Like Hillary, Giuliani And All Prez Candidates, Ron Paul Is Just Another Vatican-Jesuit NWO Shill, Making Good Political Theatre

The whole Congress, Senate and all political Fed presidential choices
are on the Vatican-led NWO team, leaving America with fascism covered over by a fantasy called democracy.

By Greg Szymanski
Dec. 27, 2007

The Ron Paul theatrical masquerade has been sweeping across the country like an out of control Jesuit freight train.

And the secret engineer of the whole deceptive political show, Jesuit Gen. Fr. Peter Hans Kolvenbach, is probably having a big laugh from his plush headquarters at Borgo Santo Spirito 5 in Rome, saying:

"Control the Left. Control the Right. And in the end the whole bloody
country is ours for the taking. Remember, the ends justify the means
and good ole Ronnie plays a good game just like all of the Pope's
candidates such as Hillary, Obama and Giuliani, to name a few.

"I might add we control the whole government so what's the difference.
If you don't believe me,  when is the last time anybody in Washington said anything bad about us Jesuits and our spokesman Ratzinger?"

Although most Americans havefallen for Ron Paul's patriot cover,
people are starting to catch on as even the Black Pope knows "you can't
fool all the people all of the time."

"But you can figure out a way first marginalize them and then control
them," added Kolvenbach under his breath while counting his gold coins
from his balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square, also totally under his
evil control.

Two examples of of Americans who have done an about face concerning Ron Paul are Tom Freiss, a amateur radio operator spreading the truth about the Vatican, and Rick Freidrich, an ardent Paul supporter until recently.

"I used to believe in Ron Paul, but after reading his statements on the
floor of the House, paying homage to Pope John Paul II and calling him a man of peace, I realized he was just another New World Order puppet
controlled by the Vatican like all the rest of the candidates," said
Freiss recently on Greg Szymanski's radio show, The Investigative
Journal.

"They love to control all sides of every war they start and they love to
control all sides of the political spectrum, making it appear the people
have a choice but in reality there is none. Another reason for putting
Paul in the mix is to use the election only as a poll to better judge
where Americans stand on important issues."

Friedrich, a one time outspoken Paul supporter, presented a more
detailed analysis explaining why he jumped off the Ron Paul bandwagon:

Some of the way you guys present your info with weak evidence, he said
she said, and cartoonish devils has only turned me off from taking you
all that seriously. Please consider only using solid arguments and
mature presentations.

Anyway, you posted what I wrote about Jones in September, but I was not
sure why you opposed Ron Paul. I became a big supporter of Ron Paul as
you can read all my blogs on the dailypaul.com forum. However, after the
Glen Beck show I was very curious to see what you would write about it.
Then I saw your page about Ron Paul. The hand stuff seemed to be a weak
argument but the video where he said homosexuality is not a sin shocked
me, just as much as the links to what he wrote about Pope John Paul
being a man of God (actually you don't have that one linked but another
one like it).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html

I have issued the below
retraction to everyone I have promoted Ron Paul to.

Sincerely,
Rick

Dear friends,

Please allow me to apologize for my diverting the focus of the energy
research towards a political candidate. This sort of thing only opens
the door up to going off topic. I recently wrote an announcement and
included a short support reference to Ron Paul and then immediately
deleted it and resent it without the reference because I realized it was
not fitting. Some time previous to this I posted a fuller endorsement
which I did not remove yet.

We are in desperate times and are all looking for people we can trust.
When someone appears to offer an answer we are naturally excited and
motivated. I have watched Ron Paul for some 6 years and was excited
about him running for President. I even wrote several articles and
posted them on my website which I will remove shortly:
http://rpmgt.org/RonPaul.htm I was sincere in my research of this person
but I did miss some things until last week. Some of the things I found
may not concern some of you so I will not mention them unless you ask
off the lists. However, I will post some other matters below that have
also completely convinced me of my error. Since I did present a positive
endorsement of this candidate I feel the need to share why I feel I was
mistaken. I do not endorse anyone else and trust now that I will have
more time to once again participate in these energy discussions (after
the new year).

