Aftermath News

← →

Ann Coulter endorses Ron Paul in 2012

January 18, 2009 · 15 Comments

YouTube | Jan 17, 2009

By FR33AGENTS

Categories: 2012 Election

15 responses so far ↓

  • wil // January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    Mmm? Just in time for the Mayan astro alignment with the galactic center?

  • pjwalker911 // January 26, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    Yes, Ann and Ron will enter the Mayan temple together and channel the masonic light with Tony Blair and the Pope. It is written in the stars.

  • lucipher // March 17, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    i DESPISE HER BUT ITS THE SMARTEST THING SHE HAS SAID.

  • pjwalker911 // March 17, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Doesn’t it make you wonder though why such a demonic neonazi maechen would promoting RP?

  • BoBo09 // March 22, 2009 at 3:13 am

    Maybe because Ron Paul is in league with them. It’s something to think about.

  • pjwalker911 // March 22, 2009 at 3:57 am

    Well yeah, that’s what I’m getting at. I can’t help but think RP is controlled opposition. He is in league with the JBS, the CNP and people like Phyllis Schlafly who is a Dame of Malta. He is in league with the Freemasons who are literally his biggest backers, the Vatican and who knows who else. And I get these Masons all the time claiming to be freedom fighters, but you just scratch and sniff a little and you find out they are all working in league with the United Nations behind the scenes. Had one today claiming he was for freedom and I come to find out he is working for the Theosophical Society as a minister of one of their branches which is literally the religious arm of the UN, plus all his “philanthropic” work is tied in with the UN. And they are telling us the opposite! I know I don’t have to explain to you why this is BS. It is true for all the NGO groups whether they are Protestant, Catholic or Masonic or quasi-masonic like the Rotary. They all work quietly behind the scenes with the UN. So the whole Ron Paul “R3volution” is a big joke if you ask me.

  • Bobo09 // March 22, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    I look at it this way too, since he’s still playing the Left/Right paradigm like everyone else envolved in today’s political dynamic then it’s a safe bet that he’s a globalist just like the rest of them.

    A case in point:

    Here is an interview from ZNet Magazine. They interviewed Noam Chomsky,asking his opinion on Ron Paul and to read his comments you start to wonder very quickly if Dr. Paul is trying to sell us down the toilet.

    From the znet sustainers forum:

    Questioner: Hello Mr. Chomsky. I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions. Here my summary of Mr. Paul’s positions:

    Questioner: He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).

    Noam Chomsky: Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

    Questioner: He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)

    Noam Chomsky: “Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

    Questioner: He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

    Noam Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.

    There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power — itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

    Questioner: He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

    Noam Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

    Questioner: I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.

    Noam Chomsky: There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

    Questioner: So I have these questions:

    Questioner: 1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of “Libertarianism”?

    Noam Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

    Questioner: 2) Can you please tell me what role “private property” and “ownership” have in your school of “Libertarianism”?

    Noam Chomsky: That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

    Questioner: 3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

    Noam Chomsky: No.

    (The end of the interview)

    JUST KEEP in mind I don’t agree with everything Noam Chomsky had to say either such as the Second Amendment and I think we should get out of the UN, but overall, there are a lot of question about Ron Paul’s motives that should be addressed, and most importantly who is he really working for?

    Just a thought.

  • pjwalker911 // March 23, 2009 at 1:07 am

    Well, briefly, I wouldn’t vote for either one of them myself knowing what I know. Maybe fifteen years ago, I somewhat supported Chomsky and over the last 10 years, I leaned more to what libertarians like Ron Paul were saying. But in the last couple of years I have had to distance myself from Ron Paul too based on his connections and on the fact that he lies about 9/11 (both he and Chomsky defend the official story), the causes of the War on Terror and even the economy. In the CPAC conference recently he stated that bin Ladin destroyed our economy which was as ludicrous as Limbaugh saying it was all Barney Frank’s fault. I do believe in many of the same principles like free market, individual rights, states rights, non-interventionism, getting out of the UN, smaller government, sound money, etc, etc, but these are all libertarian principles that have been around for a long, long time, not something he thought up, and not new at all. The problem I have with him is his connections to both the Vatican and Freemasonry which both ultimately support the NWO and the UN such that his surface positions all come under question as merely controlled opposition. Also, I look back at the founding of this Union (not a nation, but a union of nation states), and I see the wiles of Freemasonry in operation from day one. Today, hardly any serious researcher will deny the central role of Freemasonry in the NWO, yet most are still prone to think the Founders were the “good” freemasons. Again, we are told over and over that they “gave” us our freedom, which is utter BS. If anyone tells you that they gave you your freedom, or gave you the right to exist or that without them, you are nothing, then you better walk away from that person who takes credit for your very existence. That’s the kind of thing Jim Jones told his disciples and look where they ended up.

