being used to promote world government as well as the new environmental agenda. Obama and most candidates have made the environment a major issue in the policy. The CFR has long suggested a global tax, specifically identifying the environmental movement as a means for its advancement. All CFR candidates align themselves with the position that the government has both the ability and responsibility to maintain the world's environment. Good intentioned individuals may genuinely seek environmental protection, but nongovernmental organizations are quickly capitalizing on land acquisitions and taxes in the name of global warming. While most scientist agree the planet earth is undergoing a degree of climactic change, the CFR admits the environmental argument will be used to erode national sovereignty and build up their global authority. Proposed "Carbon Taxes" place carbon expenditure ratings on mundane human activities. Contrary to popular misconceptions, CO2 is by no means a pollutant. As an essential gas for life, plants thrive on increased levels of CO2 which in turn they produce higher levels of oxygen. Furthermore, carbon based life forms emit carbon to the atmosphere, hence a "Carbon Tax" is a tariff for doing nothing but maintaining life. A popular movement lead by the CFR's own Al Gore would have you believe CO2 is the root cause of environmental woes while ignoring real industrial pollution in developing countries. There are serious environmental problems that are ignored in favor of issues that can be used to tax the broad population.

Environmental protection has already lead countries to willingly surrender control of natural resources. The US has ceded control of natural resources to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in a land grab under the guise of environmental protection. UNESCO is part of the United Nations, an organization controlled by many CFR members like permanent US ambassador John Bolton. The CFR's President Richard N. Haass boldly admits "Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.". He adds that this "Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty... ...needs to become weaker.". While it is important to be conscious of humans' effects on the earth, nongovernmental organizations like the CFR see an opportunity to redistribute wealth through selective enforcement targeting the US. The CFR openly states its intentions of using the environmental movement and other emotional arguments to build up global authority and undermine US sovereignty.

The CFR backs other programs that promote regional governments. Another ambitious goal of the CFR is the implementation of regional unions under the control of a central world government. World leaders are moving towards a regional partnership of North America consisting of Canada, the US, and Mexico. In 2005, the CFR released a report titled "Building an American Community" which sought to eliminate borders between the three North American countries. One part of the plan called for decreasing government control of cross-border traffic in an effort to dissolve national borders. Robert Pastor, a vice chairman of the task force that released "Building a North American Community", names the " Amero" as a hypothetical unified North American currency similar to the Euro. Carried out with precision, the private, run-for-profit federal reserve bank has massively devalued the US dollar, allowing foreign corporations to buy up US resources for literal pennies on the dollar.

The European Union is a similar model to the North American partnership. The EU was hugely opposed by Europeans, and took a half century for the complicit European power elites to fully implement the union. During his time as Prime Minister, Tony Blair tried several times for the United Kingdom's adoption of the unpopular EU constitution that was also staunchly rejected by French and Dutch voters. The current Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to advance a similar constitution under a new name. Like the EU, American countries would keep their governmental infrastructure but all policy would be superseded by a regional constitution.

Already in place in North America is the Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov) established in a meeting between Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. The SPP consolidates protection of the North American Union by establishing a security perimeter extending north of Canada to the Mexican/ Guatemalan border. This measure was authorized under Bush's ambiguous executive authority, thus avoiding any congressional input or oversight. It is a precursor to a trilateral authority between the three North American economies.

A similar measure to the SPP in the establishment of a unified North American region is the NAFTA "Superhighway" which eliminates border restrictions on shipping, allowing imported goods destined for the US to arrive in North America at ports in Mexico. Rather than arriving at the port of Long Beach, imported goods would enter the US via a "port" in the mid-west that lies along the shipping lane. This measure has been unanimously opposed by US cities in proximity of the highway, but the democratic voice is ignored as the government covertly advances. Congress has largely looked away from the issue. Members who are aware of this plan avoid this issue and prefer that it stay secret, and the CFR presidential candidates will not address it. The presidential candidates' association with the the self-described "shadow government" compromises the the voting process and defrauds the constituency.

Barack Obama has captivated voters from all parties with his refreshing new style of rhetoric. He has the voting record to back his criticism of the Iraq war. But like his CFR colleagues, he vows to continue the pursuit of a shadowy enemy under the vague threat of "terrorism" - a policy that has cost citizens their personal liberties, trillions in debt and untold lives. The war on terror has been crafted to spend the US into bankruptcy and setup a domestic police state. Money continues to be being printed out of thin air by the private run-for-profit Federal Reserve, while China remains leveraged with over $1 trillion in US dollar holdings. In the middle east, the CFR's blank check for U.S. military operations will deplete U.S. resources while inciting sectarian strife and anti-U.S. sentiment, ignoring the history of blowback as documented by the CIA. Obama and other CFR candidates affiliation with the organization is not promoted on their websites or in any press releases because the organization has centralized political power and financial capital to set policy the public would otherwise oppose. The career politicians in the CFR know corporate sponsorship is frowned upon by voters. The Council is one of the major conduits between government and business leaders in the US. The CFR is guaranteeing power by owning all the horses in the race that is the 2008 election. Obama is captivating unlike most of his competition, undoubtedly intelligent enough to understand his political niche. Another CFR US president guarantees more of the same costly foreign policy that protects corporate interests and isolates the US. Like his colleagues, Barack Obama's stated foreign policy intentions foment the long term militarization and balkanization of the middle east while resources will continue to be spent in deficit to finance an illegal foreign policy. Only when the control of the CFR is fully exposed will the voters have a real democratic choice.

