TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Support for Ron Paul from the John Birch Society (34 posts)

  1. truthmod

    A Constitutionalist Speaks Out

    Dr. Ron Paul, a physician specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, first served in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s before voluntarily relinquishing his House seat to return to his medical practice. He returned to Congress in 1997, where he represents the 14th District of Texas, a section of the Gulf Coast.

    Ron Paul consistently earns 100 percent ratings in this magazine's biannual "Conservative Index," which rates all members of Congress based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. Paul, who is now exploring running for president as a Republican, formed a presidential exploratory committee earlier this year.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. Victronix

    Like Bush . . .

    Ron Paul is pro-oil and anti-alternative energy, wants to get rid of bodies like the Dept of Education (not Dept of Defense) and the UN (Luckily he couldn't get rid of the UN if he tried). Yet "truther" zombies follow him.

    It reminds of the Howard Dean zombies from 2004 -- he would change major positions depending on the audience and it was documented, but he'd figured out how he could get a huge internet zombie crowd with hot button issues for the left, even though it was mostly fake when you actually read his positions.

    The Dean zombies would spill out onto the indymedia sites whenever Dean was in a local town and I noticed that the dialog was robotic - literally - there was a formula they were following to discuss things. People figured it out pretty quickly once it was exposed and rejected them, but it was a revolting feeling.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. christs4sale

    I am definitely not one to jump on to the Ron Paul bandwagon either. An interesting, short history of the John Birch Society can be read here:

    They even have a quote from Ron Paul praising the John Birch Society towards the bottom. Unfortunately, I could not verify the quote from a better source. To read the overall world-views and philosophies of the John Birch Society and to see how similar they are to Alex Jones' world-views and philosophies is very revealing.

    Read: Power Shift by Kirkpatrick Sale, Power on the Right by William Turner, Yankee and Cowboy War by Carl Oglesby and Deep Politics and the Death of JFK by Peter Dale Scott for more info on this topic.

    These books go into how the Birch Society was created in the late 50s by the new money (Hunt, Welch, Murchison, etc), which was (and in many ways still is) culturally divided from the old money (Rockefellers, Morgans, Harrimans, etc). It was largely used as a populist smokescreen to place the blame on everything wrong in the society on the old money families and institutions and to take the heat off of its founders and those close to them.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. truthmover

    Great Post

    Welcome to the forum christs4sale, and thanks for the information. Your link provides us with a pretty clear picture of the John Birch Society and I wanted to encourage people to read more about this by providing some quotes from the article. I suppose my big question at this point is how influential JBS is at present. The Libertarian movement is highly diverse in ideology and strategy. Are a lot of Libertarians following their lead, or is this more about how it all got started?

    The John Birch Society was established by Robert Welch in 1958. The organization was named after Captain John Birch, a member of the China Air Task Force murdered by Chinese communists on 25th August, 1945.

    Welch made it clear he wanted a "secret, monolithic organization" that would "operate under completely authoritative control at all levels". Welch explained that "democracy is merely a deceptive phrase, a weapon of demagoguery, and a perennial fraud".

    Welch believed that Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower, were part of a communist conspiracy.

    Welch claimed that the Republican Party had been infiltrated by secret supporters of a communist conspiracy.

    The John Birch Society was also opposed to the Civil Rights movement.

    The John Birch Society called on its members to urge Congress to stop foreign aid. It also campaigned against attempts by those organizations trying to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA). The JBS was also totally opposed to the United Nations, an organization it claimed was involved in "an insidious scheme to establish a tyrannical world government".

    And finally...

    The John Birch Society has some supporters in Congress. Ron Paul of Texas recently argued:"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate."

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. truthmod

    This is not a good look for Ron Paul. Luckily for him, most of Alex Jones' followers don't delve too deeply into Ron Paul's background, ideology, or associations.

