(1) Ron Paul has coauthored books and reports on the Gold Standard with an arch-Zionist who later went on to become a member of the "Project for a New American Century.".

1. Hillary has direct connections to the CFR, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group, and is endorsed by arch-Zionist Sir Evelyn Rothschild. She has been chosen by the international banking elite to be the next US president.

(2) Ron Paul has been associating with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which has been promoting the Gold Standard and has been linked to the infamous globalist Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.

2. See [1.].

(3) The Gold standard is a recipe for enslavement.

3. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a recipe for enslavement. The bankers reign over us as Gods. We are already enslaved, and all indications suggest that the bankers wish to maintain the status quo. Ron Paul's message has been marginalised by the MSM.

(4) Ron Paul is openly contemptuous of 9/11 Truth.

4. Hillary doesn't even have to suffer questions about 9/11 truth, and is connected to those that carried it out.

(5) Ron Paul remains absolutely blind to the primary threat against America - the threat of Zionist fascism.

5. Hillary is a Zionist fascist.

(6) Ron Paul's campaign has been strangely passive about vote fraud. Please take a look at the excellent report provided by Jim Condit. (Comment: This behavior may seem perplexing at first. But if you accept the hypotheses above, it becomes very clear. Ron Paul is not intended to win the nomination. He simply needs to hold onto the disaffected masses until it becomes too late for any new candidate to enter the race.)

6. a) I noted here that Ron Paul himself is concerned about vote fraud. There's no evidence that Ron Paul's 'purpose' is to "hold onto the disaffected masses until it becomes too late for any new candidate to enter the race"; b) Hillary is connected to the perpetrators of said vote fraud.

(7) The Zionists have historically been involved in operations that have stirred up racial tensions in the US (e.g. the Southern Poverty Law Center).

7. True.

(8) Ron Paul published, over a period of many years, a large number of vilely racist statements in a monthly newsletter bearing his own name. Ron Paul now claims that he did not read the newsletter, that the articles in the news letter were not written by him, and that he was not aware of the racist statements. (Comment: You are free to draw your own conclusions, but I find Ron Paul's disclaimers incredible. One or two isolated incidents I can understand, but we have here a large number of racist statements over a long period of time. In view of everything else that we know, it appears that Ron Paul was, for decades, complicit in a Zionist propaganda operation to foment racial tensions between blacks and whites, and also to discredit the work of real anti-Zionist patriots.)

8. a) There is no conclusive evidence that Ron Paul's belief system is reflected by the excerpts made available by The New Republic's James Kirchuk; b) Hillary is involved in a sophisticated Zionist Continuity of Enslavement (COS) program endorsed, funded and engineered by every last slimy Zionist maggot on the planet.

>6. a) I noted here that Ron Paul
>himself is concerned about vote
>fraud.

It would be nice to have evidence that Ron Paul's concern is genuine. What we do know is that his campaign staff are strangely unconcerned.

(1) Ron Paul has coauthored books and reports on the Gold Standard with an arch-Zionist who later went on to become a member of the "Project for a New American Century."

1. b) The Case For Gold: A Minority Report of the US Gold Commission was written 26 years ago in 1982, and there's no evidence that Paul participated in an ongoing relationship with Lehrman beyond the early 1980s.

Ron Paul's son Rand has publicly expressed concerns that vote fraud may hinder his dad's campaign. It's really quite a stretch to conclude that the whole campaign is a ruse and Paul actually wants to lose.

Cheers.

Hi Crimes of Zion, you may find a stretch to consider the idea that Paul's entire campaign is a ruse - but that's precisely what I am suggesting! Anyway, cheers.

but it's also possible that you are some sort of disinfo agent sent to take away support from Paul. Without smoking gun evidence anything can be speculated on but it doesn't mean anything conclusive.

It'll be interesting to see how he spends the $20 mil he's been given. If it all goes on silly shit, that'll be evidence to support your theory. What Ron Paul needs now is potent media exposure, so if we don't see $10 million of relentless (national) tv advertising in the coming weeks, I may yet change my mind. But I doubt it.