http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/08 ... candidates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J ... candidates

Originally Posted by minnie

CFR Stacks The Deck With Both Democrat And Republican Presidential Candidates

1920 Afghanistan Aipac Barack Obama Big Brother Bonesman CFR Council on Foreign Relations Democrat Enslavement Fred Thompson Globalism Hillary Clinton Intellectual Osmosis Iraq Israel Knowledge is Power Mitt Romney National Sovereignty notable members of the CFR include preemptive strikes republican Ron Paul Skull and Bones Spotlight
Now Public


Editor's Note: 2004 was the year of the Skull & Bones presidential candidates, and now 2008 seems to be the year of the CFR presidential candidates. Democrat or Republican, it matters not which rook they choose to elect. We lose either way. The 2004 elections were marred by the stench of a fixed fight. Bush and Kerry both Yale Bonesmen and related by blood running for the presidency. Now the Council on Foreign Relations has nearly every presidential candidate in their pocket. We need to elect Ron Paul. Let's redeem America and restore the Constitution. Ronald Reagan said, "It's Morning In America." Now we are mourning America as she descends into tyranny.


The 2004 Democratic National Convention may be remembered most for a young and energetic senator that immediately drew comparison to the Kennedys. Obama's speech launched his name and image into the public spotlight, and his fresh style of rhetoric filled a growing anti-war political void - He voted against the Iraq war and wasn't afraid to criticize it's handling. Excitement and support for the senator eventually snowballed into his current presidential campaign. He enjoys a popular image as a liberal democrat, and his harsh criticism of the Iraq war has earned him support from a population united in it's discontent with the current government. To a select crowd of Americans, Obama preaches against the handling of the Iraq war. To other more private groups, Obama advocates military strikes on new middle eastern countries. Obama has aligned himself with several lobbying firms and nongovernmental organizations who seek further US militarization of the world. In several speeches and essays, Obama makes his foreign policy goals clear - and he is not anti-war. Is Obama intentionally sending a deceptive message to his constituency?

In a recent speech given to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, Obama outlines a plan for U.S. hegemony. He suggests polarizing political alignments that are already breeding anti-U.S. sentiment. Specifically, Obama pledges unfaltering military support to Israel. The U.S. has long supported Israel - this year they were given $30 billion for defense of the young state. To put this in perspective, less than $7 billion has been federally granted to rebuild homes destroyed after hurricane Katrina. Although the U.S. has always given billions in aid to Israel, his alliance backs preemptive strikes against countries deemed a threat. Israel is unpopular in the region, and is threatened by Iran's desire for modern nuclear energy in the future. Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Obama states "We should take no option, including military action, off the table". The US has already constructed massive permanent military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve as hubs for such an operation. The fleet of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf continues to grow, while politicians and media simultaneously hype a nonexistent enemy. This reckless policy leaves the U.S. on the brink of full scale war at all times.

Obama differed from many of his peers by admitting the Iraq war was heavily motivated by Iraq's oil reserves. Iran's oilfields, and the military buildup of the Persian Gulf creates and incentive for military action. It has been questioned if the U.S. military even has the capability of securing the strategic oil reserve. Iran has some of the most lucrative oilfields in the region, and provides energy to Asia and Europe. International economies would be disenfranchised with the US military disruption of its energy supplies. Meddling in other countries' foreign affairs has spurred backlash against the U.S. This phenomenon is referred to as "blowback", or, the consequences from provoking actions. Ignoring this cause and effect, Obama advocates troops in Iraq be redeployed to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight amorphous groups of "terrorists" . Regarding the war on terror, Obama differs from his colleagues in that he does not believe nuclear weapons should be used - a small concession for an ambitious military operation. This policy still backs preemptive strikes and the further militarization of the middle east, all at the expense of US resources.

Obama outlines his ambitious geopolitical plans in a recent essay for Foreign Affairs magazine. Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations, which describes itself as a non-partisan group of which he is a member. Established in the 1920's and headquartered in New York, its membership includes prominent politicians and business elite, including heads of academia and media. The organization seeks to centralize both political power and market power to craft legislation outside the checks and balances of democracy. The CFR is rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, making it difficult to fully gauge its influence. When it is mentioned in the press, it is likely whitewashed as trivial or irrelevant. Notable members of the CFR include:


Dick Cheney

John Kerry

Bill Clinton

Al Gore

Ronald Reagan

George H. W. Bush

Gerald Ford

Richard Nixon


John, David & Nelson Rockefeller

Condolezza Rice

Paul Wolfowitz

Alan Greenspan

Colin Powell

Henry Kissinger

Angelina Jolie (Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as an ambassador)


