Lifestyle > Train of Thought

The Awaking and Realization That Ron Paul Sold You Out, and Obama Sold Me Out

(1/5) > >>

M Dogg™:
Let's lay down some guild lines, I still don't believe in this New World Order, Illuminati, dollar bill type shit. But I do think something is up in Washington. As I get older, and my college friends get deeper into their careers, I have really good friends in Washington, I mean really really good friends. I have friends that have direct contact with people in Obama's cabinet, who are the right hand person for a senator, or congressman. These are Washington insiders who work directly with people you see in the news everyday. Talking to them, visiting Washington, I have learned more about Washington and the people that work in it than I ever could imagine. Notice I didn't say run Washington. Here is what I have learned.

Throw out Democrats and Republicans right now, although it actually means something, this is not important to what I'm about to say. Democrat and Republican mean something in congress, it's huge. There is so much going on it's sad. Everything you see on TV in the news, yes these people are dysfunctional. But that's not the important part. What's important is that senators and representatives are allowed to stay on too long. Here is the problem, the longer they stay, the more and more corrupt they become. Washington is a place that can easily corrupt you, and once you are corrupt, you are now useless to the people you serve.

The Tea Party has NO idea how government works. I had a friend attend a Tea Party meeting, and it was basically the Tea Party leaders yelling at congress people that they have failed and that they have not repealed Obamacare, they have not cut taxes yet. Basically the Tea Party thought after 2010, that the Tea Party would run over the Democrats. The Democrats have the same type of people on the other side, not the corrupt people, but liberal warriors like Dennis Kucinich, Barney Sanders, Mike Gravel in the 70's, these are real deal liberals who actually believe they are doing the right thing for the country. Now the Tea Party is the real deal group who also think they are doing right by their country. But the people who are actually trying to do right are the ones basically cancelling each other out. And there is a huge chunk in the middle who are only out for themselves, think Ted Kennedy, Joe Libermann, John McCain, Barney Frank, and the list goes on and on. These people set the agenda, they are the ones who basically run congress. The peoples house is ran by people who have been in too long. Congress can truly represent the people, it's impossible to control who gets into congress. Of course the belief is that no one has to buy seats when the establishment is fairly certain any normal person would eventually become corrupted by Washington's culture. Most people's senator or representative can be contacted, and for the most part they listen. But some of you know, if your congress person has so many years in the house or senate, they are out of touch with their state, their district and reality.

The White House has a set agenda. Everyone who has meet Obama has said the same thing, his the most approachable guy they've meet, he knows your name and remembers it very quickly and he loves to joke. He also comes off as the most intelligent man you've ever meet. Also, everyone said is very genuine when he talks. The people around him are also suppose to be the same way. But no matter how much Obama looks you in the eye, agrees with you and said he'll make it better, it never gets better. The White House does not seem to be ran by Obama, but everyone else around him. He has people around him who do not fit his ideals, yet these people make the decisions and Obama comes off as this hero for the middle class but in reality does nothing he said he'd do. Something controls the White House, something sets the agenda and something controls what the president does. And it's not the president. This leads me to my next thing.

The president is a figure head. The reason nothing much has changed from Bush to Obama as far as how the presidency is done, is because something is setting what the president does. Obama maybe one of the smartest men that people have meet, but his not the one controlling the country. His just the figure head. Under Obama, we still could go to war any second, even though Obama himself is against war. Under Obama, even though he truly believes in investing in education, and even proposed to increase funding education, at the end of the day his budget will always flat fund education. Obama is not acting on how he believes, his acting on how someone is telling him to act. So how did we get such a president.

Well looking at who runs for president, there is always these characteristics. The establishment who are the gate keepers of the White House allow certain people to run. If they like you, you can run. They allow certain people to run as a voice different than theirs so that people can believe we have a democracy. Ron Paul in 2008, Mike Gravel in 2008, Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008, Michele Bachmann in 2012. They are not part of the establishment, but the establishment allows them to voice themselves so you think you are being represented. In order to actually be a serious person for president though, you have to sell yourself. Clinton in 1992 was sat down and told how his presidency was going to go. Bush was already connected and Dick Cheney even made himself vice-president. Obama, not sure but I'm getting a full idea talking to my insider friends. It sounds like his cabinet was chosen for him coming in, so he might have been picked once he started to pull away from Clinton. It's said Hillary is not in good health right now, and that might have been known going in so Obama was her replacement. But the presidency is basically theater. Enjoy the show.

