My friend Rachael McIntosh was an alternate delegate at the 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa, Florida, representing Ron Paul for the state of Rhode Island.
Rachael had worked for a private defense contractor for years. Awakened by the corruption and darkness she witnessed, she left the defense industry, and began working tirelessly toward getting Ron Paul elected. She has fictionalized her experiences in a superbly written trilogy of novels, Security through Absurdity.
The Tampa convention was supposed to begin on Monday, August 27. Ron Paul was originally slated to speak, but the convention was cancelled for that day due to the threat of a “hurricane.” The hurricane turned out to be no more than a brisk rainstorm. Rachael and many other Ron Paul delegates braved it that morning and went to the convention center (the Tampa Bay Times Forum, a sports complex) and saw Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus officially proclaim the delay. After the gavel had been struck and the chairman left the stage, the delegates found themselves watching a movie glorifying Mitt Romney. At the film’s conclusion, Rachael heard ear-splitting applause. But when she looked around, almost no one was cheering. The applause was “canned”—the type sports stadiums pipe in when the home team is losing and their spectators show low enthusiasm.
The next day at her hotel, Rachael’s husband called and said: “Hey, I watched it yesterday and the crowd was really diggin’ Romney.” Rachael had to break the news: what he (and the rest of America) heard on TV had been faked.
The real blow to the Ron Paul people came when the Republican National Committee made last-minute rule changes. Under the existing rules, Paul had won enough primaries and caucuses (five) to have his name placed in nomination. Under the new rules, the required number of states would be increased to eight, thus rendering Paul’s nomination impossible. Mitt Romney, who had already won sufficient delegates through dirty tricks during the primaries to become the “presumptive nominee,” would also be granted power to replace duly elected delegates with people of his own choosing.
Naturally, Paul’s delegates were anxious to vote on the rule changes. However, the convention busses showed up at their hotels late. The driver of Rachael’s bus didn’t seem to know the way to the convention center, got stuck in traffic, and took about two hours to complete the trip. By the time most of the Paul delegates reached the center, and passed through its heavy security, the vote was already over. Mitt Romney would be the Republican Convention’s “unanimous” choice.
Ron Paul was still offered a chance to make a speech, but only under two conditions: (1) that he endorse Romney; and (2) that the Republic National Committee first vet and approve the speech. Under these conditions, Paul acted on integrity and declined to speak.
A word should be added about the media in Tampa. On the convention’s last day, Rachael dressed up in funeral black and handed out cards offering condolences to America upon the loss of the democratic process. She gave one to a leading news journalist who said “I love it.” When Rachael asked if he would do a story on it, he literally replied: “It doesn’t fit the pre-scripted narrative. Sorry.”
That the media was bound to a “pre-scripted narrative” was later proven when a brawl broke out between the Romney and Paul delegates, complete with screaming, pushing and shoving, right by the entrance to the press boxes (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.). Although the brawl should have been “news,” not a single journalist emerged with a camera to record it. After all, it didn’t fit the “pre-scripted narrative”—namely, that Republicans unanimously supported Mitt Romney.
What lesson can we draw from Rachael’s experience? The same one that people have been learning the hard way for decades: that regardless of much you work for a Presidential candidate, the PTB (Powers That Be) will railroad their candidate to the top. The following quote from my 1988 book The Shadows of Power refers to the election year of 1952:
At the Republican nominating convention, “dirty tricks” abounded. The rules for selecting delegates were changed: Taft delegations from Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas were thrown out and replaced by Eisenhower supporters.1
I.e., the same sort of tactics that Ron Paul’s supporters faced in 2012 were used at the GOP Convention 60 years earlier. I’ll add that Dwight Eisenhower had no previous affiliation with the Republican Party; the Democratic Party had tried to draft him in 1948, and President Harry Truman (Democrat) had approached him about running on the same ticket.