Its membership list is a who's who of Washington and Wall St. elite going back nearly a century. It should not be surprising that most presidential candidates in the 2008 election are CFR members. Candidates do not advertise their CFR membership to the public. They pose as "liberals" and "conservatives" to control all aspects of the debate. The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election with several members in the race from both sides of the aisle:

Democrat CFR Candidates:

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Chris Dodd

Bill Richardson

Republican CFR Candidates:

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

Fred Thompson

Newt Gingrich

The mainstream media's self-proclaimed "top tier" candidates are united in their CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political diversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned to instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in plain view. Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is the only "top tier" candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

Although many politicians hold membership, It must be noted that the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization. The CFR's membership is a union of politicians, bankers, and scholars, with several large businesses holding additional corporate memberships. Corporate members include:


Halliburton of Dubai

British Petroleum

Dutch Royal Shell

Exxon Mobile

General Electric (NBC)

Chevron

Lockheed Martin

Merck Pharmaceuticals

News Corp (FOX)

Bloomberg

IBM

Time Warner

JP Morgan/ Chase Manhattan

& several other major financial institutions

Members are united in their interventionist intentions with the goal of a consolidated global governance. The CFR's mission is to influence policy through the reach of its members and publications. Those who study the CFR ideology are recruited and cultured for membership. The best and brightest university students are taught to propagate the CFR model. Individuals who both subscribe to the CFR ideology and can bring an element of capital (political status, business influence, money) to the group will be given membership. Members meet at the CFR headquarters in Manhattan and Washington DC, and round-table style discussions are held for its membership to discuss foreign affairs and make recommendations on policy. The CFR often creates "task forces" to report " findings and policy prescriptions" (cfr.org) for specific current world events, and also publishes the periodical Foreign Affairs magazine. CFR authors are often found in mainstream media publications. In a recent issue of TIME magazine, one CFR member writes: "The US should make (Pakistani President & US intelligence asset) Musharraf the best dictator he can be". Another author, this time in Newsweek magazine objectively argues to the readers that the world really isn't all that bad in an article titled "Don't Worry, Be Happy". Currently, the front page of CFR.org features essays on European anti-terrorism measures, radical Iranians, and the reemergence of the nuclear threat (CFR members in government control the nuclear football). Many prominent publications are influenced and controlled by the CFR:


Time

Newsweek

US News & World Report

Atlantic Monthly

Forbes

& several major publishing houses


Members of the CFR in the media intend to inject it's pro-globalist arguments into the mainstream consciousness. Although the CFR is self-described as a non-partisan association, it unabashedly promotes a one-world-government agenda without regard for US sovereignty or the desires of the American people.

The goals of the CFR is best described by its very own members. Bill Clinton's Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: "The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.". Quigley differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed. In his book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peers in that he believes the new world order plan of global government's "role in history is significant enough to be known". Quigley also admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to be controlled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals. As Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to "throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of extreme shifts in policy.". Controlling Washington elite allowed private central banks to " dominate the political system... ...and economy of world as a whole" and implement a new system of "feudalist fashion" through "secret agreements". Although he believes the CFR's intentions should be more public, Quigley understands the average person doesn't understand feudalism or serfdom and will never read his book.

Surprisingly, many of its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democratic process. CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Chester Ward writes "The main purpose of the (CFR) is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into and all powerful, one world government.". This high ranking military officer went on to explain their procedures for influencing policy, claiming: "Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the US government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.".

The CFR's strategy is also being used to promote world government as well as the new environmental agenda. Obama and most candidates have made the environment a major issue in the policy. The CFR has long suggested a global tax, specifically identifying the environmental movement as a means for its advancement. All CFR candidates align themselves with the position that the government has both the ability and responsibility to maintain the world's environment. Good intentioned individuals may genuinely seek environmental protection, but nongovernmental organizations are quickly capitalizing on land acquisitions and taxes in the name of global warming. While most scientist agree the planet earth is undergoing a degree of climactic change, the CFR admits the environmental argument will be used to erode national sovereignty and build up their global authority. Proposed "Carbon Taxes" place carbon expenditure ratings on mundane human activities. Contrary to popular misconceptions, CO2 is by no means a pollutant. As an essential gas for life, plants thrive on increased levels of CO2 which in turn they produce higher levels of oxygen. Furthermore, carbon based life forms emit carbon to the atmosphere, hence a "Carbon Tax" is a tariff for doing nothing but maintaining life. A popular movement lead by the CFR's own Al Gore would have you believe CO2 is the root cause of environmental woes while ignoring real industrial pollution in developing countries. There are serious environmental problems that are ignored in favor of issues that can be used to tax the broad population.

Environmental protection has already lead countries to willingly surrender control of natural resources. The US has ceded control of natural resources to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in a land grab under the guise of environmental protection. UNESCO is part of the United Nations, an organization controlled by many CFR members like permanent US ambassador John Bolton. The CFR's President Richard N. Haass boldly admits "Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.". He adds that this "Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty... ...needs to become weaker.". While it is important to be conscious of humans' effects on the earth, nongovernmental organizations like the CFR see an opportunity to redistribute wealth through selective enforcement targeting the US. The CFR openly states its intentions of using the environmental movement and other emotional arguments to build up global authority and undermine US sovereignty.