Is there a website that keeps track of Paul's campaign expenditures? I don't see one, but here's an expenditure breakdown based on Federal Election Commission data released on Friday, January 04, 2008.

Regarding:

(4) Ron Paul is openly contemptuous of 9/11 Truth.

In the recent Fox News sponsored debate in SC, Dr. Paul, in response to the question regarding whether or not he would ask his supporter's who are 911 Truther's to renounce their position responded that he cannot and would not tell anyone what to do with their position. At the same time he qualified his own position by readily distancing himself from the 911 Truth rhetoric. Dr. Paul is not stupid. He knows the political snakes that surround him and their habit of dredging up tired racist and conspiracy nut nonsense. Knowing the 911 issue will NEVER go away until it is solved by relentless grassroot's American jurisprudence, establishing a "whodunit" at this point is not necessary. Think about it. Irrespective of the 911 perp's being the MOSSAD or the official government conspiracy theory about 19 Arabs, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan is what matter's because NO reason for 911 justifies those unconstitutional invasions/occupations. Dwelling on 911 whodunit's during the nomination cycle is only a distraction and fodder for character assasination. There is no other logical reason the MSM is asking the question. The MSM defends the official government conspiracy theory to their death and hammer's into oblivion the career's (or worse) of anyone who dare's to differ so there is no other reason for them to ask the question. I just do not believe that Dr. Paul, knowing what he knows about how things work in that arena, would not know better than to take anything but a savvy approach, the approach he is taking on the 911 issue. All that he know's, all his experience, all his public service, all his private service, all that he has voted for or against, all the denigration he has endured over at least 30 years for simply maintaining his sworn oath to the US Constitution, well I'm sorry, I just do not believe that he would be in the dark about 911. It would have to be the ONLY thing of significance he has no clue about. In fact his body language in the debate, when asked about 911 Truther's, seemed to me to display an obvious uncomfortableness, a subtle expression of intimidation, an intimidation perhaps derived from a directive about how to answer that question by the same coward's behind 911 who I have no doubt would insure the answer they require by leveraging his grandchildren's lives.

I don't know whether Paul is genuinely contemptuous of 9/11 truth or not, but I'll tell you this right now: if I ran for president, I would not endorse 9/11 truth. Where would it get me? Nowhere. I would get to where I wanted to be, and then come out of the closet.

Hopefully, this is Paul's strategy. As a regular guest on the Alex Jones radio show, I doubt he's oblivious to the issue.

exactly =P

Yeah denying the government's official 911 conspiracy theory is akin to holocaust denial so one needs to remain discreet. It makes you wonder why they would ask Dr. Paul to qualify his position on 911 Truth when they must know of his A. Jones (and other) interview's, etc. If, in response to their 911 Truther question, Dr. Paul responds on national television that he repudiates the 911 Truth movement yet it's widely known by the MSM his participation in predominant 911 Truth forum's such as AJ's why do they not they put him on the spot by bringing that up? That would certainly cause him a squirm and elicit sneer's and snicker's from the audience, the panel and the other candidates. Weird. I don't listen to or read much AJ so wouldn't know in what context or subject matter Dr. Paul participates while being interviewed (ie openly talks about 911 demolition, etc., the repudiation would then be an obvious blatant lie) and if he does side with 911 Truther's then perhaps that explains the uncomfortable expression, an incredulous "I cannot believe they didn't call me up on that one" look. Don't know. Seems a stretch something so obvious and the MSM is not one to let a good smear opportunity go by so it appear's they arrogantly accomplished what they needed to accomplish by his simple 911 Truther repudiation and irrespective of there being an obvious discrepancy, anymore carried on about it might have chanced raising questions about the 911 Truth movement in the minds of the viewing masses outside of the controlled debate - a definate Zionist propaganda tactical no-no.

With respect to Ron Paul's apparent disowning of the 9/11 Truth movement, I believe it would be political suicide for him to embrace the 9/11 Truth cause or to in any way openly acknowledge any doubts he might have about the veracity of the official narrative. I believe he is purposely remaining circumspect about the issue so that he can avoid handing the media a perfect excuse to kill off his candidacy.

He sounds pretty convincing to me. I really don't think Paul is a bullshit artist.