Above: Nixon and Eisenhower at the 1952 convention
Let’s kick it back to 1940. Seven weeks before the GOP Convention, a poll showed only three percent of Republicans favored candidate Wendell Willkie, who, prior to that year, had been a registered Democrat. But with powerful magic, Willkie got the nomination. Ten-term Congressman Usher Burdick of North Dakota said of this:
We Republicans in the west want to know if Wall Street and the international bankers control our party and can select our candidate? I believe I am serving the best interests of the Republican Party by protesting and exposing the machinations and attempts of J.P. Morgan and the New York utility bankers in forcing Wendell Willkie on the Republican Party. . . .There is nothing to the Willkie boom for President except the artificial public opinion being created by newspapers, magazines, and the radio. The reason back of all this is money. Money is being spent by someone, and lots of it.2
Usher Burdick (right) in 1958 with Ezra Pound
For those who wonder if such phenomena only happen to Republicans, Bernie Sanders can already “feel the spurn.” He won New Hampshire by a landslide (60 to 38 percent) only to discover that Hillary Clinton had been awarded the majority of delegates. This is because the Democratic Party has 717 “superdelegates” who support whomever they prefer, regardless of the wishes of voters or primary results.
Go back to 1976. According to a Gallup poll, just seven months before the Democratic National Convention, less than four percent of Democratic voters favored Jimmy Carter for President. What happened? As Lawrence Shoup noted in The Carter Presidency and Beyond:
What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months.3
How did Carter acquire this media following? It began at a dinner with Republican David Rockefeller— kingmaker of the Establishment—at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York estate. Also present was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who helped Rockefeller found the internationalist Trilateral Commission, and whom Carter would later appoint National Security Adviser.
The media blitz included adulatory pieces in the New York Times, and a Wall Street Journal editorial declaring that Carter was the best Democratic candidate. Before the nominating convention, his picture appeared on the cover of Time three times, and Newsweek twice. Time’s cover artists were even instructed to make him look as much as possible like John F. Kennedy.4 The TV networks inundated the public with his image.
As former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater said:
David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be their ideal candidate. They helped him win the nomination and the presidency. To accomplish this purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community – which is subservient to the wealth of the great tax-free foundations – and the media controllers represented in the membership of the CFR and the Trilateral.5
If you want to glimpse how far back this sort of power-brokering goes, read Ferdinand Lundberg’s 1937 classic America’s Sixty Families. He related how, a century ago, the rich were scorning voters and maneuvering their own choices into nominations, whether a Democrat like Woodrow Wilson in 1912 or a Republican like Herbert Hoover in 1928.
The 2016 Race
What about this year? Who have the “PTB” anointed to become President? While I am of course not privy to their conclaves, I believe their chosen one, as I stated in my blog post of February 15, is Hillary Clinton. There are several indicators:
(1) Despite her “anti-Wall Street” rhetoric, Hillary receives by far the most donations from Wall Street of any candidate. Jeb Bush competed with her for that distinction, but since Jeb’s personality proved too lackluster to muster enough votes to stay in the race, Hillary holds the honor alone.
Above: Hillary partakes in groundbreaking ceremony for Goldman Sachs’ new headquarters in 2005.
(2) Of the viable candidates, only Hillary is committed to 100 percent of the Rothschild agenda:
• pro “War on Terror”
• pro Israel
• pro gun control
• pro GMO (Monsanto)
• pro population control (abortion, vaccines, etc.)
• pro “climate change” control
• pro mass immigration
• pro Internet censorship
• pro gay agenda
• pro TPP (she is currently backing off on this because of voter concern about jobs, but before running she said “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements,” and was a strong proponent of the job-destroying NAFTA and GATT agreements.)
(3) I’ll interject here that Rachael McIntosh told me she believes that in 2008, an understanding was reached concerning Obama and Clinton, both of whom were running that year. Obama would become the first black President; Hillary’s turn would arrive in due time, and she would become the first woman President. Having a black or woman in the Oval Office, of course, gives the public the illusion that they are “empowered” and that the Establishment has somehow been stymied, whereas in fact both Obama and Hillary are flunkies for the Establishment. I agree with Rachael’s assessment 100 percent.
