Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘campaign’

As part of my alternative Ontario provincial election coverage, in interviewing the Ontario Libertarian Party candidates in my area of Kitchener-Waterloo, here is my 8-minute interview with OLP candidate for Kitchener-Waterloo, James Schulz.

Here are my interviews with Kitchener Centre OLP candidate Patrick Bernier and Kitchener-Conestoga OLP candidate David Schumm.

There was an audio issue that resulted in my questions and commentary not being heard, so enjoy the chance to only hear a candidate’s own words!

Read Full Post »

English: Alex Jones outside Bilderberg meeting...Those who have made good faith criticisms of Alex Jones in the same way that Alex Jones himself makes good faith criticisms of those more popular than himself — like Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh — are accused of being jealous of his success and of dividing the movement.

As I pointed out in a previous article, by that logic, Alex Jones’ criticism of Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh is motivated by his jealousy of their success because they are more popular than he is.

It shows how phony that retort has always been, and how it betrays an uncritical devotion to a personality as opposed to an uncompromising search for truth.

Now that Alex Jones has rightly come out and criticized Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney as a “betrayal,” and asked Ron Paul to account for his presidential campaign decisions, those Alex Jones supporters who criticize others for questioning the statements and actions of prominent figures in the liberty community as “dividing the movement” are mostly silent about Alex Jones having done that, as one will see from perusing the comments at Infowars.com.

Here were Alex Jones’ strong words for Ron Paul:

1:11: “taking wind out of your own sails — and out of our sails

1:24: “What did you expect to happen from this? Well, you’re very politically smart — you knew it would blow up in your face, and I have to tell you — I am not going to go down on the Ron Paul ship. If you don’t come out and explain yourself to your constituents and supporters, this is going to spread like a cancer…

6:11: “I’m ashamed that I didn’t listen to the voices warning me in the last six months, and pointing out this trail of many betrayals that we’ve been witnessing leading up to this larger betrayal.

6:50: “And to watch you mortally wounding the movement you helped build is very, very sad.

The Alex Jones double standard-bearers are those who took exception with those making legitimate criticisms of Rand and Ron Paul prior to Alex Jones taking them to task. It was “dividing the movement” to ask, as I did, whether Ron Paul will throw 9/11 Truth under the bus again, like he did in 2012, with negative comments on my post on RonPaulForums.com like, “truthers is why we lost last time also. go the f***[edited] away.”

As Alex Jones himself said, he should’ve heeded the words of those warning him since the end of 2011 that things weren’t right with the campaign.

I was aware of this before Rand’s endorsement, and wrote the May 16, 2012 article, Dr. Stan Monteith: “I’m sure that they’ve infiltrated and neutralized Ron Paul’s political candidacy,” and the May 31 article, Was Ron Paul’s 2012 Republican presidential nomination campaign sabotaged from within?

And there was my 2009 prediction that Rand Paul wouldn’t be a constitutional candidate, despite Infowars.com automatically flagging my comment for moderation on an article claiming he was a constitutional candidate at the time.

Now let’s see if any prominent alternative media personality criticizes Alex Jones the way he criticized Ron Paul and isn’t raked over the coals by the Alex Jones double standard-bearers.

Read Full Post »

Inspired by a caller expressing her upset about decisions made by the Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign, at 2:21:36, I called into the June 4, 2012 episode of the Mike Chambers Live radio program on Oracle Broadcasting to share the latest information I had concerning the possible infiltration of Ron Paul’s campaign.

Mike Chambers pointed out that former Paypal co-founder, Peter Thiel, is on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group, and is a big-time supporter of Ron Paul, further raising questions about the possible infiltration of Ron Paul’s campaign at the highest level.

Read Full Post »

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...

Now that Mitt Romney has officially clinched the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, it is relevant to ask the question, was Ron Paul’s 2012 Republican presidential nomination campaign sabotaged from within?

On the May 15, 2012 episode of Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith, Dr. Stan stated he was sure that they had infiltrated and neutralized Ron Paul’s political candidacy because he had called over 10 times to have Ron Paul as a guest on his 70+ affiliate radio program, and had offered to donate money, yet never received a single return call.