    Strange, you have a significant number (or maybe just loud and visible) of "9/11 truthers" screaming their heads off in support of Ron Paul and barely anyone is questioning what this guy really stands for. Well, I guess that's what TruthMove is for.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. truthmod

    NYTimes profile of Ron Paul:

    Relevant excerpts:

    Thin to the point of gauntness, polite to the point of daintiness, Ron Paul is a 71-year-old great-grandfather, a small-town doctor, a self-educated policy intellectual and a formidable stander on constitutional principle. In normal times, Paul might be — indeed, has been — the kind of person who is summoned onto cable television around April 15 to ventilate about whether the federal income tax violates the Constitution. But Paul has in recent weeks become a sensation in magazines he doesn’t read, on Web sites he has never visited and on television shows he has never watched.

    What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.” Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his connections to the John Birch Society. “Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people. . . . ”

    Paul’s ideological easygoingness is like a black hole that attracts the whole universe of individuals and groups who don’t recognize themselves in the politics they see on TV. To hang around with his impressively large crowd of supporters before and after the CNN debate in Manchester, N.H., in June, was to be showered with privately printed newsletters full of exclamation points and capital letters, scribbled-down U.R.L.’s for Web sites about the Free State Project, which aims to turn New Hampshire into a libertarian enclave, and copies of the cult DVD “America: Freedom to Fascism.”

    Last winter at a meet-the-candidate house party in New Hampshire, students representing a group called Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth asked Paul whether he believed the official investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks was credible. “I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation,” Paul replied, “because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.” The exchange was videotaped and ricocheted around the Internet for a while. But Paul’s patience with the “Truthers,” as they call themselves, does not make him one himself. “Even at the time it happened, I believe the information was fairly clear that Al Qaeda was involved,” he told me.

    One evening in mid-June, 86 members of a newly formed Ron Paul Meetup group gathered in a room in the Pasadena convention center. It was a varied crowd, preoccupied by the war, including many disaffected Democrats. Via video link from Virginia, Paul’s campaign chairman, Kent Snyder, spoke to the group “of a coming-together of the old guard and the new.” Then Connie Ruffley, co-chairwoman of United Republicans of California (UROC), addressed the crowd. UROC was founded during the 1964 presidential campaign to fight off challenges to Goldwater from Rockefeller Republicanism. Since then it has lain dormant but not dead — waiting, like so many other old right-wing groups, for someone or something to kiss it back to life. UROC endorsed Paul at its spring convention.

    That night, Ruffley spoke about her past with the John Birch Society and asked how many in the room were members (quite a few, as it turned out). She referred to the California senator Dianne Feinstein as “Fine-Swine,” and got quickly to Israel, raising the Israeli attack on the American Naval signals ship Liberty during the Six-Day War. Some people were pleased. Others walked out. Others sent angry e-mails that night. Several said they would not return. The head of the Pasadena Meetup group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters asking for guidance:

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. truthmod

    Hmmm. I guess we're the infidels for not having "faith" in Alex Jones:

    Re: Ron Paul's denial of support/affinity for the 9/11 truth movement

    I think everyone is making too much of this.

    If Ron Paul came out and said "9/11 was an inside job", he would be smeared until he was completely out of the race.

    Also, Alex Jones has come out and said that he knows of prominent people who think 9/11 was an inside job, however will not say anything to the public because these people have trusted him with their beliefs. And seeing as Ron Paul consistently goes on the Alex Jones Radio Show, it is entirely possible that Paul has secretly told Jones that he knows 9/11 was an inside job. I mean just look at Alex Jones's websites-- they are covered with Ron Paul stuff. Don't you think Alex Jones would have to hear it for himself that a candidate believes 9/11 was an inside job to support him? I think we all just need to have a little faith that Alex knows what he is doing.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. imgstacke

    So does that mean members of the JBS are not allowed to participate in the political process? And if so does that mean anyone they support should automatically be shunned from consideration?

    Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too. Voltaire, Essay on Tolerance

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. truthmod

    The JBS has historically employed fascist strategies to attack and sabotage progressive groups on the American Left. They have also been shown to have military and intelligence connections to varying degrees. This is an extremist, fascist organization which should be treated with much skepticism. There may be many "honest libertarians" involved, but the history and structure of the organization is totally suspect.

    Fascists should not be allowed to participate in the political process because they don't believe in an honest, democratic political process, they will subvert it to consolidate their own power.

    Western Goals drew on both private and official government files to become one of the largest and most influential private intelligence operations in the U.S. According to GroupWatch, Western Goals was able to bypass legal restraints placed on government intelligence agencies:

    ...groups like Western Goals allow "the ultra-right [to keep] tabs on its 'subversive' domestic opposition..."(10) In Western Goals' case, this service was apparently not performed only for like-minded private groups. Elton Manzione quotes an East Coast police intelligence source as saying that Western Goals had a reputation of acting as a "clearinghouse" for some police departments whose intelligence- collecting functions were restricted by laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. Manzione noted that both the CIA and National Security Agency have received information from John Rees' Information Digest (see below). (8)...According to a 1976 investigation by the New York Assembly's Office of Legislative Oversight, Information Digest was supplying information to the FBI, CIA, and the National Security Agency. 13.

    It claims to strenuously defend what they see as the original intention of the U. S. Constitution. The group promotes the idea that America is founded on Christian principles (or their interpretation thereof), and supports a strong Christian influence in culture and government. It is anti-leftist, particularly anti-socialist and anti-communist. The JBS has a conspiratorialist view of history. It is also anti-globalization and for immigration reform. JBS advocates the abolition of income tax, and the repeal of civil rights legislation, which it sees as being Communist in inspiration.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. imgstacke

    Even the most closed minded, bigoted, and delusional of the bunch have the right to participate. That's the whole point. For if they are not protected, then we are not protected.

    I am not arguing for the sake of arguing - just trying to illustrate a point, a lesson I have just recently learned from reading the constitution with the knowledge I have accumulated recently. I see why this country was once Great.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. truthmover

    Ya got me thinking

    Participate is what? You kind of left me hanging there. You seem to be arguing for the basic inclusion of all viewpoints in a democracy. You won't find any argument with that here. And when were you thinking this country was great? I'm certainly a fan of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but actualizing their intent has been a work in progress all along. And a lot of people have sacrificed and died for that progress which so many of us now take for granted. Maybe you could expand on your thoughts a bit. You made me have some thoughts.

    These people have the right to express themselves, and I will do the same in saying they have no place in a movement for truth. A movement for truth would naturally be exclusive based on its central logical priority. Promote facts. People who don't know what facts are, or who can't separate their facts from their ideology, may not be prepared to participate in the movement. One thing that helps is a strong appreciation for the definitions of science, history, and journalism.

    Our concern for democratic principles is evident throughout our website. So is our intent to distinguish between fact and fallacy/ideology. We express an ideology. But its centered in the basic principle of informed consent. We believe that its good for people to know more facts directly relevant to their lives. That's non-partisan as its universal. If your ideology is based on universal priorities, or if this ideology is your highest priority among others, then you are committed to setting aside your personal bias at times, in the interest of something a lot bigger than yourself, or your nation.

    Maybe that fills in the picture a bit. We're not trying to exclude anyone from America, but we are certainly minding the boundaries of the Truth Movement. Any thoughts on this?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. christs4sale

    I don't think anyone has said that bigoted and close-minded people can not participate in the system, I think we are just connecting a political candidate to an organization that offers a bankrupt, selfish vision of the world and has had key, influential members that have been connected to the assassinations of Kennedy (please read chapter 13 in Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK") and King (Chapter 4 of William Pepper's "An Act of State").

    Truthmod, here is an excellent Mae Brussell interview going more into Western Goals and its founder, Larry McDonald, who died on KAL 007 in 1983.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. truthmod

    Fellow Travelers

    I've posted this before, but it's worth repeating in this context. How do people reconcile the fact that Pat Robertson wrote a book called "New World Order" in which he expounds on the globalist, illuminati, Masons, UN, Rockefeller, etc. etc. plot?