And yes, Ron Paul sold out. Rand Paul is the talk to be a serious VP candidate. Ron Paul's goal is his son's future more so than the people. Paul was a warrior, but he wants his son to finally get to where he couldn't get to. I know a person who not only knows Rand Paul, but rode from Kentucky to Washington DC with him. She talked to him about many issues, and he seemed to agree. The moment they got to Washington, he got out the car and simply said to her, "Ma'am I think you made wonderful points, but I just can't  buy it." Paul's issues are not his own, they are set by someone who is grooming him to use his father's name to unite the Republican Party in the next 8 years. It might be this year as a VP candidate, or in 2016. The same in the Democrat said is being talked about, but Hillary is said to not be doing well. One friend said she looked "dead." So if Paul is not on the ticket this year, look for Obama to win, if Paul is on the ticket this year, look for Romney to win.

Oh yeah, your vote counts, it really does. But don't think it matters on the national level. The president's agenda is already set. Obama hasn't talked tough on gas prices, why? Because he can't do anything about it. The guys running, they know that too. In congress you have to find honest people who are in the representative positions. The establishment counts on people selling their souls for power. Most congressmen and women do. The establishment lets your Ron Pauls and Dennis Kucinichs do what they do, because for everyone of them, there are 10 who sold their soul. It's just the facts of life.

Now I am very involved in my local Democratic Party. I am a committee member, I am a director of our PAC, now Super PAC. I can honestly say, local politics is honest politics, except for those that grab power and try to control it. From what I'm learning, this is the best action, because it's locally that determines who gets sent nationally. So there is hope, but it takes everyone actually getting involved, not just on this board but nationally. And that's something the establishment knows will never happen.

V2DHeart:
It doesn't matter. No one will ever get to be president and run things regardless if they're honest at local level and work their way up whilst keeping their unsold "souls" in tact... If people, namely presidents try to go against the system, what tend to happen is huge successful smear campaigns, or assassinations. JFK talked about getting the white house back, about giving the country back and about these 'secret societies', and look what happened. No one has dared on that level ever again to go against the higher authority, and Ron Paul never would either if he were to become president

virtuoso:

Come on, m dogg, the financial collapse was engineered to bring about an EU which becomes the defacto European state.
They told the italian people and the greek people that they do not decide who run their respective countries when they appointed technocrats (this is just a word for brought in through dictatorial means).

It's all about bringing a new order to the world, this is what the financial times wrote in 2008....you can choose not to "believe" but real changes are taking place.
We all know too that to all intents and purposes that the american constitution has now been eviscerated.....


I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A "world government" would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a "global war on terror".

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: "For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible." Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But - the third point - a change in the political atmosphere suggests that "global governance" could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America's president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration's disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: "When the world's sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following." The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America's ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama's transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America's talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, "responsible sovereignty" - when calling for international co-operation - rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, "shared sovereignty". It also talks about "global governance" rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: "Global governance is just a euphemism for global government." As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the "core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law".

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for "global governance" in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who - while they might like to talk about "a planet in peril" - are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this "problem" also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU - the heartland of law-based international government - the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for "ever closer union" have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians - and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world's most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen's political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

jeromechickenbone:
Congrats on at least opening your eyes a bit, although you are heavily brainwashed and still buy into false paradigms like repub vs dem. Someday you will realize that they are controlled by the same people, they just provide the illusion of choice. Its a play on the tribal mentality aka my team is better than yours, an highlighting superficial differences (gay marriage, abortion) while concealing that they all agree on a fiat currency enslavement system, pro war, pro spending, biggggg government, etc.

BOTH PARTIES ARE IN AGREEMENT ON MUCH MORE THAN THEY TELL YOU ON TV.

Bush and Obama agree on 98% philosophically.

The US has been fascist (merging of corporation and govt as defined by Mussolini), and both sides serve that cause. This is not a new development at all.

jeromechickenbone:
Just read some more...

So Ron sold out because his son is popular? Wrong. Rand is indeed no Ron, more hawkish and influenced by Israel. Ron is not. Rand is MUCH more palatable to the establishment than Ron.

And FYI, your vote doesn't count. Stalin said it doesn't matter who votes, it's who counts the votes. Electronic anonymous voting is the norm because it allows the counters to defraud the voters for their ends. I'm sorry you believe that it makes a difference.

Ron Paul will consistently have 4000+ at his rallies the night before primaries, where others get a couple dozen, yet miraculously 1000s manifest to vote for any candidate but Ron.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page