I wrote this post in the thread about Massie furthering the globalist agenda in this thread:
https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASsZBaHDQ/best-explanation-of-how-massie-a/c/
The Libertarian Party has gone the exact same way that the Tea Party went and Ross Perot's Reform Party went.
They got infiltrated and sabotaged from the inside.
Bob Barr was the start of the infiltration.
1971 - David Nolan and others founded the Libertarian Party when Nixon reneged on the gold standard. Nixon did the dirty (and illegal and unconstitutional) deed on August 15, 1971. The Libertarian Party was officially created 4 months later, on December 11, 1971.
That was the reason the party was founded. They were a group of Republicans who realized that the BUSH CLAN of the Republican Party was NOT going to stick to constitutional principles. Richard Nixon was HAND PICKED for the Republican party by Prescott Bush, George HW Bush's daddy. BTW, Prescott Bush's daddy was Samuel Bush, who worked directly for Frank Rockefeller, brother of John D. Rockefeller.
These Bush Republicans were heavily influenced by Leo Strauss of the Chicago School (a lot of them went to school there). They were indoctrinated into the Neocon philosophy -- a branch of communist ideology. They took over the Republican Party, and the Republicans who were opposed to this movement within the party decided to try an alternate option by creating a new political party.
1988 -- Ron Paul ran for president for the Libertarian Party. Good man. Principled. Known as "Doctor No" in Congress, first because he was a medical doctor, and second because he stood on principle that he would honor his Oath of Office to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He voted "no" on more legislation than anyone in Congress, because MOST legislation proposed by Congress is ... UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
These neocons wanted nothing but power and influence so they could get rich and control the masses -- same exact philosophy as the Democrats, who are closet communists, which have the exact same goal (but are more brutal about it).
ALL of these people -- BOTH SIDES -- systematically IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION, thus violating their oaths of office.
1996, 2000 -- Harry Browne ran for president for the Libertarian Party. He was even better than Ron Paul, in terms of his ideas and brilliance, and more articulate in his presentation of ideas. He seemed to be gaining momentum for the party, at least compared to its weak history in politics. He died in 2006, and that was when the Big Shift came.
2006 -- Bob Barr infiltrated the Libertarian Party and basically destroyed it from within.
This is how the Deep State maintains power.
INFILTRATION.
That is what we are fighting against.
I also wrote:
And the REASON all that money was spent on a small district in Kentucky is BECAUSE MASSIE SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE JEWS.
He proclaimed that "Everybody in Congress has an AIPAC guy ... except me!"
He got a tame version of what Charlie Kirk got, once the NOTICING started ... PUBLICLY.
THAT. IS. THE. BOTTOM. LINE.
I haven't followed Massie all that much. I do remember Ron Paul gaining a lot of steam at the Republican National Convention when Mitt Romney was running. I remember the delegates did a dirty deed by changing the rules to prevent Paul from having a chance of winning the nomination, and thus clearing the way to guarantee it for Romney.
These Republicans are just as dirty as the Democrats (well, maybe not quite as bad, but close).
I know TWO things about Massie:
(1) He says he votes on principle, just as Ron Paul did (and Rand Paul usually does). This means he will vote no on a bill that violates the Constitution -- which MOST bills do.
(2) He was VOCAL and PUBLIC about his opposition to jewish attempts to control Congress -- especially via AIPAC.
And then ... a bunch of jews threw massive money against him and he lost the primary.
5:5 ???
Oh ... one more thing. Ross Perot created the Reform Party -- also an attempt to try to break out of the control the Deep State has over the system. He even got into the national debates (3 candidates on TV, rather than just 2).
Why did he say that he eventually quit, after so much momentum had been gained?
He said PUBLICLY ... that it was because ...
THEY (the Bush Republicans) THREATENED TO KILL HIS DAUGHTER.
He stepped aside, and the Reform Party became a distant memory.
Just like the Tea Party.
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST.
Oh ... and ONE MORE thing ...
Let's not forget that George HW Bush was VP when Reagan won the presidency.
And let's not forget that George HW Bush was part of the JFK op in Dealy Plaza in 1963.
And let's not forget that George HW Bush's son was having dinner with John Hinckley's brother around the time that Hinckley shot Reagan, which would have made GHW Bush the president.
And let's not forget that GHW Bush was having breakfast with the brother of Osama bin Laden on he morning of 9/11.
And let's not forget how GHW Bush sold drugs (illegally) to exchange for black market weapons (also illegal) to overthrow the government of Nicaragua (also illegal). Ollie North ran the op for GHW Bush.
And let's not forget that GHW Bush's father was Prescott Bush, who was convicted under the Trading with the Enemies Act, and had his shares of a bank taken away -- a bank that financed the Germans in WW2.
And let's not forget that Prescott Bush hand-picked Richard Nixon to become congressman, then VP, then president.
And let's not forget that Richard Nixon, as VP under Eisenhower was secretly running the black ops in the Middle East and Central America to gain oil and other resources for the Rockefellers, using America's military to do it.