    (BTW, I didn't mean to suggest that John Birchers, etc. should be barred from the political process, but rather that their secrecy, manipulations, deceptions, possible crimes, and anti-democratic attitude should be revealed and their fascist ideology should not be tolerated or trusted. If we are tolerant of the intolerant there will be no tolerance left.)

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. christs4sale

    New-found respect for Webster Tarpley

    In his new article on 9/11 Blogger, he has some excellent criticisms of Ron Paul. I have not agreed with all of Tarpley's moves in the past, but he really hits the nail on the head here. Ron Paul will not deal with the fundamental problem of concentration of wealth.

    Republican Ron Paul, interviewed on August 10 after the close by the infamous Kudlow, blamed the credit market panic on interest rates which had been too low. Paul should recall that any interest rates above 5%, as charged on these mortgages, are historically very high. (During World War II, for example, successful New Deal policies allowed a typical 2% yield for a 10-year Treasury note, with other rates in line with that.) Paul was adamant that there be no bailout, but did not distinguish between help for ordinary people facing foreclosure and eviction on the one hand, and bailouts for predatory financier sharks on the other. His only advice was to “let the market liquidate bad debt and bad investment” – which, under current conditions, will mean that more than 10 million people will be thrown out on the street during the next few months. One hears an echo of monetarist Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury, whose advice on how to deal with the Great Depression was “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate real estate….” Those on the receiving end of such “creative destruction,” as Schumpeter called it, have generally lost their enthusiasm for monetarism.

    Paul mocked warnings that “poor people are losing their homes” – a sadly Dickensian moment, since that is just what is happening to ten million Americans. When asked how much he would like to cut federal spending, Paul said that under his presidency it would come down by “50-60-70%” – figures which seem to bode ill for the future of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, WIC, Head Start, S-CHIP (medical care for poor children), TANF (what is left of welfare for mothers with dependent children), and other programs which keep many Americans alive. The Republican line from Giuliani to Paul is that these institutions are part of the hated “nanny state.” When asked for specifics about what he would cut, Paul mentioned the abolition of the Department of Education, a favorite target of Republicans. Does that include Pell grants and federal support for subsidized Stafford loans, which are the only way the ghetto poor and much of the middle class can hope to send their children to college? No help here for victims of the current economic breakdown crisis, but Kudlow said that this approach would be well received on Wall Street..

    GOPer Ron Paul has said that he admires the late Ohio Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican,” who was like many in his family a member of Skull and Bones. One wonders if this admiration includes Taft’s sponsorship of the infamous union-busting Taft-Hartley Act, which has allowed many southern states to effectively block union organizing with so-called “right to work” laws, thus greatly facilitating the demolition of the US labor movement over recent decades. Taft-Hartley has been the key to the race to the bottom in wages and working conditions in this country. It should be repealed and replaced with a modern version of the pro-labor Wagner Act, which made it easier for workers to organize, bargain collectively, and defend themselves. Repeal of Taft-Hartley would be a first step towards rolling back the low-wage Walmart-McDonalds model for the US economy.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. truthmod

    Exactly, this is the angle that needs to be brought out into the light. Libertarians in general, and Ron Paul in particular, do not stand for an equal society; they stand for greater freedom for the rich and powerful (those who naturally "rise to the top" through "free markets" and competition). It's the philosophy of Ayn Rand, after all.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. truthmod

    Will any of the 9/11 truth people drop their support for Ron Paul after reading this. Ron Paul is a veteran congressman; he's not the naive, bumbling, down-home guy he portrays himself as. He knows what's going on and what he's doing.

    Between the Ron Paul crowd and the disinformation/disruption specialists, the "9/11 truth movement" is becoming something I don't even want to be associated with.

    From Paul's newsletter:

    "The Earth Summit is the creepiest meeting of politicos since the first gathering of Bolsheviks. Officially known as the UN Conference for Environment and Development, it will be held in Brazil in June; bad guys from all over the globe will attend."