And so it was that Obama appointed Hillary his Secretary of State, a move clearly intended to give her a “foreign policy expertise” credential for the 2016 Presidential campaign. After Clinton left the position (2013), CBS began airing (2014) its still-running drama Madam Secretary, all about a blonde woman Secretary of State. Beginning with the very first episode, in which “Madam Secretary” rescued American hostages held in Syria, viewers would receive a weekly dose of subliminal propaganda for Hillary’s campaign, portraying her as beautiful, heroic, honest and competent.
(4) Prior to being Secretary of State, Hillary served as U.S. Senator from New York. She had never lived in New York before, but the state is the center of America’s banking industry, and has been a launching point for Presidential candidates such as the Roosevelts. Serving a Senate term, of course, would also give Hillary an important “can work with Congress” credential for her Presidential run. There is considerable Internet buzz that John F. Kennedy, Jr., who had long lived in New York, was planning to run for the Senate in 2000, the same year as Clinton. The handsome son of the popular President would likely have defeated Clinton, adding interest to Kennedy’s death in a suspicious plane crash on July 16, 1999, especially in light of what has been termed the Clinton Body Count.
(5) Perhaps most importantly, the Establishment has already marked Hillary with their stamp of approval by entrusting her with two terms in the White House. Yes, Bill Clinton was President then, but if Hillary is elected, Bill will of course be returning.
Will the email or Benghazi scandals derail her Presidential bid? I doubt it. During Bill’s tenure, the Clintons were plagued by innumerable scandals besides mysterious deaths: sex charges, perjury, Whitewater, “Chinagate,” “Travelgate,” drug allegations connected with his Arkansas governorship, Hillary’s incredible cattle futures profits, etc. Yet although many pundits back then claimed these scandals would lead to impeachment, the Clintons always remained untouched by justice. So far, nothing seems to have changed. However, Hillary’s scandals do give the Establishment a blackmailer’s leash on her; i.e., if she ever steps out of line, prosecutions could suddenly materialize.
What about the other candidates currently running? All of them share some of Hillary’s positions, but none do 100 percent. Bernie Sanders is too opposed to banker bailouts to be acceptable, even though the Establishment is OK with his socialism (since, in an illusional democracy, empowering government empowers them). Cruz’s wife Heidi is a former term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a vice president at Goldman Sachs, from whom Cruz’s Senate campaign received a million-dollar loan; but his positions on matters like abortion, gun control and immigration don’t pass muster. And Donald Trump is too openly committed to immigration restriction and job preservation.
A few words should be said about front-runner Trump. Many patriots, and many in alternative media, view Trump as “anti-Establishment.”
As Alex Noble notes, Trump supported Hillary’s Senate campaign in 2000, Obama’s Presidential campaign in 2008, has donated over $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, has switched parties at least five times, and in the past supported abortion, gun control and socialized medicine. Though its editing seems too chopped, I believe this YouTube clip still has relevance:
Enemies to the teeth? I don’t think so.
Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton
Trump is reminiscent of Willkie and Eisenhower, two non-Republicans whom the banksters quickly turned into Republican nominees. I realize that some may object that Trump is a “self-made man,” but Trump inherited his wealth from his father, which he put into enterprises such as casinos, beauty pageants, and real estate—hardly the blood and marrow of a thriving American economy. And when Trump Entertainment went bankrupt, he had to be bailed out, evidently leaving him with IOUs, which are not always repaid on a cash basis. This point is not lost on Brother Nathanael, who was Jewish-born and raised, and is now a Christian; I regard him as one of today’s most insightful political commentators:
Here is one of Trump’s IOUs, his unique campaign commercial for Benjamin Netanyahu, made for Israeli television:
Trump is being praised for calling for an audit of the Fed, which seems to be based on the following Tweet, possibly ghost-written:
“Audit the Fed” makes a great election-year sound bite that appeals to Truthers, but I must point out: Ron Paul has been fighting the Fed for over 30 years. Where was Donald Trump all that time? One Tweet does not a crusader make.
