Can There Be An Honest President? If So, Who?

I never proclaimed Ron Paul to be a savior. He is not running in the next election either so it's moot.

I'm sorry to put you on the defensive. I was simply responding to the OP's original question Can There Be An Honest President? If So, Who? Ron Paul is the clear choice...

I would love to hear your opinion on any topic related to the presidency: Austrian Economics, bipartisanship,terrorism, surveillance, keynesianism,global warming, zionism, taxes,racism, Noble liars, conscription, discrimination, bipartisanship etc...???

a reply to: DuckforcoveR

I do know of a honest president:José MujicaJosé Mujica

originally posted by: knightsofcydonia
Google my friend.

He is neither of the individuals you are referring to.

if you are interested in learning more about Dr. Paul you can check out his book Liberty Defined :

www.amazon.com...

a reply to: DigitalJesusWuang

I had to look him up, but it seems I was right about part. Dr. Paul has some kind of bad history with white supremacy and association with the KKK. It seems it appeared during his most recent attempt at running for president and was of some embarrassment. I see also that Rand Paul is his son and is himself an up-and-comer in politics. Also, Ron Paul is wrinkly old and maybe his closeness to death have caused many to reconsider him as a choice?

a reply to: DigitalJesusWuangWhat does age have to do with it? If you are looking for a pretty boy you would have voted for John Edwards and that would have been a disaster and an embarrassment to the country.

"Dr. Paul" doesn't need to be elected because he is fundamentally out of touch and I don't think would make a good leader. He would probably make a decent Sec of the Treasury and advisor to the president but I don't think he is up to the job himself.

originally posted by: Humanity72
a reply to: DigitalJesusWuangWhat does age have to do with it? If you are looking for a pretty boy you would have voted for John Edwards and that would have been a disaster and an embarrassment to the country.

"Dr. Paul" doesn't need to be elected because he is fundamentally out of touch and I don't think would make a good leader. He would probably make a decent Sec of the Treasury and advisor to the president but I don't think he is up to the job himself.

I thought the days of Americans electing known racists to the office of presidency died off with Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon? I see from US politics that most issues these days is somehow also about race. If some old guy associated with the KKK is not right for president, then maybe Americans should consider not electing him, hmmm?

And what about Hymietown and the Jews? When black leaders cannot be trusted to be tolerant, it speaks volumes too for how far there still is to go for people treating each other with basic dignity.

Who do you want to win the next election for president, and is your candidate realistic?

Focusing too much on Presidents is passive political spectating.

They are just figureheads for behind the scenes decisions.

I'm more interested in what the 7 billion sleeping giants on this planet do tomorrow, than what the pen pushers do.

Social change drives political decisions, not the other way round.

a reply to: samstone11

Short answer: No.

They are paid for and owned by other interests, and those interests would not allow them to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

originally posted by: HiAliens
Focusing too much on Presidents is passive political spectating. They are just figureheads for behind the scenes decisions.

Sometimes it boggles the mind that even on a forum such as ATS, so many appear to be completely oblivious to reality.

The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. ~ Niki Rapaana

The concept of opposites is nothing but a pro-wrestling illusion and a distraction to keep people thinking that we really do have freedom.



You have to break things up into smaller cliques and isolate, alienate, and plant seeds of distrust and hatred in order to destroy a united and collaborating civilization.

Would-be global rulers cannot physically control six and a half billion humans. Therefore, they must use secrecy and deceit. Keep the human herd ignorant and fighting with each other. Divide and conquer – it’s the oldest tactic in the book. And it’s relatively easy if you control the major academic institutions, the political parties and the major mass media (a mere five multinational corporations with interlocking directorships today control everything we see and hear. ~ Jim Marrs

Do The Global Elite Conceal Ancient Aliens?

"Tag team politics means it's the Republicans turn to screw you for a few decades while Democrats pretend to care"

The the Hegelian dialectics which once you take the deductive way of reasoning you see the thesis, antithesis, synthesis all over the globe. When George Bush said: 'Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.' he made a thesis (we the good guys) against the antithesis (they, the bad guys).

Like in All Star Wrestling which was nothing but an exercise in dialectics. Hulk Hogan went from one camp to the other, but there never was a third choice. In propaganda this called a false dilemma. As in reality you can be with both, against both, be neutral with one and with/against the other. All in all, there is many more choices. But people usually fall into the trap and choose one or the other. www.crossroad.to...