Sincerely,
Rick

Ron Paul and John Paul.
A few more reasons why I was mistaken.
[supporting links and articles below]

Ron Paul has recently stated publicly that he opposes a new world order
and globalism as well as the Bilderberger groups ideas. He said in the
recent YouTube Presidential debate that people behind such groups have a
conspiracy of ideas.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=181930 On the other hand
he is open to making America trade with all nations such as China, Iran,
North Korea and Cuba. More importantly Ron Paul praises world leaders
such as Pope John Paul II who attended a Bilderberger meeting with
Clinton, supported the formation of a European Union, and who called for
a New World Order. He called him "one of the great religious leaders of
modern times, and an eloquent champion of human freedom and dignity."
"The Popes commitment to human dignity" was "grounded in the teachings
of Christ" which Ron Paul also supposed led him to oppose the death
penalty. At the end of his first speech on the subject before the House
of Representatives, after the Popes death, he concluded that he was
"pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would encourage those
who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war
and the sanctity of life"... While these comments focus on a few issues,
it is hard to overlook the sexual scandals that have rocked the church
pertaining to the sanctity of life under the Popes leadership (among
other serious disregards of the sanctity of life).

In the second speech Ron Paul praises the Pope for being a man of God
and peace and rebukes politicians for not honoring him in such a way
during his life, and for "support [of] policies that are totally at odds
with Catholic teachings." He further rebukes them of hypocrisy for
having "very short memories." We would ask that same question to the
aged doctor with his opposition to the New World Order and the formation
of a North American Union if he has either changed his mind or has a
"very short memory"? He further rebuked the members of Congress while
saying "that the Popes pronouncements were theological, not political."
Yet it would be very hard to understand how the actions and words of the
leader of the Vatican were not political.

Some people who oppose the Globalist neoconservative agenda, as Ron Paul
has been well known for, are troubled by the fact that he coauthored a
book in 1993 with Lewis E. Lehrman who is a neoconservative and one of
the directors of The Project for a New American Century. That very well
may be accidental but the late Popes actions in promoting the United
Nations as well as a new world order were very obvious to everyone.
Further, the Pope made great efforts to make all world religions into
one, contradicting the obvious fundamental differences they all have in
reference to origins, meaning, morality and destiny.

While Ron Paul now says he does not support the conspiracy theories of
Alex Jones, he has appeared on his show numerous times over the years in
a way which gave most people the opposite impression. This has prompted
critics like Glen Beck to ask Ron Paul directly what his views about
government involvement with 911 terrorism are. Paul responded to the
surprise of many conspiracy theorists that such theories were absurd and
preposterous while advocating that it all came down to a bad foreign
policy and leadership incompetence. What was most surprising with the
outcome from Pauls belittling statements against what Alex Jones holds
as obvious fact was not just that Ron Paul claimed to never even hear
some of the well known theories Glen Beck had addressed, but that Alex
Jones continued his support and respect for Ron Paul in the same way as
if the interview never happened. Alex Jones has been an outspoken and
harsh critic of those who disbelieve his theories. His continued support
of Ron Paul contradicts many years of criticizing of others who made the
exact same statements as Ron Paul has just made. Further, while Jones
has avoided almost all discussion about the Roman Catholic Church and
the NWO he did produce an article opposing the Pope a few years ago when
he pushed for the NWO
http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/pope_bush_proposed_chaplain_nwo.htm
To be consistent, if it were anyone else, Jones would have dismissed Ron
Paul as endorsing the NWO for his comments about the late Pope (as well
as for they way he dismissed Jones theories)..

The Alex Jones media machine has been a major contributor to the Ron
Paul campaign. Most of Jones listeners support Ron Paul. The question
we have after the Beck interview and the praising statements about Pope
John Paul, is why? The two are mutually exclusive. Alex Jones doctrine
and practice has called Ron Pauls views as stated deceitful and
cowardly for someone in his position. But he will not act consistently.
Instead, he went on the attack against Glen Beck for asking the
questions Americans wanted to know about Ron Paul. Even Jones sidekicks
the Watson brothers, who run his websites and write articles for him,
thought the interview went very well. But Jones said on his show that he
disagreed with these brothers. Very revealing indeed!