Someone will probably say my criticisms of Trump only play into Hillary’s hands, so let me be explicit: in a Trump-Clinton showdown, Trump has my vote. Nothing would be worse than seeing the Wicked Witch of Wall Street being inaugurated next year, which ominously will be the 100th anniversary of America’s entry into World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Balfour Declaration. However, Mr. Trump should not be above scrutiny.
What is the Trump candidacy’s true meaning? I believe the Establishment is playing its old “splitter” strategy to ensure that their favorite, Hillary, occupies the White House.
The 1912 Election
A famous example of “splitter” strategy occurred in 1912. The banksters of the day (then known as the “Money Trust” —the houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, Rothschild, and their confederates) wanted Democrat Woodrow Wilson as the next President. Wilson had promised banker Bernard Baruch that, if elected, he would approve a central bank (Federal Reserve), approve an income tax, and “lend an ear to advice” if war broke out in Europe.6 Indeed, both the income tax and Federal Reserve became law in 1913 (the year Wilson took office), and six months after the Fed passed, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, touching off World War I. After maneuvering the U.S. into the war, largely through the Lusitania incident, Wilson brought his plan for the League of Nations (a pseudonym for world government) to the postwar Paris Peace Conference.
Woodrow Wilson with his Wall Street handler, Edward Mandell House, who lived in the White House.
However, the Money Trust faced hurdles in getting Wilson elected. Prior to 1911, he had never held any public office. That year, he became governor of New Jersey with campaign backing from Cleveland Dodge of National City Bank.7 Still, a single year of political experience made him a tough sell as President, even with the mainstream press behind him.
This is where the “splitter” strategy emerged. The incumbent Republican President, William Howard Taft, was challenged when former Republican President, popular Teddy Roosevelt, ran on the short-lived Progressive or “Bull Moose” ticket. In the 1912 election, Republican votes were split between Taft and Roosevelt, enabling Wilson to win the Presidency with less than 42 percent of the popular vote.
Taft and Roosevelt
There was another facet to this “splitter” election that is little-remembered. Republicans had occupied the White House for 16 years. However, led by Senator Bob La Follette (who might arguably be called the Ron Paul of his day) there was a growing insurgency within the party called the Reform Movement. The Reformers sought to wrest the party’s control away from Wall Street (J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller) and believed La Follette had a genuine chance to secure a nomination in 1912. This was a major reason why the Money Trust decided to switch White House control to the Democrats, and also a factor in rolling out Roosevelt and his “Bull Moose” Party. Roosevelt whistle-stopped the nation making tongue-in-cheek speeches calling for “reform,” taking all the steam out of the movement for La Follette.8
“Fighting Bob” La Follette, Senator from Wisconsin.
The Splitter Strategy in 2016
The 1912 Taft-Roosevelt rift appears to have an encore shaping up this year, with the abrasive Trump perhaps comparable to the bulldoggish Roosevelt calling for reforms, while Taft might be compared to Cruz as a more routine GOP standard-bearer.
I realize Trump is being idolized because he has been overtly criticized by “Establishment” figures and media. It is reported that billionaire George Soros funded the violent protests that disrupted the Chicago Trump rally, just as he funded last year’s riots in Ferguson, Missouri. National Review, founded by William F. Buckley (CIA/CFR) as the voice of lackluster traditional conservatism, has launched a “stop Trump” campaign.
