So Who's Kidding Who?

by Al Benson Jr.

I just got through reading an article on http://www.newsmax.com in which political commentator Mary Matalin, wife of former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville, stated that Republicans don't have to worry in the next presidential election because Hillary won't even be running.  She then went on to list many of the possible candidates in the Republican Party that might be making a run for the presidency, some of them even retreads left over from 2012.

As I read the article, the thought came to mind that "this is a great article for fooling the naive among the conservatives into thinking they will really have a choice of who gets to run for president among the Republican half of the oligarchy."  They can argue among themselves (and it's all purely academic) about who would be better for the country--Christie, Jindal, Jeb Bush, Huckabee or Ted Cruz from Texas. And you know what? None of it will make any difference.

The vast majority of the electorate, comprising both parties, fails to realize that there is one elite clique, made up of people in the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, along with the Bilderberger Group that controls both major political parties and so they, in the end, get to decide who will run for both parties. This means that there is hardly any meaningful difference between the candidates for both parties. The differences are purely cosmetic--just enough to fool the average voter into thinking there is a major difference where none really exists. Do you begin to realize now why these people could not, under any circumstances, allow Ron Paul to get anywhere near the White House, no matter what they had to do to prevent him? He was truly the odd man out when it came to the political game in Washington--he was honest--and no honest man gets into the White House anymore because he might upset the apple cart of our ruling elite and shoot down their agenda, so that can't happen.

Goldwater was the last man to do that in 1964 and they had to stop him at all costs. They did. George Wallace caused them some problem in 1968 when he won five states in the South, but it wasn't enough to derail them. Wallace was a big speed bump in their road and so they made sure that when he ran as a Democrat in 1972 that he was cleared out of the road. After that it was smooth sailing until now and to the One World Government people it doesn't really make any difference which party resides in the White House. Since they control both parties they get their agenda enacted either way. The rhetoric may vary from party to party but that's all that does.

I can't verify whether it is totally accurate or not, but some sources I have seen have stated that it's already been decided that Hitlery, er, I mean Hillary, will be the next president. If this is so it means that our election process has become nothing more than an One World Government-orchestrated charade. After all, as Stalin is reported to have said "It isn't who votes, but who counts the votes." In the last election there were places where Obama was reported to have gotten 140% of the vote. In other areas he only got 100% of the vote. You mean to tell me there were places in the country, mostly in the North, where there was not a single Romney voter? And how do you get 140% of the vote anywhere? Yet, with all this foolishness, the Republican Party never once issued a complaint. They were quieter than church mice. That means that the folks that run the party were satisfied with the outcome. Romney was a weak sister, as was McCain before him. Both were only put up there because the Republican Party had to have someone to run against Obama, who everyone in the know in both parties knew was going to win anyway.

The only way your vote really counts anymore is if you are a dead Democrat in Chicago, or in Gary, Indiana--and then your vote counts, and counts, and counts. The motto in those two cities is "vote early and vote often." Maybe that's how Obama got his 140%!

Frankly, we are wasting our time playing around with presidential politics because the real establishment candidate is going to win anyway, no matter which party he belongs to. Seems we'd be better off trying to elect some honest folks at the local level and the county and parish level and then working to make sure they stayed honest, because the power inherent in government will corrupt.

Who really cares which CFR/Trilateral candidate occupies the White House? You get the same One World Government agenda either way. But if you can elect some honest, principled people for local offices and they are willing to stay with it then you might start to make a difference in a couple generations. That may sound long term to some folks, but let's face it, what we are doing now ain't working--except in favor of the One World folks. Something to think about.