The CFR backs other programs that promote regional governments. Another ambitious goal of the CFR is the implementation of regional unions under the control of a central world government. World leaders are moving towards a regional partnership of North America consisting of Canada, the US, and Mexico. In 2005, the CFR released a report titled "Building an American Community" which sought to eliminate borders between the three North American countries. One part of the plan called for decreasing government control of cross-border traffic in an effort to dissolve national borders. Robert Pastor, a vice chairman of the task force that released "Building a North American Community", names the " Amero" as a hypothetical unified North American currency similar to the Euro. Carried out with precision, the private, run-for-profit federal reserve bank has massively devalued the US dollar, allowing foreign corporations to buy up US resources for literal pennies on the dollar.

The European Union is a similar model to the North American partnership. The EU was hugely opposed by Europeans, and took a half century for the complicit European power elites to fully implement the union. During his time as Prime Minister, Tony Blair tried several times for the United Kingdom's adoption of the unpopular EU constitution that was also staunchly rejected by French and Dutch voters. The current Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to advance a similar constitution under a new name. Like the EU, American countries would keep their governmental infrastructure but all policy would be superseded by a regional constitution.

Already in place in North America is the Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov) established in a meeting between Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. The SPP consolidates protection of the North American Union by establishing a security perimeter extending north of Canada to the Mexican/ Guatemalan border. This measure was authorized under Bush's ambiguous executive authority, thus avoiding any congressional input or oversight. It is a precursor to a trilateral authority between the three North American economies.

A similar measure to the SPP in the establishment of a unified North American region is the NAFTA "Superhighway" which eliminates border restrictions on shipping, allowing imported goods destined for the US to arrive in North America at ports in Mexico. Rather than arriving at the port of Long Beach, imported goods would enter the US via a "port" in the mid-west that lies along the shipping lane. This measure has been unanimously opposed by US cities in proximity of the highway, but the democratic voice is ignored as the government covertly advances. Congress has largely looked away from the issue. Members who are aware of this plan avoid this issue and prefer that it stay secret, and the CFR presidential candidates will not address it. The presidential candidates' association with the the self-described "shadow government" compromises the the voting process and defrauds the constituency.

Barack Obama has captivated voters from all parties with his refreshing new style of rhetoric. He has the voting record to back his criticism of the Iraq war. But like his CFR colleagues, he vows to continue the pursuit of a shadowy enemy under the vague threat of "terrorism" - a policy that has cost citizens their personal liberties, trillions in debt and untold lives. The war on terror has been crafted to spend the US into bankruptcy and setup a domestic police state. Money continues to be being printed out of thin air by the private run-for-profit Federal Reserve, while China remains leveraged with over $1 trillion in US dollar holdings. In the middle east, the CFR's blank check for U.S. military operations will deplete U.S. resources while inciting sectarian strife and anti-U.S. sentiment, ignoring the history of blowback as documented by the CIA. Obama and other CFR candidates affiliation with the organization is not promoted on their websites or in any press releases because the organization has centralized political power and financial capital to set policy the public would otherwise oppose. The career politicians in the CFR know corporate sponsorship is frowned upon by voters. The Council is one of the major conduits between government and business leaders in the US. The CFR is guaranteeing power by owning all the horses in the race that is the 2008 election. Obama is captivating unlike most of his competition, undoubtedly intelligent enough to understand his political niche. Another CFR US president guarantees more of the same costly foreign policy that protects corporate interests and isolates the US. Like his colleagues, Barack Obama's stated foreign policy intentions foment the long term militarization and balkanization of the middle east while resources will continue to be spent in deficit to finance an illegal foreign policy. Only when the control of the CFR is fully exposed will the voters have a real democratic choice.

http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/08 ... candidates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J ... candidates

The site that you are posting this garbage from is not a credible source!! And, of course it is from a Ron Paul supporter.

You definitely need to look for credible sources-----and not post garbage from someone's personal site.

Also, you might want to ask yourself how exactly Ron Paul would stop the NAU------when he does not want a fence, has no plans on going after employers, and pretty much said that if we shut off welfare-----we should open the borders.

Good post Zeezil, I thought I'd repost the whole article, instead of just the parts in bold that I think are good points, since the whole message is important!

Why I Joined the 'Ron Paul Revolution'
by Daniel Sheehy
January 14, 2008
During the CNN-YouTube Republican presidential debate on November 28, a man sarcastically asked candidate Ron Paul if he believes in "this conspiracy regarding the Council on Foreign Relations and some plan to make a North American Union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico."

On stage with the seven other candidates and in front of a live audience and national television viewers, Paul smiled and responded:

"The CFR exists. The Trilateral Commission exists. It's a conspiracy of ideas. This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism, others of us believe in national sovereignty. There is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union and it eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and are moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a hold on it. They're planning on taking millions of acres by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.... I don't like this trend toward international government..... Our national sovereignty is under threat."