  • Bobo09 // March 23, 2009 at 2:02 am

    Again the argument leads to one axiom and that’s autonomy of the individual.
    As far as the founding of this nation goes; the truth is that two factions of Freemasonry were fighting for primacy of the land, and that’s it in a nutshell and by 1813 both of these factions began to merge slowly, which The War of 1812 was a result of.
    Insofar as 9/11 we all know the score, but on the “Current Issues TV/Radio program hosted by Hesham Tillawi, Noam Chomsky did say that the 9/11 truth movement should has pressed for a congressional inquiry into the events on 9/11, and that’s what should has happened instead of the white wash we ended up with, which leads me to suspect that the leaders of the truth movement may have been a distraction/controlled opposition.
    He also admitted that the government was covering up facts, and has always done so, which is nothing new for them. It’s just the way they practice.

    The way I look at it Noam Chomsky is an analyst who uses government documents and laws to indict them for crimes. He uses tangible facts to make his case. His method may not be the most practical or popular, and not to say that the 9/11 truth movement doesn’t have the facts to back up its accusations because they do, it’s just that the government isn’t going to admit to it and their not going to investigate themselves.
    In that respect I can see where Chomsky is coming from even though I don’t agree with him.
    9/11 was an inside job, but the question still remains… can we do anything about it? I’d say the answer is no we can’t based on our bifrucated society.
    And believe me I tried to convince people of the truth behind 9/11, but very few in this country will listen, and I think Chomsky like many others figured that out already. So it’s easier to just go along with the official story, while trying to incriminate the government with in its confines in hopes that people will get that the globalist don’t have their best interest in mind.

    It’s kind of like comparing it to the “OJ Simpson Trial.” The Police trying to frame a guilty man scenario.
    I’m not defending Noam’s opinions if they are indeed really his opinions, but he has the right to them.
    As for the UN even though I feel we as a nation should pull out because it’s being controlled by the G20 we do need a mediator; how that would work under our present system I don’t know, but what’s transpiring now isn’t working at all under Freemasonry/Illuminati control.

  • Luis Cifras // March 27, 2009 at 12:50 am

    I agree with a lot of you but.
    Its like who do we TRUST! Every one got blood on there hands, some how some one is affiliated with these globalist bastards.

    But i do agree with abolishing the federal reserve so thats a start i think.

    And i still hate ann coulter.

  • pjwalker911 // March 27, 2009 at 1:16 am

    Do you really think that is going to work though? I personally don’t see it ever happening unless the globalists simply transfer the fed to the IMF/World Bank or some other global entity.

  • BoBo09 // March 27, 2009 at 8:52 am

    That’s the problem PJwalker9/11, even if we abolished the Fed system their going to institute something else in its place. That’s why we have to deal directly with the elite families responsible for all this mayhem. It’s getting people to figure that out is the main problem.

    Luis Cifras you have to start by trusting yourself and have your facts straight when talking to others then and only then will you make a difference.

  • pjwalker911 // March 27, 2009 at 9:46 am

    Well, I first of all cannot see how in the hell we’re supposed to get a bunch of corrupt compromised illuminist politicians to vote for anything that might be in the interests of the American People. So Ron Paul can float these bills all he wants and nothing is ever going to happen unless it is a psyop for public consumption that just spins it again into a new and even more evil system. A sick joke. Time is running out. The screws are turning tighter and tighter while people dissipate their energies into meaningless fantasies and wishful thinking. Voting is another cruel joke.

  • Bobo09 // March 28, 2009 at 5:02 am

    It’s frustrating isn’t it?
    People are just too far gone and can’t figure out the scam (That the “Revolutionary War” never really ended!)
    They know something is wrong, or strangely ambiguous about the situation, but they can’t seem to fathom whose really causing this malfeasance, including the so-called patriots who bible thump their way through the pandemonium.
    Moreover, you’re absolutely right, voting is a cruel joke (aka A FRAUD!) considering we’re living in a polyarchy, which means we get to vote for whose going to rule over us then we have to watch what happens on the sidelines; meaning we are nothing but spectators who have no real stake in the outcome because the Dems and Repubs’ strings are being pulled by the same elites/monarchy who own everything.
    The Rothschilds, Windsors, and the Black Nobility make the real decisions. leaving us holding the bag.
    In the end what the North American Union is really going to accomplish will be to turn the United States into a British commonwealth just like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, ruled by Queen Elizabeth II and the royal houses of Europe.
    “That’s the truth! The whole truth! And nothing but the truth!” That’s why when the Queen visits the USA everyone fawns over her. It’s what I’d call ad nauseum at its most paramount.

  • pjwalker911 // March 28, 2009 at 5:54 am

    Voting is like trying the win the lottery. You go in and you get your ticket and of course you get nothing for your efforts. And you do it over and over in the vain hope that someday, if you’re lucky, you just might win, not that you are depending on it, but you might get lucky who knows..etc. And in the end, yes, a few do actually win and win big. But the vast majority who pay in, who play the game, come away empty-handed. That is exactly how voting works in America, Land of the Sheep, Home of the Slave.

Leave a Comment