    "Black males age 13 that have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary, and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

    Although "we are told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

    "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. truthmod

    Between the Ron Paul crowd and the disinformation/disruption specialists, the "9/11 truth movement" is becoming something I don't even want to be associated with.

    Those of us who understand these distinctions need to be loud and visible so that other reasonable people can understand that the 9/11 truth movement is not defined by the above.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  18. truthmod

    Ron Paul appears in this video along with the president of the JBS.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  19. Victronix

    Between the Ron Paul crowd and the disinformation/disruption specialists, the "9/11 truth movement" is becoming something I don't even want to be associated with.

    Ever notice that you never feel this sickened by most other activist efforts? There's probably a reason for that. You have to put up a firewall to the nonsense in whatever way that you can feel comfortable putting out your own truth, a human right. Sometimes walking away is the only way, but when I went through the scholars debacle I understood that the purpose of the abuse and lunacy is just that -- to entice you to go elsewhere, anywhere, just to get away from it. The committee literally disappeared following weeks of exposure to abusive emails up to 10 a day. That's what they want.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  20. I really do love you guys! It's like we are the only ones in the movement who really do "get it!" It's exciting and I hope that we all can build on our philosophies and wisdom. About Ron Paul - I'm not exaggerating when I say that EVERY 911 truther that I know is a full supporter of Ron Paul. When I hear "SUPPORT RP," it sickens and angers me every time. It is as if our movement is being sold out!

    We cannot;however, allow immaturity and lack of critical thinking (however unintentional it may be) to hijack our movement. 9/11 Truth is too important! We must push forward with new ambitious ideas and lead by example.

    What troubles me with this movement is the lean towards this right wing ideology. ex - RP and Alex Jones. Where are the Kucinich supporters??? Kucinich has been FIGHTING for many years for social justice, truth, and equality, yet most truthers would trample him to hell to run up and hug RP. Most of these ideologies will not help us one bit as far as alternatives are concerned. What I would like to see is a great rise and resurgence in progressive truth and justice groups both in our movement and outside, that promote social equality and justice, complete transformation to alternative energy, and so on. I think that Truthmove should lead the way in this great and ambitious effort! Truthmove is an org that I would feel proud working with to achieve that.

    I am just so troubled in the direction that this (911) movement is going right now.


    Posted 10 years ago #
  21. truthmover

    Welcome Dele and thank you.

    Your right on time. The TM forum is seeing much greater participation, and from some very thoughtful and informed participants in the movement who seem to 'get it' as you say. I use that term privately, as it can seem a bit haughty, but none the less, it does seem like some people just don't 'get it' when it comes to many of the concerns we are expressing here or even the importance of expressing them.

    Your post very closely echoes the sentiments recently expressed here by many others. You are definitely on the same page with us.

    Regarding the big picture: For anyone not yet hip to our angle, here's the summary. Most progressive movements for change and even some traditionalist groups all have a mutual concern for promoting informed consent (Declaration of Independence) and the inalienable rights necessary for its promotion (First Amendment). We all want the public to examine facts that have been un or under reported by official channels of information. Whether we care about the war, or our elections, or preservation of the Constitution, or the environment, or 9/11 truth, we all want people to be able to make choices for themselves that will greatly impact their present and future with a clear view of what is actually happening.

    The big point being that along side each of our individual, regional, and ideological concerns, there is also a parallel and very potentially unifying concern for our basic right to the truth.

    In developing this project we had a couple of primary motivations. First, that we could find no 9/11 website that presented the issues in both an easily accessible format and also free of fantasy. Second, after having left NY911Truth, we felt responsible to the movement to present its reasonable face, NYC being an important movement location. Third, in creating the project we simply tried to think of the most broad an unifying concept we could. That lead us to promoting a concept that we felt could bridge the gap between the many interest groups we see who all seem to be saying very similar things. But that could not come at the expense of excluding 9/11 truth. That wouldn't have been honest of us.