Even though Paul was given just 90 seconds to respond, the 10-term U.S. congressman from Texas did an excellent job answering the question. Globalists used "free trade" and open borders to integrate the countries of Europe and create the European Union, with a single government and currency. Europeans are increasingly wondering what happened to their countries and freedoms. The same approach is being used to erase America's borders, independence, and Constitution to create a North American Union.

Having been a guest on numerous radio talk shows, I know how difficult it is to describe this diabolical scheme in just a minute or two, especially to Americans who have never heard of the North American Union (NAU) or believe "our government would never do such a terrible thing." However, when I have time at speaking engagements to connect the dots and show documented proof, audiences understand and become extremely troubled.

Among the pieces of evidence I show audiences is the Council on Foreign Relations' (CFR) May 2005 report titled "Building a North American Community." (I detailed the report in the June 2006 edition of my book "Fighting Immigration Anarchy.")

The CFR report, on page 3, calls for "the creation by 2010 of a North American community.... Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter." A common external tariff means common taxing for the three countries, and an outer security perimeter means no more U.S. borders, by the year 2010.

Billionaire banker-industrialist David Rockefeller, chairman emeritus of the New York-based CFR, admitted on page 405 of his 2002 autobiography "Memoirs" that for decades he and his family have been "conspiring with others around the world" to sabotage America and create a world government. Among the many CFR members in the Bush administration are Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

For decades, CFR globalist elites from banking, industry, government, academia, and the corporate media have been working to convert America into a socialist state, on the path to world government. The CFR has backed both political parties in every presidential race since the late 1940s. With the exception of Ron Paul, virtually all of this year's presidential candidates in both parties are approved by the CFR.

If you watch the entire clip of Paul answering the question about the North American merger, you will see something interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE8FKPH8t0g. Standing to Paul's immediate right are Senator John McCain, Hollywood actor and former Senator Fred Thompson, and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. See how uncomfortable they look and how they avoid looking at Paul. Why are they acting that way? Because McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani are open-borders globalists and in on the plot to dissolve America.

(Virtually all of the remaining presidential contenders also are open-borders globalists: Republicans Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, whose foreign policy advisor is CFR President Richard Haass, and Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Dennis Kucinich. Republicans Tom Tancredo, who dropped out in December, and Duncan Hunter are strong on U.S. border security. However, their zealous support for the now 5-year-old Iraq war expressed during the debates and votes supporting massive expansions of executive authority and domestic police powers cost them my support.)

Returning to the clip, McCain is a member of the CFR and was one of the 12 senators behind the treacherous Bush-Kennedy guestworker amnesty bill that Americans defeated in June 2007. McCain, Bush, Kennedy, and many others in Washington have kept our borders open, pushing amnesty for illegal aliens to quickly merge our nation into a North American Union. Why did Congress quietly gut the border fence just before Christmas 2007? These bureaucrats sabotaged the fence for the same reason: to destroy our sovereignty and create the NAU. (See my exposé "Why did Tancredo and Gilchrist Endorse Globalists for President?")

Fred Thompson also is a CFR member. He is best known for playing a lawyer on the television series Law & Order. A former high-priced Washington lobbyist, Senator Thompson voted to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to expand the NAU.

The first President Bush introduced NAFTA during his term (1988-1992). At that time, Bush publicly stated his goal for a "New World Order," a phrase used for generations by individuals seeking to control the world through tyranny via a deceptive, gradual process. President Clinton, another New World Order player, as is presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, signed NAFTA in 1993, joining the U.S. with the governments of Canada and Mexico in a developing economic and political union.

Incredibly, John McCain says that NAFTA "was a good idea. It's created millions of jobs and helped the economies of all three nations." He makes this absurd comment in a short November 2007 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86QwI-6T ... re=related.

If NAFTA was such "a good idea," why have millions of Mexicans left their country for America. Why have millions of Americans lost jobs? Why have wages steadily declined in the U.S.?

On Ron Paul's campaign website, www.ronpaul2008.com, the congressman says so-called "free-trade" deals such as NAFTA "are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.... I believe in being friends and I like as much free travel as possible and I like free trade, but I don’t like more government management because it essentially protects big industry."

As for Rudy Giuliani, his law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, represents Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A., the Spanish investment group working with Zachry Construction Company on the Trans-Texas Corridor project, the first leg of the NAFTA Superhighway system. That's why Giuliani looked so uneasy onstage when Paul was talking about the superhighway, which is so key to the North American merger. The government will use the Supreme Court's June 2005 eminent domain ruling to seize millions of acres of land from Americans to build these international, borderless routes. The roads will allow in more illegal aliens, terrorists, and criminals, ruin our economy, and replace American law with "trade" law.

Giuliani's senior foreign policy advisor is CFR member Norman Podhoretz, who promotes perpetual war and is described by the New York Times as "one of the founding fathers of neoconservatism." In his new book "World War IV," Podhoretz proudly declares that the Iraq war will spread to Iran and other countries in the Middle East and "will almost certainly go on for three or four decades." That's 30 to 40 years! What do you think about that?