The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision for the future.

Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. nord.twu.net...

The Ruling Elite are in conflict with the citizens in America. They simply don’t represent us. These elected officials use the Left v. Right battle to keep the citizens distracted with partisan politics to keep us from holding them accountable for their self-serving decisions. For far too long, Americans have been told they exist only as members of warring camps—as Republican or Democrat, red state or blue, conservative or liberal, right or left, religious or secular, urban or rural, majority, minority and even minority/majority. It’s no coincidence that we are described by these labels—as if these labels defined us—by elites who alone stand to benefit from the very divisions they promote.

If they can convince the rest of us that we are at each other’s throats, on the verge of civil strife, these elites can make us believe our own neighbors are our enemies and that we have nothing in common but our hatred of each other. By herding us into these warring camps, by pitting us against one another, these elites can also distract us from the real forces tearing this society apart—the unaccountable, irresponsible political establishment that now presumes to govern in our name, with no concern for anything but its own interests. By sowing these seeds of distrust, they divide and conquer, and for too long, they have succeeded.

selfgovern.com...

Didn't someone noteworthy say that the Obama-Joker poster was racist? Shame on you...

Jimmy Carter was probably the closest we've come in my lifetime, and it probably won't happen again.

And look what they did/do to him.

As for anyone in politics today? Nope. No one stands a chance. It's a deal with the devil. Not a lot to discuss here.

originally posted by: DigitalJesusWuang
Didn't someone noteworthy say that the Obama-Joker poster was racist? Shame on you...

Are you discriminating against clowns? Because that crap won't fly with me buster clowns are humans too.

To find an honest President, you'd have to select someone who isn't a politician. It would probably even be someone who doesn't want the job. I'd probably select a doctor... someone intelligent, educated, and has faced hard truths with patients before.

I want to comment on John F. Kennedy, in response to those who thought he was an honest and good President.

JFK (like Obama in this regard) had a surface-level charm which enamored many. And, (like Obama), this charm masked his dishonesty and vacuous ignorance. Kennedy had charisma and magnetism, but little else. There is substantial evidence that Kennedy bought votes through mob connections. LBJ of course was just as corrupt, and together they worked the American public over, like the crooks they were, to land the power seat.

JFK's persona was of a young, strong, morally-upright politician. It was all fabrication. He had bad eyesight and wore glasses, but would never be seen in public wearing them. His health was frail from childhood, but this was also masked-over. He wore corsets to keep himself upright. He was on medication (to keep his weight up). He was all gloss, but no substance. While there is nothing wrong with being infirm, the point is, he hid all this from the public. His alleged intellectual abilities were also a fraud. He was a poor student, produced poor work, and skated by in Harvard due to his dad's manipulations. JFK was a fraud in every way, shape and form.

He had zero morals (as was the case with the rest of his family). His marriage to Jackie was cold and unpleasant, but again, they provided the gloss and the smiles for the public. Promiscuity and infidelity are another almost genetic characteristic of Kennedys, and JFK was no different. JFK was involved with several women during his first year of marriage to Jackie. He had prostitutes brought to the White House. This has been confirmed by FBI and Secret Service. For that matter, there is evidence that JFK was married in 1947, and that it was successfully covered-up by his operatives. One of his operatives corroborated this. This would have made his marriage to Jackie bigamy.

JFK's cushioned heritage, and his deceptive ability to manipulate situations without any moral sense or consequence (in his years leading up to the Presidency) empowered him to run the country the same way.

Eisenhower (and Khrushchev) knew JFK was a con man.

Eisenhower's plans to depose Castro (good military and strategic plans) were betrayed by Kennedy, when Kennedy withheld the tactical support needed for the operation to be a success. JFK was subversive.

"I’ve always thought it was a tragic error for President Kennedy to abandon the Cuban freedom fighters during the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. If he hadn’t done so, perhaps history would have been much different in Central America. Training of the invasion force, all Cuban refugees, had started under President Eisenhower. The master plan he had approved called for covert American forces to provide air support for the refugees against Castro’s tanks, aircraft, and heavy weapons, and to bomb the airport where his military aircraft were based, while the refugees invaded Cuba. Everything was going according to schedule–the Cuban fighting force had landed and our carriers were waiting offshore with the support aircraft–when Adlai Stevenson, our UN representative, came storming down from New York and told President Kennedy; “I have promised the United Nations that we are not going to in any way interfere in Cuba…"

- Ronald Reagan, An American Life

(Reagan was too mild in his assessment; it was more than a "tragic error" - it was a betrayal.)

