(NaturalNews) Yes, of course it was the Federal Reserve. Paul wanted to investigate it and audit it thoroughly, and if by some remote chance he became president, he would have had the leverage to go deep and deeper. And then the global banksters would have tumbled out of the woodwork, for all to see.
But Paul also wanted to bring all the American troops home and get them out of foreign wars. That was just as big a deal. He was stepping on some huge toes there.
So let's explore a few pieces of America's current military adventurism and see who's hiding under what rocks.
Once you laugh off the ridiculous idea that the government is promoting democracy through the Arab Spring, strange questions surface.
Who's running the real op in the Middle East, and what is their goal?
Obama's obvious propensity for all things Islamic...how does that fit in?
According to one sensible scenario, the spreading Arab Spring is merely a front for a covert op, whose real ambition---using Libyan and other trained terrorists and NATO surrogates---is a US takeover of the Middle East and North Africa.
And then? Previous dictators in that region, overthrown, will give way to Muslim states, and new Islamic leadership will pay back under-the-table promises to US elites, who want...what?
A better oil deal?
What's really going on here?
There are those who believe US ambitions in the Middle East have everything to do with establishing a ring of military bases close to Russia. Such moves on the planetary chessboard would signify an enduring competition between the two primary Cold War players. If true, is the only way to achieve American military hegemony through igniting the whole Muslim world? Isn't that a bit risky? A bit crazy?
Assuming the current chaos in the Middle East and parts of Africa is all a US plan to utilize Islamic proxies, how sensible and pragmatic is the strategy, given the unpredictable range of future consequences? Is this a genius maneuver?
With countries in the Middle East coming, for example, under Muslim Brotherhood control, is the US more likely or less likely to preserve the unimpeded flow of oil? Is a "better oil deal" really in the offing?
Is there another way to look at US actions in the Middle East over the last two presidencies?
One thing is clear. George W Bush and Barack Obama are not highly rated war planners or foreign policy pros. They're neophytes. They're also, of course, like the whole parade of modern US presidents, instruments of higher forces. They're front men.
This doesn't mean Bush and Obama really comprehend who they're actually working for. It simply means they're dupes.
Just as it was eminently predictable that Bush, after 9/11, would want to invade Iraq ("Saddam tried to kill my dad") and would go along with plans that were on the drawing board long before 9/11, it has been predictable that Obama would show "warm support" for and special treatment to Islam, imagining its modern destiny in terms of "a great self-determined uprising." Hence, Obama's key role in Arab Spring.
In other words, both Bush and Obama were carefully profiled long before they ever took office as president.
Profiled by whom?
If we draw an arc of power, extending at least as far back as Vietnam (or from the beginning of the 20th century), coming forward through the latter stages of the Cold War, and then into "the age of terrorism," the question of who benefits has an answer.
It is the same answer you would get if you inquired into the objectives of the Rockefeller family, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the elite bankers who breathe life into economies and take life away, according to their private timetable.
Who benefits from the last decade of manipulated US foreign policy and military wars?
The military-industrial complex? Yes.
But above and beyond that?
The great beneficiaries are the elite Globalists who are determined to establish a planetary management system, a political New World Order.
And by using tools like Obama and Bush, they have made headway toward achieving a major item on their agenda: degrade and sink and weaken, and ultimately destroy the United States by keeping it at war.
The United States, from the Globalist perspective, needs to be brought down. It needs to have its pillars crumble. It needs to go away.
There are two reasons. One, it is the primary place in the world where the idea of individual freedom is still alive. And two, its government's persistent ambition to create unilateral Empire is a threat to international Globalist control of the planet.
American empire and Globalist empire are not exactly the same thing. In the long run, as far as the Rockefellers of this world are concerned, they are mutually exclusive.
So what better way to weaken America than to cater to its government's empire-building obsession, and to use that obsession to propel it into high-risk military adventures that dead-end in disasters?
Disasters such as:
Huge budget expenditures on wars and ensuing debt. Demoralization of American citizens through wars, to say nothing of the injuries and deaths and debilitation of soldiers. An embrace with radical Islam, and all the blowback that brings. The eventual pinching off of oil supplies in the Middle East. International chaos. Engendering hatred of America abroad. Inculcating self-hatred of the US among Americans at home. Confusion, passivity, despair.
A classic takedown.
In his 2003 Memoirs, David Rockefeller wrote: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Did you think David was just playing patty-cake, that his plan was only about subverting the money supply, that this was going to be a gentlemanly world domination scheme? No. This is also blood and guts and fear and terror.
The Globalists play for keeps.
US foreign policy and military aggression over the last decade makes no sense because it wasn't supposed to. That policy was using two dupes, Bush and Obama, to achieve something these preposterous presidents were only dimly aware of.
Of the two, Obama, with his Marxist background, is more cognizant. But he, too, is caught up in his private vision. For him, it is all about some grand "liberation" scheme and imagined "payback" for past oppression.
He was chosen to be president because that is his character.
No, the Arab Spring isn't ultimately about American hegemony and domination in the Middle East. It's about a grand American failure there. That's what's on page one of the grand Globalist plan. And it's coming true.