Ron Paul says the war in Iraq "was sold to us with false information" and "the area is more dangerous now than when we entered it.... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution." (www.RonPaul2008.com)

Podhoretz and others in the CFR-neocon cabal believe in global socialism, endless war, and destroying national sovereignty, which is why they have opened U.S. borders to a flood of millions of illegal aliens. The elites are using illegals to help destroy America's middle class and merge the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

At the same time, the CFR-controlled mainstream corporate media monopoly scares Americans 24 hours a day, babbling about the so-called "war on terror." This phony "war" is an excuse for gradually establishing tighter government controls over every part of our daily lives through congressional and local police-state bills and Bush administration Executive Orders.

A month after Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany in 1933, the Reichstag parliament building was set on fire. Hitler then quickly suspended civil liberties. Some believe the Nazis set the fire to give Hitler an excuse for his crackdown. Whether or not that is true, the fact remains that civil liberties were suspended. German soldiers then ordered citizens to "Show me your papers!"

Such orders are coming to America through the REAL ID-compliant driver's license scheme, thanks again to Congress and the so-called Department of Homeland Security. Mandatory biometric ID cards will carry all sorts of personal data. Federal and state bureaucrats tell us the de facto national ID cards will "fight crime and prevent terrorism." Yet these same public servants refuse to secure our borders and enforce existing immigration laws.

I know only too well how our liberties and privacy are being eroded by unelected enforcers. During a five-day period, I was interrogated by FBI and Secret Service agents while researching and writing my book on immigration anarchy. I was not charged with a crime or arrested, but FBI agents held me against my will and wouldn't let me call a lawyer, thanks to the so-called "Patriot Act." I wrote about the experience in my book's epilogue, titled "My Vacation with the FBI."

Ron Paul has fought for civil liberties for many years. "We must stop the move toward a national ID card system," he says on his campaign website. "I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives."

And please don't tell me Bush "has kept us safe" and the "war on terror" is real. Since 9/11, more than six years ago, the administration and Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) have allowed millions of foreigners, including hundreds of thousands of known felons, dangerous criminals, and untold thousands of potential terrorists, to invade our nation and live among us, with impunity.

As I wrote in my book, T. J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, representing U.S. border agents, told a national conference of immigration experts in December 2004 that 10,000 illegal aliens cross our southern border every day and only about 3,000 are apprehended.

In October 2006, a congressional report titled "A Line in the Sand" stated that "as many as 4 million to 10 million illegal aliens crossed into the United States" from Mexico just in 2005. Based on that report, apparently thousands were from "countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism." The report received virtually no coverage from the CFR-run mass media. I was one of the first to report the mind-blowing numbers in this article.

What legitimate government would let this happen to its own people and country, while repeatedly telling Americans through the "mainstream media" and phony talk-show hosts that we are in a "war on terror"? The answer can only be: A thoroughly corrupt government creating chaos and intent upon ending American sovereignty. The people running our government are not Americans. They are internationalists and only interested in greed, power, and control. In my opinion, many are psychopaths.

Returning briefly to the CNN-YouTube Republican presidential debate on November 28, I have wondered why candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, onstage with Ron Paul, did not speak up and join Paul to oppose the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union.

Paul, Tancredo, and Walter Jones were the first congressmen to co-sponsor Representative Virgil Goode's September 2006 bill demanding that Congress and the president prohibit construction of the superhighway or enter into a North American Union. (Read my news release.) Hunter became a co-sponsor of the bill in 2007. By the end of 2007, more than 40 congressmen had signed on, yet the "mainstream media" and many talk-show personalities still call the North American Union and superhighway a "conspiracy theory."

Here's what Ron Paul says on his campaign website about the North American Union:

"NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme. And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever."

It cannot be stated any clearer than that. No matter how one feels about any other issue, if this merger through so-called "free-trade" agreements and open borders is not stopped, America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and our freedoms will be gone forever. Tens of millions of foreign nationals — including vicious criminals, terrorists, jobs thieves, future welfare recipients, and expectant mothers eager to deliver anchor babies — will destroy our America, and all we hold dear.

As for border security and immigration reform, Paul says on his website that as president he would oppose amnesty, physically secure U.S. borders and coastlines, end birthright citizenship, end welfare for illegal aliens, enforce visa rules, and restore the rule of law.

Those actions would have a monumental impact on the immigration crisis and the North American Union. I believe Paul's promise to America. Throughout his 10-term service in the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul has never voted for a bill unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution, setting him apart from all other congressmen, senators, and presidents in recent decades. In other words, this is an American who actually takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. That proves to me that Paul is honest.

Paul should take even more steps to end illegal immigration, especially in regards to workplace enforcement. He should publicly state that he will enforce laws against the hiring of illegal aliens.