    Many in the movement are presently trying to build coalition with other movements. 9/11 truth is becoming better accepted, and people in every movement are starting to recognize that it may only be our unified action that is capable of putting a dent in our present course.

    Therefore, I'd like to offer a re-framing of this whole debate about infiltration. Perhaps this broad coalition is essential for the greater promotion of 9/11 truth. In this effort, the face of 9/11 truth we present would only the most responsible. Therefore, those who advance the 'big tent' approach prevent themselves from having the opportunity to form these kinds of coalitions.

    There will inevitably be people who attempt to prevent this kind of coalition. Webster Tarpley's behavior around the Kennebunkport Warning comes to mind. But that does seem to be the direction that many concerned 9/11 truthers are going. The 9/11 truth movement is starting to get a bit too muddy. I like to think of it as the murky swamp of 9/11 speculation. Working with people who are reasonable and committed in other groups allows us to step away from the swamp.

    Then again, we don't have a swamp here at the TM forum, and that gives me hope that the core of the 9/11 truth movement can muster up some unity and make a statement loud and clear that the movement contains a sector that can not easily be dismissed. The most positive strategy of course is to lead by example.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  22. NicholasLevis

    (Can someone tell me how this supposed "Markdown" works? I just want the tags for quoted text, man...)

    This is irresistible...

    Ron Paul gets endorsement from Constitution Party ("God, Family, Republic") as follows:

    I endorse Rep. Ron Paul for President. And I endorse him not because he is the lesser of two evils. A Christian can never endorse any kind of evil. I endorse Rep. Paul because — from a Christian/Biblical and Constitutional perspective – he is, by far, the best candidate running for President.

    — Rep. Paul believes, correctly, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and thus it is not the role of God-ordained civil government, at any level, to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody.*

    — Rep. Paul takes his oath to God as a Congressman seriously and believes, correctly, that the Constitution is the highest man-made law in our land, that it severely restricts what the Federal Government can legally do, and it must be obeyed. This is why, as he states on his campaign web site, he has: never voted to raise taxes; never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a Federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to raise Congressional pay; never taken a government-paid junket; and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

    — Rep. Paul, again correctly, is truly pro-life and believes that there are no circumstances under which it is OK to murder by abortion any innocent unborn babies.

    (I thought, "for I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink, I was homeless and you gave me shelter, I was in prison and you visited me..." Hm.)

    Is this shit true, about him being a "bible-believing" type?

    Anyone care to listen to the interview to confirm this?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  23. truthmod

    Mike Ruppert's friends?

    A Review of Aaron Russo’s America: From Freedom to Fascism

    Michael C. Ruppert

    The film introduces us to experts who have been long-time friends of mine and FTW: Catherine Austin Fitts, Congressman Ron Paul, former IRS agent Sherry Jackson, G. Edward Griffin and more. These are the monetary voices that have been crying in the wilderness.

    You can't judge a person just by their associations, but it is a little weird that Ruppert mentions here G. Edward Griffin along with Ron Paul. Griffin is the author and creator of various works affiliated with the John Birch Society, including This is the John Birch Society; an invitation to membership and The life and words of Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society.

    It's just a bit strange, as Ruppert has a decidedly progressive/liberal outlook, focusing on environmental issues, sustainability, etc. My first ever exposure to Ron Paul came from Ruppert's "Truth and Lies of 9/11" and it seemed like an endorsement of Paul by one of the most senior voices from the 9/11 truth movement. At first, I tended to trust that Ron Paul must be reasonable guy if Ruppert would include him.