The American war-mongers are following their playbook, and they are being directed, unknowingly, by the Globalist princes, who are using that war-mongering to sink America.
From that perspective, what is happening in the Middle East makes sense.
If Romney wins the election, he will fit neatly into the Bush mold. He'll join the war party. He'll see America defeating evil everywhere by continued force. He'll jump right into the trap.
Only Ron Paul had it right. Bring home everybody. Bring home all the soldiers and stop the madness. That's why the Bilderberg people hate him so much. He sees a bigger picture. The whole defamation of the Tea Party makes sense, too, at a much deeper level. The Tea Party supported Ron Paul. Many of them, too, saw there was something very, very wrong about Americans For a New Military Century.
Paul and the Tea Party had to be stopped. They had to be stopped, because the Globalist elite wanted the American government-military-contractor-corporate nexus to pursue their insane goals of Middle East domination and fail
Does this sound too complicated to be real? It's no more complicated than using a bully's force to defeat him. Only in this case, the victor is a larger bully.
"See? These crazy American war-mongers want to invade everybody and defeat the world. Why stop them? We have to encourage them. We have to engineer what they're doing so it makes some kind of sense to the American people, so the people don't rebel. We'll supply the presidents who'll supply the rationale, and we'll keep stoking the fire. Sooner or later, the war-mongers will run out of steam. They'll crash on the rocks and we'll pick up the pieces. Let's make sure they go to the Middle East. There isn't a better place to fail utterly. Except maybe Afghanistan. Oh, let's make sure they go there, too, for a long time. Fantastic! Let's support and massage and polish and push those mad goals!"
Of course, the picture I've drawn here becomes a little more complicated when you factor in the role of mega-corporations, who want their considerable piece of the global pie. The American War Mongers and the Globalist Princes "share" certain corporations. Yes, there are overlapping interests. But there is a strong division between those who want American Power and those who want Globalist Power.
The picture of America supporting the Arab Spring and encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood and covertly using terrorists to overthrow dictators in Egypt, Libya, and Syria looks crazy because it is crazy. It's failure waiting to happen. Obama is presently going along with it, because he is predisposed to want "the liberation of Islam."
The neocons stand for American empire. People like David Rockefeller stand for destruction of America.
I know there is a tendency to say, "Oh, they're all bastards and traitors, who cares what their goals are. They're our enemies. We don't need to draw subtle differences."
I suggest the differences aren't subtle at all. In the first case, you have the government-corporate nexus of the United States directing its energies to become a Roman Caesar extending unilateral empire to far horizons. In the second case, you have Globalist agents pushing those ambitions forward because they know the failure will be huge and spectacular.
Do you think Julius Caesar was entirely alone in his tent cooking up plans to stretch the Roman Empire to the ends of the Earth? Don't you think there were a few key people planted in his circle of advisors who wanted take Rome down? These covert agents bolstered Caesar, encouraged him, showed him why Rome could only survive by conquering more lands and people. They fed him whatever worked to egg him on toward an eventual future of ruin.
To boil it down to a stark analogy: one crazy man drives his car every day across a plateau toward a cliff. He's convinced he can go faster and faster and still stop in time. The second man, who is his covert enemy and who is crazy like a fox, tells him, yes, driving faster is a great idea, keep going, don't stop at 80mph, take it up to 90 and 100, you're a fantastic driver, I bet you can go 200mph and still stop in time...
The neocons of America actually believe they can take over and transform the whole world through military force. Their remaining shreds of common sense are blasted away by Globalists, breathing down their necks telling them how great and powerful they (the neocons) are, showing them how they can extend empire right into...gigantic failure.
Ron Paul and his supporters saw pieces and sections of this whole insane situation and said, "Stop it all. Bring all our soldiers home. End the madness."
They threatened everybody in power on all levels. They cut to the chase. That's why they had to be scrubbed from the picture and sent to the bleachers, like embarrassing cousins from the hills.
That's why, for example, the idiots at MSNBC pounded on the Tea Party night after night and never mentioned that many, many of these "hicks and racists and bitter clingers" wanted an end to American wars much more fervently than MSNBC's Messiah, Barack Obama, did. That fact was never brought up. It went against the script.
FOX and CNN never brought it up in any serious way, either. The three other major networks stayed away from it like the plague, too.
Ron Paul, before he dropped out of the race, was educating millions of Americans about war. In the history of outsider "peace candidates" for president, there has never been anyone at his level.
Historically, several peace candidates have been socialists. They wanted an end to American aggression so the Soviet Union could advance its agenda more easily. Ron Paul wanted peace because the Constitution was framed to permit war only on the basis of defense of the nation---and not on the basis of empire-building.
And to media agents of Globalism, the Constitution is like a silver bullet to a vampire. The Constitution promotes life and decimates the Walking Undead.
I believe there is a lot more to this story, including the future role of multinational corporations under a Globalist New World Order. But this is a start. And it offers a reason (among several other reasons) why Ron Paul was stopped in his tracks, a reason not cited nearly enough.
Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. www.nomorefakenews.com
About the author: The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. www.nomorefakenews.com