Also, Paul should acknowledge problems due to unprecedented high numbers of legal immigrants. Legal immigration is out of control, thanks once again to Congress, as approximately 1.3 million legal immigrants come to the U.S. every year, compared with America's traditional level of about 250,000 a year. Paul should oppose chain migration, which generates an endless supply of uneducated, unskilled, high-fertility new immigrants to the U.S. National immigration expert Roy Beck, executive vice president of NumbersUSA, says this about chain migration:

"Ending chain migration is the single most effective action for reducing negative immigration impacts. Chain migration breeds all kinds of illegal immigration among extended family who feel they have an entitlement to immigrate and don't wait their turn. Chain migration multiplies the harm of every immigration action by allowing each new immigrant and refugee to eventually import huge extended families and eventually whole villages."

But remember this extremely important point: There would not be an illegal-alien invasion if the Council on Foreign Relations were not working through the White House and Congress to merge Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into a social, economic, and political union. If the North American Union is not stopped, America will disappear forever.

Finally, have you noticed that the U.S. financial system is collapsing? This is because the U.S. has had a pure fiat ("on faith") money system since the early 1970s, when the Nixon administration took us off the gold standard, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The gold standard stood in the way of big government spending on welfare programs, wars, and empire.

The Federal Reserve, a private bank run by global bankers, prints dollars backed by nothing. Congress spends, and spends, and spends those dollars. The Fed prints more of this paper, with nothing to support its value, and the dollar continues to collapse. Talking heads now report that the U.S. is more than $9 trillion in debt. The day of reckoning is coming and it isn't going to be pretty.

Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve. He also wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with reduced spending. (See Aaron Russo's DVD, "Freedom to Fascism," for more information: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/).

"We need a new method to prioritize our spending," says Paul. "It's called the Constitution of the United States."

After spending years studying and writing about the takeover of America, and the CFR's plans to destroy our beloved nation, I believe presidential candidate Ron Paul's plan to restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights offers the only viable plan to save America.

I strongly endorse Ron Paul for President!

To learn more about Ron Paul, visit his website at www.ronpaul2008.com. I also recommend an article by Chuck Baldwin titled "Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul?"

Note from author Dan Sheehy: I do not pay dues to any club, group, or organization. I was not paid to write this article, nor did anyone ask me to write it. I do not belong to a Ron Paul Meetup Group, although I may join one. I do not work for the Ron Paul Campaign. I am a registered Republican but understand that both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by the same organization, the Council on Foreign Relations.

Paul supporters are in fine company!


The Muslim Observer endorsed Congressman Ron Paul in the Michigan Republican primary.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008

The Muslim Observer, a newspaper based in Michigan, came down on the side of the presidential candidacy of Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. "The Muslim community in Michigan has a unique opportunity to beat the pundits by voting as a block for Ron Paul as the Republican candidate".

The newspaper added "Ron Paul meets the Muslim community's major concern about War in Iraq - an issue that every media outlet has ignored in the primary political campaign in Michigan. To the Muslim community, it is the source of major problems in America - security, jobs, education, healthcare, etc.; and the world peace. The Republican candidate who voted NO against War in Iraq, is against the Patriot Act and is in favor of bringing the troops back home - deserves our full support in the Michigan Primary".

The Democratic primary in Michigan allows voters to choose only Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, while the Republican primary allows voters to choose from a variety of candidates, including Congressman Paul, Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Mike Huckabee, and Senator John McCain.

The Muslim Observer opined to its readers, "The Muslim community must very honestly understand that the system of governance in this country follows in the same general direction, irrespective of who is in leadership. With Democrats, the paths may be less treacherous than if the Republicans are in power, but are leading in the same direction! Unless the system gets an overhaul, there will be very little change in the way whole system operates in this country".

Urging its Muslim readers to get out and vote in Michigan's January 15th primary, The Muslim Observer said "The Muslim community's failure to recognize the importance of primary elections and their vital role in the overall elections process will mean that this year, as usual, a small minority of voters will make decisions for everyone else and the outcome most likely will not be pleasant for the American Muslims. Let's beat the odds, let's vote."
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article. ... n+Michigan

Originally Posted by zeezil

Why I Joined the 'Ron Paul Revolution'
by Daniel Sheehy
January 14, 2008

...I strongly endorse Ron Paul for President!

To learn more about Ron Paul, visit his website at www.ronpaul2008.com. I also recommend an article by Chuck Baldwin titled "Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul?":
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com:80/c200 ... 108.html...

The article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin, "Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul":
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20080108.html

Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul?
by Chuck Baldwin
January 8, 2008

What is it about Ron Paul that the Establishment finds so disturbing?

This is a man who perhaps personifies Christian character and integrity, American patriotism, and family values more than any other public figure. Ron Paul is a committed family man whose marriage to Carol has lasted for more than 50 years. He is a lover of families and children. As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies into this world. His life demonstrates a commitment to life and marriage.

Furthermore, Ron Paul's devotion to Christ is very personal and deep. Unlike many politicians (especially in the Republican Party), Ron Paul does not wear his religion on his sleeve. He doesn't need to. Anyone who knows him knows his faith is exhibited on a daily basis. His life and family are testaments to his Christian faith.

