Why did Ross Perot withdraw from the 1992 Presidential Campain?

First, Mr. Marrs, I would like to thank you for the time and commitment you have made to Above Top Secret and our membership. It's a distinct honor to have you "aboard" and it's a genuine pleasure to be able to address you on this great site. Thank you.

I can hardly wait for the release of you next book. I'm certain that I will be able to put more of the pieces of the puzzle together (as well as find even more pieces to puzzle over).

Long ago, I'd linked the JFK, RFK and the MLK assassinations together. But, frankly, I don't know why. Call it "intuition" but, when viewed together, one can "see" a much larger force acting behind the scenes. It's something that I've ranted and raved about with family and friends seemingly forever. Of course, I've always been dismissed because, well, because for most people, it just sounds "nuts". Some people just aren't "ready for the truth".

In a previous post, you said something that, when mentioned to family and friends, gave them pause and even made them to consider that "something", indeed, was amiss.


Frankly, this statement certainly would make anyone but the most obtuse to stop and think.

Ross Perot's independent presidential campaign certainly "shook up" the status quo. Just as Perot had questioned the way General Motors did business, he questioned the way the U.S. government did business. Ross Perot may not have been elected but he certainly would have been destined to become a critic of government who "could not be ignored". Furthermore, he would have established a legitimate third party -- a clear threat to the two party system monopolized by the Republicans and the Democrats.

I clearly remember how this tenacious man brought a practical, business savvy manner to the "game of politics". He had brought a sense of genuine fresh air to the 1992 presidential campaign, a sense of candor that could not be ignored and one that might have been destined to cause "real change" to the way things were done. Then, all of a sudden, Ross Perot withdrew from the presidential race with only the vaguest of explanations.

To my knowledge, Ross Perot has never elaborated upon his resignation from the 1992 presidential campaign nor has he made any clarification about the reason he gave for that resignation. Do you, Mr. Marrs, have any additional information on this puzzling chapter of American politics than what is generally known?

The Republican party planned on sabotaging Perot's daughters' wedding and Perot found out about it. So he decided that he'd get out of the race. It was all over the news. It is unfortunate that he dropped out, because he still managed to get 19 percent of the vote..

[edit on 24-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Of course, I had heard the "story" about the the potential sabotage of the wedding Perot's daughter and, frankly, I don't "buy it".

A man like Ross Perot wouldn't have abandoned his presidential bid on the basis of a rumor that his daughter's wedding would be "sabotaged". Sabotaged? How? The flower arrangements would arrive late? The caterer was going to serve lasagna instead of Prime Rib? I never "bought" that particular story.

Surely, Ross Perot was not going to be deterred from a serious bid to become the President of the United States simply because there was a threat to ruin his daughter's wedding! Frankly, it's a ludicrous excuse. All one has to do is to look at the adversity that the man has faced and overcome in the realm of business and in the particularly stressful incident involving some of his Texas Instrument personnel who had been arrested and imprisoned during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Perot faced possible imprisonment for his role in recruiting legendary U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel 'Bull' Simons and a team of TI employees. In contravention of U.S. laws, this group successfully freed his TI executives from an Iranian prison (along with 10,000 other inmates).

With this in mind, we see Perot withdraw from the Presidential Race because of a "threat" that his daughter's wedding would be ... sabotaged? No...there is something more to this story. Certainly there is something more than the possibility that his daughter -- a member of a strong, stoic family -- shedding a few tears over a botched wedding. Besides, if the story were true, the Republican Party (the antagonists in this tale) would have had far more to lose if the threats were made public.

I think Ross Perot's plan from day one was to introduce enough confusion into the 1992 elections that a Clinton victory would become inevitable. It was no accident he became unstable towards the end of the campaign after he'd already split the Republican party.

I agree that Ross Perot's campaign, in part, served to split Republican votes enabling Bill Clinton to be elected. However, I certainly do not believe that "causing confusion" or splitting the Republican party in order to guarantee a Bill Clinton presidency was ever Ross Perot's intention. Perot's candidacy probably did serve to this end, however I tend to believe that this was entirely inadvertent. One thing that I can say with any certainty is that Ross Perot was not a fan of Bill Clinton or his Presidency.

YouTube Link

Tyrant, very true. Perot didn't like Clinton at all.

Howdy gang,

It is indeed a conundrum as to why Ross Perot dropped out of the 1992 presidential race. There seem to be two distinct possibilities. One, he was simply a spoiler put into the race to draw votes away from Bush so that Bill Clinton, a New World Order protege, could win. There is some evidence for this in that Perot played with the Big Boys and his company E-Systems reportedly gain a huge contract from the state of Arkansas to handle the computerization of its health care system. This is old methodology going back to 1912 when Morgan interests placed Teddy Roosevelt in the race from the Bull Moose Party to draw votes from Howard Taft who had pledged to veto any banking bill because it was clear that the big bankers were trying to set up a central bank, an effort which had been contested since the founding of the Republic. It worked and Woodrow Wilson was elected and during his administration we got the Federal Reserve System today commonly referred to as the central bank along with the income tax. Other the other hand, there is also evidence that when Perot tried to trace missing American POWs in Vietnam he ran smack into the drug running activities which traced back to the CIA and even to G.H.W. Bush. Perot was so infuriated that he made an honest attempt to gain the presidency and clean this mess up. Unfortunately for him, he failed to realize that the Bushes were only the then most recent manifestation of the Rockefeller-Morgan-Harriman axis which has been controlling the plutocracy in America for years. One individual cannot confront this nexus of power as JFK, MLK and RFK discovered too late. This plutocracy has learned never to allow a "cult of personalty" to gain sway in American as they cannot always depend on controlling one person who commands the alliegiance and following of the majority of Americans. This is why you cannot name one single individual since JFK and MLK who has commanded a united nationwide following. This has been accomplished by control over the corporate mass media. This is why you barely hear about the one man who obviously has the best interests of the US Republic at heart in the 2008 election runup --- Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. If everyone in the nation could clearly learn of Mr. Paul's beliefs and concerns, he would command immediate and widespread support. But the plutocracy will not allow his message to reach a large public, he is marginalized and highly-paid media commentators either ignore him or tell us he hasn't a chance. Perhaps this is best for Mr. Paul for if he appears to be making headway in confronting the Establishment, or whatever you want to call it, he will be assassinated --- physically or by character --- or threatened out of the race --- like H. Ross Perot. Even the Secret Service, FBI, CIA and the U.S. military cannot stand up to the power of the military-industrial complex, Wall Street and the International bankers.

Jim Marrs

In regards to Ron Paul, what recourse do we have?

His grassroots movement is very effective. By now its pretty obvious that there is a media blackout of him, and he's still gaining support anyway!! Trying to inform the masses of this great injustice seems to fall on deaf ears...

When 1 out of 5 Americans can't locate the U.S. on a map, is there any hope that we can draw them away from mindlessly drooling at American Idol and the next Britney Spears fiasco?

Without widespread public awareness, I fear that the elections will be rigged (again) or that he faces the very real threat of assassination.

I love it how the Ukrainians can successfully challenge a fraudulent election if it represents US interests. Here in the States, if you point out the obvious mass fraud that has taken place you are dismissed as a "conspiracy kook".





[edit on 9/1/2007 by sp00n1]

Sp00n1 is most perceptive.

Jim Marrs