The age of Anti-Americanism was ushered in by Kennedy and hasn't left since. Kennedy's botch-up of the Bay of Pigs - his weakness and deception - paved the way for failure in Vietnam. Of course, it should be noted that Kennedy was too shallow and ignorant to even come up with policy, strategy, etc. on his own - he appointed "intellectuals" for his "brain trust" that were antagonistic to America, and incompetent in making sound, disciplined decisions. Kennedy was soft and narcissistic and had no investment in America whatsoever.

It is commonly believed that Kennedy bested Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not so. Kennedy agreed to give up military bases in Turkey. This was kept from the American public at the time, and the information was only made public recently. Regarding this, according to the White House at the time, "Secrecy was maintained to protect the credibility of the NATO alliance." What?? Was the NATO alliance no longer "credible?" Of course this defeat was made secret. There would have been an uproar.

Khrushchev couldn't have been better situated: Kennedy effectively thwarted Eisenhower's plans on Castro; American policy had been compromised; Anti-Americanism was flourishing in the top echelon of American government; important American bases had been abandoned; NATO had been weakened. It must've been like Christmas for Khrushchev, with Kennedy in the office.

The media and the history books have been way too kind to Kennedy over the years. He was a lousy President.

IMO JFK stands as a warning to our presidents as to what may happen if they do not toe the line and bow to the whims of TPTB.

originally posted by: Humanity72

originally posted by: DigitalJesusWuang
Didn't someone noteworthy say that the Obama-Joker poster was racist? Shame on you...

Are you discriminating against clowns? Because that crap won't fly with me buster clowns are humans too.

That is incorrect.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: DigitalJesusWuang

originally posted by: Humanity72

originally posted by: DigitalJesusWuang
Didn't someone noteworthy say that the Obama-Joker poster was racist? Shame on you...

Are you discriminating against clowns? Because that crap won't fly with me buster clowns are humans too.

That is incorrect.

www.youtube.com...

I stand corrected we should all defend ourselves against those evil bastards.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
IMO JFK stands as a warning to our presidents as to what may happen if they do not toe the line and bow to the whims of TPTB.

So who is "The Powers That Be" (TPTB)?

a reply to: DigitalJesusWuang

Racism is the friend to and the creation of the perpetraitors in control.

There is only one race at issue here, and that is the human race.

The strategy of playing groups against each other and separating along racial fissures works very well.

Don't play into their scam by believing it and spreading it.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: DigitalJesusWuang

Racism is the friend to and the creation of the perpetraitors in control.

There is only one race at issue here, and that is the human race.

The strategy of playing groups against each other and separating along racial fissures works very well.

Don't play into their scam by believing it and spreading it.

So who are the "perpetraitors" in charge? I really want to know who is pulling my strings.

originally posted by: Humanity72
So who is "The Powers That Be" (TPTB)?

They were referred to in ancient times as the Brotherhood of the Snake, AKA the Brotherhood of the Dragon.

Jesus more appropriately called them the "Synagogue of Satan".

The same group is still in business today only with a different name: Illuminati.

The names have changed, but the beliefs, tactics, and designs of the groups have remained essentially the same.

Danny Casolaro called it "the Octopus".

Fletcher Prouty called it ‘The Secret Team’.

George Washington called it the ‘Illuminati‘.

Ralph Epperson called it ’The Unseen Hand’

Benjamin Disraeli called it 'The hidden hand.'

AKA: New Word Order, Zionist, or The Shadow government.

One group and one group alone is responsible for virtually all wars and bloodshed on the face of this planet. The Synagogue of Satan

Henry Makow says it a cult...

By adopting this chameleon strategy, this satanic cult infiltrated and subverted most governments and religions, and established an invisible tyranny without drawing much attention. ~ Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand." ~ Benjamin Disraeli; Prime Minister of England

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

"Danny Casolaro called it "the Octopus". A vast, interlocking network of criminal conspiracy that reaches into every branch and agency of the U.S. government, many other national governments, and every sector of our societies."

Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

According to six of our former presidents, one vice-president, and a myriad of other high profile political leaders, an invisible government that is “incredibly evil in intent” has been in control of the U.S. government “ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” (since at least 1836). They “virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties… It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”

“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President (1825-1832)

From Washington to JFK: Former Presidents Warn About Illuminati