Anon Expose Ron Paul's Connections with White Supremacist Group

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Anonymous yesterday released files claiming to evidence correspondence between Representative Ron Paul and a group called the American Third Person. These files were obtained following the success of Operation Blitzkreig.

Extract from Anon press release:


"According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors. Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist “Ron Paul Papers” and receiving financial support from other white power groups (pictured with Don Black from [hate-site-nolink])."


I have been a supporter of Ron Paul's foreign policy and aspects of his economic policies for several years now. However his social policies have always evoked some apprehension in me. Many people seem to revere him as an infallible deity-like entity. It's okay to admit that he is only human and may have some skeletons in his closet. However, if these leaks are factual this is going to have damning consequences and possibly take Paul out of the running.

For what reason would Anonymous try to skew public perception of Ron Paul?

Source:
www.addictinginfo.org...
edit on 1-2-2012 by leprapom because: Slip of the mind. Rep not Senator.




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by leprapom
Anonymous yesterday released files claiming to evidence correspondence between Senator Ron Paul and a group called the American Third Person. These files were obtained following the success of Operation Blitzkreig.

Extract from Anon press release:


"According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors. Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist “Ron Paul Papers” and receiving financial support from other white power groups (pictured with Don Black from [hate-site-nolink])."


I have been a supporter of Ron Paul's foreign policy and aspects of his economic policies for several years now. However his social policies have always evoked some apprehension in me. Many people seem to revere him as an infallible deity-like entity. It's okay to admit that he is only human and may have some skeletons in his closet. However, if these leaks are factual this is going to have damning consequences and possibly take Paul out of the running.

For what reason would Anonymous try to skew public perception of Ron Paul?

Source:
www.addictinginfo.org...


The answer is simple.

Anonymous is everyone.


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Ron Paul is not perfect, he's remained in politics far longer than any sane person should.

After 30 years of politics, I'm sure anyone would have spoken to someone along the way who has a rotten reputation, how does that negate 3 decades of consistent politics? Why is this drum still beating about his supposed racism? Is that the best anyone can come up with to discredit him?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   


For what reason would Anonymous try to skew public perception of Ron Paul?


Because Ron Paul is a politician and Anonymous does not trust any leader. Ron Paul's very much a pandering politician to those who do not make the full leap into an anti-authoritarian mindset; American Libertarians are dead-set on keeping their wealth and claiming to do so in the name of freedom.

Anonymous recognizes that Ron Paul wants to help his friends, those who would need a Libertarian in office to pursue their exploitative employment policies. Ron Paul, being for states rights, would roll back certain federal statues to let the states legislatures be swayed by the multi-national corporations who buy lobbyists at various state levels.

It costs less to convince the individual state legislators to be pro-business than it does at the federal level of government.

Ron Paul has some excellent ideas, and I do like that many people are waking up to see that his ideas can work.

However he would threaten the liberty of the entire USA by allowing the States to be influenced by the money of large industries. Because currently the Federal Level of legislation is hard to lobby for the companies that give Libertarians money, Ron Paul would act towards allowing states to be mislead.

That is what I think, you may tell me I am wrong, but do not insult me.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Just fyi. Ron Paul is a member of the US House of Representatives. SENATOR Paul is his son. Rand. Which one is this referring to?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by leprapom
 


And everything they exposed did nothing but make him a better candidate. I'm watching for a surge in popularity.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Sachyriel
 


Excellent point. I had never considered how conglomerates and transnational corporations could use the changes that Ron Paul advocates to further supplant the will of the people. A century ago this wouldn't have been an issue and would've allowed for many businesses to develop and prosper. However, given monopolies in the hands of the few businesses will not be allowed the same freedom as they used to be. The legislation may grant them 'freedom', but the economic reality of the situation will hinder this considerably.

As for the racism. It would be fascinating to see when that correspondence happened. Could one dismiss a recent meeting as unimportant?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
So as a Congressman,
voted in by the people to represent them.
The Media and Anonymous
are saying all the people that he represents are racists?


+9 more 
posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by leprapom
 


Just more proof that anon is really just big government.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Reply to post by leprapom
 


Is this *the* Anon or someone posing as Anon?

It doesn't make sense either way. I do welcome more information on RP as I don't like his social policies.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Sachyriel
 



American Libertarians are dead-set on keeping their wealth and claiming to do so in the name of freedom.


The connotation of the citation lends to bad, but I can't read your mind and will assume you're making explicit an observation.

Good, bad, or indifferent, what is your preferred alternative to Libertarianism in general (i.e. not of the American brand)?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
When I hear reports like this, I think of a story in the bible: "Jesus eats with sinners and Tax collectors"


Mark 2: 13-17


13 And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. 14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. 16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? 17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

link

OP I'm not wanting to go off subject, It runs parallel to The theme here. Not saying Ron Paul is Jesus, but Ron Paul is a representative to americans who are blacks, whites, mexicans, asians, replublicans, democrats, racists, religious, athiests and list goes on and on.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sachyriel


For what reason would Anonymous try to skew public perception of Ron Paul?