On the May 19, 2012 episode of the Secret Truth with George Butler and Charlotte Littlefield, George Butler said (at 30:54 with pause words removed):

The Ron Paul campaign is putting out some information about, this might be his last Moneybomb. Did you see that notation, Charlotte? … Well one of the top officials in the Ron Paul campaign — which I disagree with totally, they shouldn’t even print anything like that like that. That’s very discouraging to the grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. And to say in an email or something that this may be the last Moneybomb or something for Ron Paul or his legacy, talking about his legacy.

I think it’s a little early to talk about his legacy when he’s making new history and new gains and he’s progressing every day.

I just think that some of these pronouncements made by his campaign are totally wrong — within policy — and I think they should have never been made. I think they were mistakes.

Lee Rogers of Live Free or Die Radio on Oracle Broadcasting has been at the forefront in the true alternative media in questioning whether Ron Paul’s campaign has been intentionally set up to fail, in saying that he wasn’t supporting Ron Paul in 2012 because of what happened in 2008.

Lee Rogers is no armchair quarterback when it comes to Ron Paul, as he conducted an interview with him in the run-up to the 2008 campaign, and he later revealed that Ron Paul said he had asked him tough questions.

Since Ron Paul didn’t win the nomination, the argument that Ron Paul should throw 9/11 under the bus again in 2012 is moot, since he didn’t win, regardless.

On April 29, 2011, I posed the question, will Ron Paul throw 9/11 Truth under the bus again, like he did in 2008?, and was met with a mostly hostile reaction on RonPaulForums.com. While I didn’t hear of him throwing it under the bus in 2012, he also didn’t embrace it or even say that those seeking a full independent account of what happened on 9/11 had some legitimate points in doubting the official story.

The fact that avoiding 9/11 Truth didn’t win him the nomination confirms the futility of that strategy, and the same strategy of any subsequent libertarian presidential candidate. To say that if he had embraced 9/11 Truth, he would’ve lost even more is like saying that it’s better to lose less in a contest where winning is the goal and there’s only room for one winner.

Dr. Stan Monteith has said that “most of the conservative organizations have been infiltrated,” and I don’t think Ron Paul’s campaign is any different.

Read Full Post »

Dr. Stan MonteithOn the May 15, 2012 episode of Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith, he said (at 1:34):

I’m sure that they’ve infiltrated and neutralized Ron Paul’s political candidacy. One reason he isn’t getting money is cause I called on several occasions and said I’d like to donate — there was nobody there, nobody ever got back to me after I left my telephone number. I called at least 10 times and told them we had a radio network with over 70 stations — love to get you on. It was very obvious that the people who are working in Public Relations in Ron Paul’s campaign had no intention, of course, of allowing him onto a network where there’d be people who supported his candidacy, and would support him.

Read Full Post »

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

Reading the online version of Canada’s most widely read newspaper, The Toronto Star, on April 14th, I saw the headline, “Hébert: Debates keep Harper on road to majority.

I was struck by that headline, since nothing I had read up to that point seemed to indicate that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was headed for a majority government on election day.

When I read the article itself, it told a very different story than the impression given by the headline.

It started with:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper comes out of the televised debates with his ambition for a governing majority intact.

Every national party leader has the ambition of forming a majority government, no matter how low he/she is in the polls.

It went on to say the following things that further distanced the text of the article from the impression given by the headline:

As for Harper, his majority is hardly in the bag.

The risk-adverse Conservative campaign could move prematurely into low gear — as it did in 2004 — causing the party to fail to cover the extra mile to a majority.

But the debates do pave the way for a final push to propel the party to the safe side of the majority line on May 2.

After reading the article, I came away with the clear impression that the headline was deliberately designed to rally the Star’s relatively Liberal and NDP-leaning readership into supporting the Liberals in the next election, who would otherwise be more relaxed if they figured the Conservatives were going to form a third minority government, as pre-election campaign poll numbers showed.

Read Full Post »

Ballot box

After the last federal election, the defeated incumbent candidate in my riding had a deceptive slogan on his website calling for voters to “Re-elect” him, a full year after his defeat.

I noticed this morning that his campaign signs say, “Elect” and his website says, “Vote [for].” Funny how he changed his deceptive slogan, giving the impression he was the incumbent candidate, ever since he became a registered candidate after his defeat.

There are legal requirements regarding claims made on all election-related material, which is why I suspect the deceptive material was changed.

Thanks to archive.org, my recollection was reaffirmed showing the deceptive slogan on February 11, 2009.

Read Full Post »