It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why did Ross Perot withdraw from the 1992 Presidential Campain?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:01 AM
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.

Originally posted by Jim Marrs
. Recall that Perot said he dropped out because of fears over the safety to his family. What force was to be feared if the Secret Service, FBI, CIA and the U.S. military were there to protect him and his family? Think about that.

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?

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:05 AM
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]

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:14 AM
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.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:30 AM
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.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:48 PM
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.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:51 PM
Tyrant, very true. Perot didn't like Clinton at all.

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:22 PM
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

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 07:10 PM
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]

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:46 PM
Sp00n1 is most perceptive.

Jim Marrs

posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 08:13 PM
Personally I think Ross Perot would have been a lousy president but I believe he would have been elected in 1992. He never had a solution to anything but seemed to be intelligent to the American people because of his ability to make money.

The economy was bad that year as it was this year. Greenspan raised interest rates just like Bernake leading up to the election when there were clear signs the economy was stalling, making a bad situation worse. "It's the economy stupid" landed on deaf ears with both father and son.

The thing that is most disturbing about the whole situation was how this highly confident almost arrogant personality running for president transformed to a meek chicken-like person when he was being interviewed about why he quit the race. Whoever threatened him scared the living hell out of him. The donkeys and/or the elephants seemed to have the motive.

Maybe it was waterboarding or some other form of torture that he and his family were threatened with. All of his money was not going to buy his safety and he knew it.

Clearly, Obama felt threatened early on in the race to a degree but of course he was not running a third party. It probably would not have been good if he was running as an independent, in fact it would have been down right scary.

posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 11:20 PM
I think it would be great if Ron Paul started to create a "movement". It wouldn't have to be a political party, but rather like a think tank along the lines of some of the think tanks set up by the oligarchs, the CFR, etc. The new think tank could study all kinds of problems from the libertarian, constitutionalist point of view espoused by Dr. Paul. It could branch out and attract adherents who could then plan political action, depending on the pragmatic considerations of any given situation.

I think that would be really good for the country and would take pressure off Dr. Paul, as a personality.

posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 02:19 PM
1. As anonymous stated, Ross Perot did not have any answers to the problems that were facing us. He was interviewed on one of the Sunday morning news shows, and he did not answer the questions. The interviewer was polite, but kept asking for Mr Perot to answer the questions. Finally, Mr Perot admitted he did not have the answers with him and would come back when he had them. He did allow for Bill Clinton to win (although I think Clinton would of won without him entering the race) and President Clinton did balance the budget, which was a major theme of Ross Perot's run.

2. I did notice that the Ron Paul claimed to have a lot of support, but it did not translate into votes. He had a big internet fan base, but it turned out like "Snakes on the Plane", a lot of hype but no turnout. It is interesting that with all the talk of third parties, their combined vote did not equal one percent in this election. I guess they need to find a good message. While I did like what Ron Paul had to say, I think the idea of letting big companies do what they want is not a very good answer. (He is a Libertarian Republican, and they do not believe in regulations.) He should of stated he did support keeping an eye on the large multinational corporations out there.

3. The reason Teddy Roosevelt ran for the White House under the Bull Moose Party was that President Taft had abandoned the reforms of the robber baron corporations back in the day. He was one of the few Presidents who actually looked out for the little guy.

There is a base support that both the Republicans and Democrats will always get. It makes it almost impossible for a third party candidate to win, unless they get the people who never vote to actually register and vote. Ross Perot knew he could never win the election, so he withdrew the first time. He went back in and still got 19% of the vote. If he hadn't withdrew, he would of still made about 25% to 29%, still not enough to win.

posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by benevolent tyrant

we. the American people won't even get a death-bed confession from Perot...
because the threatened wedding disruption is 'code' for 'Your family
is in Danger if you pursue a presidency'.

Perot also wanted to derail the NAFTA paradigm and confound the eventual NAU, which is now much closer on the horizon.

the veil of secrecy also has a muting effect when ones' financial legacy, family longevity, are at dire threat by some secret govt or a cabal of elites
-- but there will be no-way to support this viewpoint with any solid evidence,

betcha Perot was also doing homework on disbanding the Federal Reserve as a one-term president

posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by kidflash2008

2. I did notice that the Ron Paul claimed to have a lot of support, but it did not translate into votes. He had a big internet fan base, but it turned out like "Snakes on the Plane", a lot of hype but no turnout.

I'm not surprised his supporters didn't go vote in this election. I know I didn't. Why? He dropped out of the race. Why go vote for him when he isn't even running? I believe many of his supporters either didn't vote, or voted for other third party candidates. If he was still in the running, I would have made sure I was at the polls to vote for him.

posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by St Udio

While Perot was against the free trade agreement, he was also for a lot of deregulation. He had no real answers, and his rant on the Republicans ruining his daughter's wedding was the final straw. I also think there was a lot of skeletons in Mr Perot's closet, and he did not want people finding out. He also claimed to start from scratch, and it was learned his parents were millionaires. He also made millions of dollars on government contracts, and those questions were never brought up by the press (who loved him like they did Sen Obama). I never trusted Mr Perot, and did not know what the people saw in him (simple solutions for complex problems never work).

As for Ron Paul and the other Third Party candidates, they could not even muster one percent of the vote in November. I guess staying home let people really get heard. If one wants to make a voice, they have to vote for a third party instead of not voting.

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by Jim Marrs

Your question has a false premise. Ross Perot did not drop out of the 1992 Presidential Race.

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by CharlesMartel

The question is correct. Mr Perot dropped out of the 1992 election as his advisers told him it was unwinnable. His supporters were quite angry about his decision, and urged Mr Perot to get back in the race. He eventually did, and managed to still get 19% of the popular vote. Mr Perot had failed to realize it was not about winning, but having another voice in the race.

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by benevolent tyrant

The way I understand it is that a group, and I will never specify who, here or U2U, only face to face, infiltrated his entire organization and found out everything he was up to behind the scenes within his own organization. It seems according to what I learned that the illustrious Ross Perot was not as nice a guy as he sounded, because he was up to a lot of things that could be seen as attempting to not only run for President but as well the machinations were set in place for him to take the puppet strings off himself once in power.

Yes, I understand that this sounds hokey, and without sustantiating evidence you might disbelieve what I'm posting here as seriously skewed, the people who came after him, are people I would never double-cross nor want to be on the bad side of ever. I may talk about a lot of different government aspects and may have an extreme knowledge in some cases, but these people I give a wide berth to. When other countries go bump in the night, these people bump back.

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Mr Perot had many skeletons in his closet, no doubt about that. At first he made it seem like he was from a poor family, but changed that when it was found out they were well off when he was a kid. People liked his "folksy" charm, even if he was a billionaire who wanted to buy an elected office. Maybe I am too cynical, but I always cringe when an ultra wealthy individual uses their own money to try and buy an office.

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

I agree with you. I don't have your sources but I know that when he was looking into the issue of MIA's from the Vietnam War on behalf of President Reagan, he eventually found the fence around the playground and found out that he wasn't allowed outside of that fence.

I'm sure he had a very good awareness of the shadow government and it's power.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by ipsedixit]

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in