The conspicuous attacks are a sharp contrast to the approach the Establishment took against Ron Paul, which was to ignore him with the “silent treatment,” as if he didn’t exist. While loud opposition serves to give Trump an anti-Establishment halo, I wish to remind my readers that in 1913 the Money Trust barons publicly denounced the Federal Reserve Act, which they themselves had created. Why? Because once it was believed that the hated banksters opposed the act, the public enthusiastically supported it. As Gary Allen and Larry Abraham explained:
In order to support the fiction that the Federal Reserve Act was a “people’s bill,” the Insider financiers put up a smokescreen of opposition to it. It was strictly a case of Br’er Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch. Both [Nelson] Aldrich and [Frank] Vanderlip denounced what was in actuality their own bill.9
Similarly, I doubt that the Establishment is truly interested in “stopping” Trump from becoming the GOP nominee. I believe what they want is tremendous friction and conflict within the Republican Party, so that Hillary can ride seamlessly into the White House. Trump’s own acerbic rhetoric, such as his call to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., and his reference to shooting Muslims with bullets dipped in pig’s blood, seem almost designed to drive immigrant voters into Hillary’s camp. As things look now, barring something completely unexpected, the GOP will have a very chaotic convention this summer, which pundits will compare to the 1968 Democratic Convention.
In reality, 2016 should have been an easy gig for the Republican Party. After eight years with a Democrat in the White House, the economy is in its worst shambles since the Great Depression; Americans are sick of wars, infringements on civil liberties, and “Obummercare.” What can Hillary, an Obama cabinet member who is already widely distrusted, offer but more of the same? Even if the Republicans ran their usual Establishment stooge, the mere hope of some change would have been enough to drive desperate voters into their arms. Instead, the GOP Convention is on target to become an explosion, while Hillary will enjoy unanimity at hers after Sanders is eased out.
Incidentally, I don’t look for the long-awaited dollar collapse to occur before November. An economic disaster under Obama would taint Hillary by association. The banksters can’t let that happen until Hillary’s Presidency is assured. This may also explain Obama’s “feel-good” renewal of Cuban relations, and the sudden drop-off in false-flag shooting events (knock on wood). The Establishment may want voters to sense: “Gee, maybe things aren’t so bad under Obama, and look at all the violence the Republicans are stirring up.” But after the election, all bets would be off.
In case you’re wondering which candidate Ron Paul supports this year. Answer: none.
As Rachael McIntosh points out, no candidates are talking about the Constitution (even though polls have shown that Americans fear their own government more than terrorists). With the current array of candidates, we can only hope for a “lesser evil.”
The Voting Game
Even if the GOP Convention leaves the Republicans in tatters, it is conceivable that the electorate—growing better informed thanks to alternative media and the Internet—still might not vote in Hillary.
That is where the Establishment would play its final card: vote rigging. As Joseph Stalin said, it’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes. Think it can’t happen here? Watch this testimony by computer programmer Clinton Eugene Curtis before the Ohio State Legislature:
Here Princeton professor Edward Felten demonstrates the hacking of a Diebold electronic voting machine:
This next clip is for those who would like to see a more detailed demonstration by Princeton researchers:
I think Computerphile’s remarks on electronic voting are also worth hearing:
Some months ago, David Dees, the Norman Rockwell of the Truth Movement, had already produced a graphic of what we can probably expect in November:
The best solution? Raise such overwhelming opposition to Hillary Clinton that not even the PTB would dare flip the election result through fraud.
When possible, I like to end on humor; please enjoy the following two satires on our electoral system, both uploaded onto YouTube during the 2008 election year:
1 James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (Appleton, Wisc.: Western Islands, 1988), 103.
2. Congressional Record, June 19, 1940, Vol. 86, p. 8641.
3. “Jimmy Carter,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter.
4. Gary Allen, Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter (Seal Beach, Calif.: ‘76 Press, 1976), 139.
5. Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies (New York: William Morrow, 1979), 286.
6. Curtis B. Dall, FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law (Washington, D.C.: Action Associates, 1970), 137.
7. Ferdinand Lundberg, America’s Sixty Families (New York: Citadel Press, 1937), 117.
8. Walter Karp, The Politics of War: The Story of Two Wars which Altered Forever the Political Life of the American Republic (1890-1920) (New York: Franklin Square Press, 2003), 143.
9. Gary Allen and Larry Abraham, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Seattle: Double A Publications, 1971), 57.