While I like some of what Ron Paul says in his message, I do not fully trust him. There are some positive facts about Dr. Paul, however. His voting
record is consistent with his message, and adding that with other attributes, he appears to be one of the most 'honest politicians' I have ever known.
'Honest Politicians..." -- Is that an oxymoron?
Anyway, I look at it like this: If we are to believe based on all the evidence we have seen since the late 80's - that our government has been
infiltrated by somethingsomeoneNWOaliensSmurfs with negative intentions. How are we supposed to just assume they are 'allowing' him to have a
I know back before he ran for president the very first time, he used to go on public television, local talk radio shows, etc -- and he would be saying
the exact same things he is saying today. In those times, however, the message was of course not as diar or urgent. But, he certainly brought up the
federal reserve, government insiders, corrupt politicians, etc No intervention? Noone silenced him?
Ok, flash forward, after working to expose (think Bill Cooper) and bring down the evil empire, he remained in congress, and ran for president. Yet
again, during his very first presidential run in 89? -- he was saying these things. After losing, he goes back into his seat in congress, and goes for
20 years in front of the house on live television talking about our liberty being stolen right before our eyes. No intervention? Noone silenced him?
Then, he runs for president again, and things really take off, the Internet is here now, and this message speaks to people, people wake up and it
exploded. While he didn't win, he really changed the way many people who were formally asleep thought about our country and government. No
intervention? Noone silenced him?
Now, here it is 2011, and he has been 'allowed' to awaken the masses of young people to a new way to think about the 'shadow' in our government.
There's a perception that Ron Paul is shunned by the media. While this is kinda true, he isn't really silenced or 'ruined' -- He is on every major
network television station, he is talked about, he is routinely interviewed and praised by some newscasters.
The only REAL perception is based on a falsehood. People that trust him, trust him because they seem to be made to believe that he is not accepted.
When clearly, to me at least, that's just not the case. He has been 'accepted' -- if he wasn't accepted, we wouldn't know about Ron Paul.
If he was accepted, he is allowed, if he is allowed, how can you trust him? Put it another way, even if he somehow made it through the cracks, and
just never drew their attention. If he was really the man to restore our nation from tyranny, would they let him in office? If in office, would they
allow him to do anything? What exactly would be the point?
edit on 14-10-2011 by LucidReality because: (no reason given)