Beyond that, Ron Paul's record in Congress is so unblemished, so honest, so full of integrity that it is difficult to describe. This is a man who actually takes his oath to the Constitution (an oath every congressman, senator, and President also takes--but then ignores) seriously. So much so that he has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a congressional pay raise, never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, and never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government.

In addition, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. Even though he is a 10-term congressman, he is not accepting a government pension. He also returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. No wonder Ron Paul was declared to be the "Taxpayer's Best Friend."

Now, how in the name of common sense can a man such as Ron Paul be hated? Maybe it is because he is a man of integrity and honesty. Remember, our Lord said that men who love darkness hate the light. And if there is a word that describes the Establishment in America today, it is DARKNESS.

Name it: the establishment Democrat and Republican Parties, the establishment media, the establishment financial institutions, and even the establishment churches all seem to be run by people who exude the power of darkness. It should not surprise us, therefore, when a man arises who personifies the light of integrity and honesty, that the powers that be should hate him--and hate Ron Paul they do.

Conservative Republican Ron Paul is loathed as much by members of his own party as he is by liberal Democrats. Even though he is the epitome of a Christian gentleman, Ron Paul is despised by Christians and pastors as much as he is by pagans--maybe more. The media despises him--especially Fox News. The so-called conservative Fox News celebrity Sean Hannity practically goes ballistic at the mere mention of Dr. Paul's name.

Ron Paul has been categorized with the Ku Klux Klan, brothel owners, and Skin Heads. He has been called practically every name in the book. Conservatives and liberals alike rail against Dr. Paul in a manner never seen before in modern politics. Again, why does the Establishment hate him so much? I'll tell you why.

The Establishment hates Ron Paul because his honesty and integrity expose the rest of them for the moral reprobates they are. Their own conscience cannot bear the sight of him. His very presence condemns them. Their personal greed and ambition cringe at the very thought of Ron Paul. If Dr. Paul became President, the Gig would be up! It would be Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday at Tombstone all over again. They know it, and they will fight like mad to keep their corrupt stranglehold on American politics.

Another reason the Establishment hates Ron Paul is because he is a true American--and there are not very many true Americans left in Washington, D.C., these days. You see, Ron Paul has read and studied American history. He understands constitutional government. He knows what real money is--and is not. As historian and author Thomas DiLorenzo said, Ron Paul is a modern-day Thomas Jefferson. (See his column at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo137.html )

Unfortunately, most of what we have in Washington, D.C., these days (in both parties) is a bunch of internationalists who cannot see past their own selfish interests. They are consumed with greed and power. They are slaves to Big Business and special interest groups. They are petty, shallow hirelings who care nothing for constitutional government, the principles of liberty, or the American people. To them, Ron Paul represents everything they hate: limited government, freedom, selflessness, humility, and integrity.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is not interested in creating a world empire. Neither is he a warmonger. He would squash the burgeoning New World Order in its tracks--and the globalists ensconced in Washington and New York City know it.

There is only one Presidential candidate who would bring a modern-day revolution to Washington, D.C., and it is not Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee. It is Ron Paul. Obama and Huckabee--along with the rest of the Democrat and Republican contenders--are only more of the same. The same Nanny State, the same unconstitutional laws and regulations, the same advances toward global government, the same attacks against individual liberties, the same arrogance, the same hypocrisy, the same social programs, the same back-breaking taxes, the same jack-booted federal police tactics, the same IRS, the same lobbyists, and the same corrupt Washington politics.

That the Establishment would hate Ron Paul should not surprise us. It does not even surprise me that many pastors and Christians despise Ron Paul. (After all, many of them still worship at the altar of George W. Bush.) What is yet to be seen is, How will the American people receive him? His strong showing in Iowa surprised most of the "experts." I believe he will do even better in New Hampshire today. How Dr. Paul's campaign fares in future primaries is still to be seen.

Should Ron Paul fail in his bid to become the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, I believe it is critically important that he continue his bid as a Third Party candidate. His campaign is more than a campaign--it is a movement. People by the thousands and money by the millions is pouring in, and it will continue to pour in all the way to the general election. It is essential that Ron Paul stays in the race all the way to November.

Remember, when Abraham Lincoln won in 1860, there were four strong Presidential candidates, and Lincoln won with just 39% of the popular vote. With New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg seriously considering an independent bid for the White House, and if Ron Paul, likewise, runs as a Third Party candidate, 2008 could see another race with four strong Presidential contenders. In such a case, anything is possible--including a Ron Paul victory.

The fact is, Ron Paul does not need the support of the Establishment to win. With God's help--and with the help of millions of fed-up and tireless average Joes--anything is possible. Anything.

Here is another thing: the fact that the Establishment hates Ron Paul so much must mean that there is ample reason for ordinary people like you and me to love him!

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, please send your check or Money Order to:

Chuck Baldwin Live
P.O. Box 37070
Pensacola, Florida 32526

© Chuck Baldwin

Such a great article I should have just put this all in bold!