    Of course, Ruppert is welcome to associate with anyone he wants, and certain associations may just be about promotional objectives rather than a full endorsement of anyone's ideology...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  24. christs4sale

    Here is an interesting review of an article where John Judge catches Ruppert's affinity for a Bircher:

    Will Banyan also wrote a great article recently in Paranoia Magazine (a magazine that publishes a lot of junk as well) about the Harvard study: "The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy." He puts it in the perspective of class warfare and shows that there is definite opposition to AIPAC within the establishment. It does not seem to be online unfortunately. He shows that the Wall St/Rockefeller/Contragater end of the class is at odds with the AIPAC/Neocon/MIC/AEI end over the war in Iraq and he shows that this has generally been the case with many political issues post-WW2. I do not like looking at this topic always as if there are clear cut teams because I believe it to be more complex and chaotic, but you also can learn a lot about why we see the promotion of political views concerning the New World Order or the Zionist Occupied Government.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  25. CX

    From Robin Hordon:

    Subject: Seattle's WE ARE CHANGE "comes out"...its time for separation

    Dear 9/11 Truthers,

    I am pleased to bring to your attention that the WE ARE CHANGE organization in Seattle has formally come out in support of the Ron Paul Campaign. This can be easily seen on its web site: This "admittance" has happened after Ron Paul's appearance in Seattle, one in which he did not mention the events of 9/11 even once.

    It is now clear that the entire national organization of WE ARE CHANGE is "hijacking" the good intentions of the 9/11 Truth Movement all across the country and the world to help get a certain politician elected president. The net result of this "hijacking" ends up with these WE ARE CHANGER'S have manipulated and created a "fraudulent front" and outright scam for Ron Paul that virtually "uses" the deaths of thousands of US citizens and soldiers, along with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis in very deceitful and disrespectful ways. This is an horrible act of self service.

    The 9/11 Truth Movement is meritorious and exceedingly worthy all in itself, and its goals of seeking the truth and eventual justice, national and or international, for those who perpetrated or allowed the attacks on 9/11 to happen are immensely important. When adding to those goals the continuous work that is being done by the 9/11 Truth Movement to bring to the public's awareness the historical uses of "false-flag-ops" that have been used to "trick" the citizens of this country to go to war in hopes of preventing yet another war effort in IRAN, the 9/11 Truth Movement deserves tremendous credit and should be very proud.

    The 9/11 Truth Movement should be apolitical, yet it should be used as an example of "why" there indeed needs to be some significant changes enacted in this country. To manipulatively and deceitfully narrow that change, or those changes down to a single candidate of any stripe or party is simply unethical, and such actions and associations with WE ARE CHANGE will end up counterproductive to the entire set of goals of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    I call for the 9/11 Truth Movement community to demand that WE ARE CHANGE remove themselves from representing the 9/11 Truth Movement in any way shape or form. The issues of change that Ron Paul and the WE ARE CHANGE organizations stand for should be capable of self-sustainability without walking on the graves of hundreds of thousands of people. They are KNOWINGLY re victimizing victims of 9/11/2001 to suit their own small purposes.

    For those of you who perceive my role at building bridges to the Peace Community, supporting overall election reform, reaching out to the youth of America to get involved in our governance, getting corporate money out of politics and eventually electing politicians who represent us, their constituents, please think again. I do not diminish the victims of the tragic events on 9/11/2001 down to small issues such as a particular candidate for the 2008 US presidential election, instead I raise the bar for the 9/11 Truth Movement's eventual effect upon the world because it is far, far greater a movement than that.

    It is simply inappropriate for WE ARE CHANGE to fraudulently use the events of 9/11/2001 and the momentum of the 9/11 Truth Movement to elect anyone. Clearly we do need significant change in this country and the world, and these changes can be accomplished based upon the strengths and merits of the changes needed, and need NOT ride on the graves of the victims of 9/11 as WE ARE CHANGE is choosing to do.

    I at least applaud and respect the Seattle WE ARE CHANGE group for bringing an end to their own fraudulent and contradictory behavior of being UNTRUTHFUL and DISHONEST about seeking the TRUTH!

    I demand that WE ARE CHANGE immediately stop commingling electing Ron Paul with the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    Love, Peace and Progress with CLEAN ELECTIONS using PAPER BALLOTS

    Robin Hordon

    Posted 10 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.