Jones has further stated on radio that he was significantly influential
in getting Ron Paul to run for President and also that his camp coined
the term or started the recent Ron Paul Revolution. During the same
period where Paul was distancing himself from 911 conspiracy theories
Jones published totally unsupported claims about NWO assassination plans
for Ron Paul:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121407_assassinating_p
aul.htm

This was a major subject on the dailyPaul.com forums for the next week
even though there was much action to stop all discussion about it. Im
sure this will bring many things to peoples minds... The Watson and
Jones team have continually used these kinds of sensational claims in
the past. Notice the strength of the argument in the following
statement: "Estulin, whose information has unfortunately proven very
accurate in the past, went public with the bombshell news [about a Ron
Paul assassination plot] during an appearance on The Alex Jones Show
today." Jones always draws a lot of attention to his industry whenever
such prophetically false claims are made to scare his audience. Typical
with all cult groups the prophesy is given with some disclaimer and hope
that it will not happen, but the natural impression is given to all
followers that it will definitely happen. When it doesn't happen and the
hype is long gone, the disclaimer is then used to justify the
sensational prophesy. Jones has done this repeatedly, and actually daily
to a lesser extent. He is bound to be right one time out of a hundred.
But just last year in the summer he gave a very solemn warning that the
end was really coming this time. War was about to start up like we have
never seen it, within a month. This was special and equal only to his
prediction about 9/11 (which he falsely claimed he was the first to warn
about). The disclaimer clause in this case was that his listeners could
make a difference by activism. Nevertheless the terror continued to
scare everyone in the same way that so many cult leaders have scared
their sheep.

Lest you think Ron Paul is way above these kinds of things, the fact is
that he has continually appeared on the Alex Jones show over the years
and has spoken sympathetically with Jones as he made numerous
sensational claims. Late this summer, just before the Ron Paul
Revolution really took off, Ron Paul made the following statement on the
show: "If I were a betting man I would bet that they will attack Iran
before the end of this administration, which means in the next year or
so. The plans have been laid just like the plans were laid to go into
Iraq a long time before they did but they had to wait for the right
opportunity." This fit in perfectly with all the hype Jones was engaged
in for the last 3 or 4 years about Iran. First it was April 2005, then
Fall of that year. Then Fall 2006. Now we have about a year to go. But
now things have changed with Iran. The scare tactics will continue. Both
these men criticize the government for scaring the people into following
them, but they are on record for doing the same. Every time Alex Jones
produces a new scary terrorism video of the nature of a Osamah video,
which many times features Ron Paul, it successfully draws in more
support for this scare media industrial complex. Alex Jones always asks
the fitting question on his show (or at least he used to), Who stands to
gain? It should be evident by now.

Are these predictions and associations and endorsements a sign of
hypocrisy and poor judgment or something merely accidental that is not
worthy of our attention? Hope and fear for America may be a little more
accurate. We hear that Holywood went on strike but it appears the
entertainment has just moved to the Internet.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul242.html

Before the US House of Representatives, April 6, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the
life and legacy of Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was one of the
great religious leaders of modern times, and an eloquent champion of
human freedom and dignity. Unlike all-too-many misguided religious
leaders, the Pope understood that liberty, both personal and economic,
is a necessary condition for the flourishing of human virtue.

The Popes commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of
Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the
consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion,
war, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

Unfortunately, few in American politics today adhere to the consistent
ethic of life, thus we see some who cheered the Popes stand against the
war and the death penalty while downplaying or even openly defying his
teachings against abortion and euthanasia.
....
In conclusion, I am pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would
encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings
regarding war and the sanctity of life,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html

Im happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and
peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during
his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of
Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic
teachings.

The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short
memories.
Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Popes
pronouncements were theological, not political.

He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker,
but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission
was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party,
or politician.

The Popes commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of
Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an
ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war,
euthanasia, and the death penalty.

But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy
left by Pope John Paul II.
....

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/01/pope.ny.ap/

Pope calls for a new world order

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope John Paul II rang in the New Year on Thursday
with a renewed call for peace in the Middle East and Africa and the
creation of a new world order based on respect for the dignity of man
and equality among nations.

John Paul presided over a morning Mass inside St. Peter's Basilica to
mark the World Day of Peace, which the Roman Catholic Church celebrates
every January 1. He appeared in good form, delivering his entire homily
in a strong and clear voice despite a relatively tiring holiday
schedule.

This year, John Paul directed his thoughts to continuing conflicts
around the globe. But he stressed that to bring about peace, there needs
to be a new respect for international law and the creation of a "new
international order" based on the goals of the United Nations.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17083

Clinton, pope join Bilderbergers
Secret meeting of global movers, shakers in Portugal

What do Steven Spielberg, Pope John Paul II, Ted Turner, Boris Yeltsin,
Bill Clinton and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have in common? They are
among those on a "partial guest list" of expected attendees to the 1999
Bilderberg meeting in Portugal scheduled for next week.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/pope_bush_proposed_chaplain_nwo.htm



 

ggggg