Because Ron Paul is a politician and Anonymous does not trust any leader. Ron Paul's very much a pandering politician to those who do not make the full leap into an anti-authoritarian mindset; American Libertarians are dead-set on keeping their wealth and claiming to do so in the name of freedom.

Anonymous recognizes that Ron Paul wants to help his friends, those who would need a Libertarian in office to pursue their exploitative employment policies. Ron Paul, being for states rights, would roll back certain federal statues to let the states legislatures be swayed by the multi-national corporations who buy lobbyists at various state levels.


It costs less to convince the individual state legislators to be pro-business than it does at the federal level of government.

Ron Paul has some excellent ideas, and I do like that many people are waking up to see that his ideas can work.

However he would threaten the liberty of the entire USA by allowing the States to be influenced by the money of large industries. Because currently the Federal Level of legislation is hard to lobby for the companies that give Libertarians money, Ron Paul would act towards allowing states to be mislead.

That is what I think, you may tell me I am wrong, but do not insult me.
edit on 1-2-2012 by Wetpaint72 because: Oops



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Kovenov
 


Erm, I like anarchy, because voting just feels like collusion in electoral fraud to me anyways. There's that old anarchist quote "If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal!" and while I don't think all elections are fraudulent I'd just prefer to stick to my non-voting principles.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Sachyriel
 


But isn't it ALREADY run by large corporations... The Fed for example?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by leprapom
 


the whole anon thing never sat right with me, i don't see enough evidence here but it would fit that some corrupt politicians and some real corrupt men in seats of power would fear Ron Paul being elected.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The same anon that was supposedly going to liberate the american people from several agencies, with a null or void disclaimer


wow. lets get back to politics, as anon has about as much creditablitly as |NASA



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

As for the racism. It would be fascinating to see when that correspondence happened. Could one dismiss a recent meeting as unimportant?


Racism is an important part of the Libertarian ideology. No one wants to say it out loud but some people do feel as if Libertarians are the party that will bring back whites-only restaurants, arguing it's the business owners choice. You'll find many Libertarians who disagree that there should be any "whites only" establishments because they know racism is bad, however Libertarians do argue the individuals liberty over the collective's desire; Because that's not a bad thing people will believe it. However they need to expect that the argument of Individual right to conscientious enterprise might allow those who are bigoted to exclude people based on prejudice.

While Ron Paul may enjoy the idea of allowing a top-down re-enabling of states rights so the individual states themselves can alter the racial laws they have at their own pace, it would be obtuse to say that because one state does have more racists in it voting their way, it might actually happen to be allowable for there to be 'whites only' establishments.

I do not think Ron Paul getting into office would automatically mean the states are free to open those laws up for discussion, however Ron Paul has the racists on his side because his stance on states rights is what they would need to introduce the freedom to put those signs up in their own states.

It's not his fault he's got the kind of politics that attract racists, Racism was always built on fear and prejudices do come into play when choosing who to vote for.

While I can't say that Barack only won because He's black, he probably did chase a lot of racist democratic voters over to Ron Paul, rather than a mainstream Republican candidate.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by Sachyriel
 


But isn't it ALREADY run by large corporations... The Fed for example?


The Federal Government relies on the Federal Reserve to print the money it needs, yes. However the Lobbyists at the Federal Level have to spend more money rather than the lobbyists at the State-ledge level.

The Federal Reserve is not a Lobbying group, not officially. The Industry Lobbying Groups are large corporations with legislatures basically around their finger. If they could lower their costs like any other business they'd make more money.

Ron Paul would allow them to start pushing for certain changes at the State Level, rather than the Federal, by being a Libertarian President who has veto power over some bills designed to make the Federal Union more powerful over certain areas the States usually have power in.

I think, but perhaps I missed the mark on your question?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sachyriel

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by Sachyriel
 


But isn't it ALREADY run by large corporations... The Fed for example?


The Federal Government relies on the Federal Reserve to print the money it needs, yes. However the Lobbyists at the Federal Level have to spend more money rather than the lobbyists at the State-ledge level.

The Federal Reserve is not a Lobbying group, not officially. The Industry Lobbying Groups are large corporations with legislatures basically around their finger. If they could lower their costs like any other business they'd make more money.

Ron Paul would allow them to start pushing for certain changes at the State Level, rather than the Federal, by being a Libertarian President who has veto power over some bills designed to make the Federal Union more powerful over certain areas the States usually have power in.

I think, but perhaps I missed the mark on your question?




Essentially we're in a pretty screwed up situation as it is. You're saying he would make it worse, or just allow for the potential of corruption? You don't think he thought of this possibility?

I'm not sure about his stance on citizens united (i'll need to look into this further), but I know some, like Kucinich are all about getting lobyists and money the # out of politics. It wouldn't be a problem if they could make that happen...
edit on 1-2-2012 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join