Globalists (by which term I mean Communists) have been slowly chipping away at the defenses of the United States for a very long time. They promised back in the 50s to do it, and if you read their long-known strategies, it’s scary to see just how much they’ve accomplished since then.) America has grown dull, however, and relatively few among her see these developments as particularly alarming—yet–even though elected officials from both major parties are complicit in this subterfuge.
Yes, it’s that classic frog-in-the-slowly-heated-pot thing, where they play the “long game” against us, working under the radar of our awareness so that they don’t overwhelm our ability to keep pretending that things are pretty much OK. America has had her alarmists, of course, but she has not listened, and is still not listening. And so, she is about to learn the hard way, and history may well write “They told you so” on her headstone.
Let me say at the start that this is not an article on the nuts and bolts of logic. No, this is an article about irrational human behavior that I have witnessed with such frequency and over such a long period of time that it seemed best I start writing about it. I’ll be as brief as possible.
What follows is a repost of a response I wrote on DailyPaul.com this morning. Someone had posted a link to this article at Forbes.com: The Grand Shi Strategy of Ron Paul. After having read the article, here is my response:
Recently, a friend sent me a link to an old acquaintance’s blog. My friend noted that the blogger had been significantly challenged by a commenter, and she wondered whether he would respond. Last night I checked again to see, after several weeks, and sadly, the blogger has not responded.
Having had hundreds of “debates”, particularly online, I’ve seen this happen over and over. Someone makes a point, for which evidence or reason is shown in disproof, then the original poster has no reply. I call this “crickets”, as in, “All I heard was crickets chirping in the still night air.” Continue reading The Dishonesty of Not Responding to Proof→
NOTE: Please keep in mind as you read that the author belongs to no political party, and generally eschews them as bastions of compromise and corruption.
One doesn’t have to listen to people discuss presidential primary candidates for long before he hears the nervous question, “…but is he electable?” This question is often asked in conjunction with the notion that “I don’t want to waste my vote” (by voting for a candidate who is not “electable”).
I’ll cut to the chase right away and state quite unapologetically that I think that this extremely-popular political idea is counterproductive, short-sighted, and just plain stupid!
23 February. Jonathon Strong replies to my request for the public documents, referring me to www.fec.gov and sending the following PDF, calling it “the ones that are difficult to get”. He states further that the Congressional expenditures “aren’t online anywhere”. Here’s the PDF.
23 February. I emailed Jonathon Strong asking that he post the “public documents” (House of Representatives reimbursement records) that would show that the House had also paid for the flights reimbursed by Liberty Committee.
From: Jack Pelham [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:18 AM To: ‘Jonathan Strong’ Subject: RE: Evidence for Ron Paul Airline Tickets story
Thank you for substantiating your article further with these source documents. I think that the only things the reader will need now to do his own investigation will be the reply of Ron Paul to this evidence and a link to the “public records” that show he was reimbursed by the House of Representatives. I know you can’t make Ron Paul make a statement, but could you also post the public records?
In a 6 February 2012 article entitled Records Show Ron Paul Trips Paid Twice, Roll Call staff writer, Jonathon Strong, claims that records obtained by Roll Call show that Congressman Ron Paul has repeatedly been reimbursed by the House of Representatives and various Paul-run political organizations for airline tickets. These double reimbursements are said to have occurred over the past twelve-or-so years. The article makes the assertion, but shows none of the documentation from which these finds are said to have come.
The bulk of what follows is a response I wrote to a post on DailyPaul.com. It has been slightly edited so as to stand alone better. Regarding the Ron Paul campaign, the poster asked, “Are we trying to WIN?”. The poster further suggested that since 79% of voters are in the age range 45-65+, someone should create a “very slick ad” to reach that audience.
On 2 January 2012, I wrote to you to at DailyPaul.com to inquire as to whether you were personally behind the censoring of a post I had written on your website. That post had a short excerpt along with a link to my own blog article, Ron Paul Campaign Failing to Ask Supporters for Much More Than Money. The piece criticized the Paul campaign for having no apparent plan to build the type of strong popular movement necessary to achieve the level of reform the campaign claims to desire. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I chose to inquire whether it was you or some “rogue moderator” who had removed my post from Daily Paul. You replied thus (emphasis added): Continue reading An Open Letter to Michael Nystrom, Founder of DailyPaul.com→
What, exactly, is Ron Paul trying to achieve? And why is his campaign asking for little more than money in order to achieve it?
If one listens to an appreciable amount of Ron Paul’s political message, one gets the idea that Paul wants a fairly radical level of political reform. Indeed, he seems to be interested in overturning the economic corruption of the Federal Reserve Bank, and the profusion of associated corruptions. Similarly, he wants to end the federal income tax and the associated tax code, which is the breeding ground for the lion’s share of government Continue reading Ron Paul Campaign Failing to Ask Supporters for Much More than Money→