The Ron Paul ConspiracyBy David S. Lewis
Caught Between Iraq and a Bilderberg
A lot of people these days have fallen in with the presidential candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul. His position that the United States gets involved where it ought not is one that resonates with many, a quintessential American principle since the founding of the country. There’s probably a lot, though, that people don’t know about Ron Paul. First, though, the basics.
He’s been around since the mid ‘70s as a Republican congressman from Texas, and he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988. Adhering to the fact that the government’s role is supposed to be constitutionally limited, Dr. No, as they call him, votes against most everything that comes his way, though he supported the invasion of Afghan-istan because as home to al-Qaeda that country was a direct threat to national security. The war in Iraq he opposed from the start and continues to do so.
A colleague once remarked that it was futile working with Paul due to his rigid philosophy. Formal Libertarians can be that way if they apply a fundamentalist ideology to situations that require flexibility. But that’s not quite fair. Candidates with other ideologies have won the presidency only to find they must compromise with Congress and deal with the real world, while no modern Libertarian has won the presidency, the experience of which molds one’s philosophy in a pragmatic way.
Most likely, if Paul were to become president, he too would moderate his positions. Thomas Jefferson, a case in point, was as much a Libertarian as anyone ever in American politics, and was as opposed to the power of big money men as Paul is to the Federal Reserve (which he would abolish along with the income tax, while favoring gold as legal tender); yet Jefferson, as president, indebted his country to foreign bankers to pay France for the Louisiana purchase, giving a nod to his rival Alex-ander Hamilton, who insisted to Jefferson’s horror that bankers were neces-sary to sustain a fledgling country on the verge of economic ruin, which was the state of affairs at the time. The point is, people change when faced with realities of office, and so we wonder if Ron Paul would change in the unlikely event he were elected president.
Would he, for example, continue to espouse that internation-al bankers have great influence upon, if not control over, the affairs of the United States, groups that direct the Council on Foreign Rela-tions, the Trilat-eral Commission, and the Bilderbergs—the secret group comprised of the world’s movers and shakers who meet biannually over an agenda known only to themselves? This is the conspiracy theory of history and Ron Paul deals in it. But don’t get me wrong, while some of its proponents have used flimsy evidence to justify wild assertions, these groups exist, they meet, and they exert strong influence over presidents and their cabinets, the economy, and the media. How, one might ask, could so many high level people—from the White House to the halls of Congress, the news media, and business—belong to these powerful groups with so little public scrutiny applied? Where’s the outrage, the Michael Moores, the Noam Chomskys? And where’s Leslie Stahl? —Oops, she attends Bilderberg meetings, although it must be noted that attending such meetings or even being a member of the CFR does not in itself mean very much. If I were invited, for example, I would attend out of curiosity.
People like Ron Paul, though, are right to cry foul, especially when big media treats the subject as a non subject (except for History Channel documentaries on the Bilderbergs), and when so many high officials belong to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission—founded by David Rockefeller in 1973, and which Barry Goldwater called "...a vehicle for multinational consolidation of commer-cial and banking interests...". What should responsible people do then, but cry foul when presidents, vice presi-dents, and secretaries of state frequently belong to these groups.
The conspiracy theory goes like this: International bankers pull all the strings in the world because they control the money supply, including credit issued by the Federal Reserve. They literally have the ability to create money out of thin air, called credit money, which they lend to governments that in turn pay interest back to the bankers. To accomplish this, they had Congress and the White House do away with the gold standard, create the Fed, and then the income tax—to pay the debt owed to the bankers. On an even larger scale, these measures further the establishment of a monopoly capitalist/global socialist system they are setting up, which necessitates the dissolution of American sovereignty and individual liberty.
Understanding this theory, you understand Ron Paul and why there is more to his Libertarianism than meets the eye. He is concerned, along with others, that internationalists are running the show and that the American constitution and individual liberty are under attack as a result.
But we’re not hearing a lot about the conspiracy from Ron Paul these days, except in terms of the negative aspects of globalism. We’re certainly not hearing about a would-be world government centralizing the world’s money supply (as with the Euro and the European Union, and the CFR proposed Amero, which would be the product of a North American Union between Canada, the U. S. and Mexico). We’re not hearing about the Wall Street financiers (including the Rockefellers and Prescott Bush) who financed Hitler, and who now have their sights set on China, nor how the same types led us into WWI, WWII, and Vietnam, all the while reaping huge profits—which continued as they sold infrastructure and advanced credit to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And we’re certainly not hearing about the ethnicity of some of these bankers, which is the kiss of death for the credibility of those promoting the conspir-acy, and the problem Ron Paul ran into with racist newsletters he claims not to have written.
And so Ron Paul’s conspiracy is not to talk about conspiracy, as he steps around his views like other candidates while seizing a popular issue—that the U.S. has no business in Iraq—and gaining support because he takes that stand, and because he holds views many people in this country have held for decades without a candidate to represent them.
Assuming for the moment he’s not a racist, you have to respect Ron Paul, even with that nasal whine of his as he waxes indignant in a debate. And who can blame him during a campaign for not harping on the power elite, the people who secretly manipulate the fates of nations—they’re real, they meet, and they’re the most powerful people on earth.