And let's not forget that Prescott Bush's daddy was Samuel Bush, who was president of Buckeye Steel, owned by Frank Rockefeller, brother of John D. Rockefeller.
And let's no forget that Samuel Bush was a director of the Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve Bank.
And let's not forget that President Hoover appointed Samuel Bush to be in charge of selling weapons for the USA during WW1.
And let's not forget that Samuel Bush was also accused of supplying weapons to America's enemy during WW1.
It's not really THAT BIG of a club.
But it IS and EVIL club.
Again ... THIS IS WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST.
And you think MASSIE is the problem?
LOL.
Great post, but I have a little quibble about Nixon, entirely unrelated to Libertarianism.
I know everyone loves to hate Nixon, but if the problems with the currency had been created decades before him through the New Deal and world wars and lend lease etc that printed more money than US had gold.
If Nixon did not take US off the gold standard, Europeans would have taken all the gold. Infact a french warship was in the NY harbour ready to load up their gold.
US would have lost the gold and USD would have still become worthless.
This is the biggest problem with gold/asset backed currency. This is also why the new currency system will be backed by economic progress and prosperity and not assets.
Exactly. for all his faults, within the context he was in, he did the only thing feasible.
It is interesting to note that Nixon encouraged Ron Paul to run. Without that I'm not so sure Ron Paul would have run.
I also remember Donald Trump coming on cpac saying: Ron Paul is un-electable. At first I was quite mad, but then I realized HAD Ron Paul become President, he would have been eaten alive. He knew that in 2012. As of that moment I was waiting for the Don to take center stage. Thank God he did in 2015.
The Bretton Woods Agreement was the problem.
This came about in 1944, towards the end of WW2. The deal was that the Europeans needed to rebuild their cities due to all the war damage, but they didn't have wealth (it was all sucked out due to the war).
They also didn't know if they could defend their gold from other countries fighting them for it.
But the USA was an economic powerhouse -- and the strongest military, and isolated from Europe. So, the deal was that the Europeans would give the US their gold, in exchange for "protecting" the gold, and the US Dollar would replace the gold as the world's reserve currency -- backed by the US gold on deposit.
But ... THE US CHEATED.
The Federal Reserve and the US government (i.e. Congress) CONSPIRED to work together over the next 25 years to print (and spend) more money than the gold reserves could back.
By around 1970, the Europeans figured this out. So, the jig was up.
Nixon just ... CHEATED THEM OUT OF THEIR MONEY.
He switched to the Petrodollar standard, but it was unconstitutional to do so.
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 --
And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 --
The federal government does still "coin money."
The US Mint produces coins (including gold and silver coins, if any). They are recently ending the penny -- supposedly because "it costs too much to make," for a federal government that is almost $40 TRILLION in debt. It is just a move towards digitized "money" that can control the People.
The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints the paper currency. But these pieces of paper are NOT "United States Dollars."
Instead, they are "Federal Reserve Notes," which are created by a PRIVATE company, that is NOT AUTHORIZED in the Constitution.
Congress does NOT have authority to delegate this to a single, private company.
The STATES are not allowed, per the Constitution, to accept ANY payment that is NOT gold or silver.
The paper currency that is backed by gold and silver -- as it was prior to 1971 -- was fine, since the paper could be redeemed in gold and silver.
But the excessive printing made it impossible to ever really redeem.
That was the reason for ending the gold standard -- IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Enter, the "Petrodollar."
The deal was that the oil countries (Saudi Arabia, etc.) would buy US treasuries with their excess wealth, and in exchange the US military would "protect" their oil.
But this is not authorized by the Constitution.
Also, the CIA black ops have been FUNDED BY that oil money.
Saudi Arabia pumps the oil, protected by the US military, and they use the excess wealth to buy US Treasuries.
Then, some of the interest they generate is siphoned off to the CIA for the black ops, which is why CIA black ops are ... OFF THE BOOKS.
There is no accountability for the things they do (such as rigging elections, and supporting Manchurian candidates like Obama) because those accounting books are not available -- even to Congress -- since the funding technically is done by the money that other countries provide.
Strictly speaking, the US MIGHT have "lost the gold" (assuming there is any real gold in Fort Knox, anyway) ... BUT ... the US in the 1940's and even the 1970's was the WORLD'S ECONOMIC MACHINE.
We would have gotten it right back, due to economic power ... IF THE ASSHOLES WEREN'T CONSTANTLY INFLATING THE MONEY SUPPLY and stealing the wealth.
Nixon was not a good guy. He was a bad guy, working with a lot of other bad guys, to STEAL WEALTH from the American People, who are rightfully entitled to it.
It is only because the bad guys constantly VIOLATE THE CHAINS OF THE CONSTITUTION ... that any of that was even possible to happen.
That is an interesting idea. It's actually what Hitler did to turn the German economy around.
In 1933, Germany was the poorest, most devestated county in Europe.
By 1938, it was the richest, most prosperous, and most productive.
I would argue that THIS is the real reason why the British government, the French government, and more importantly, the jews who had a lot of influence over those weak, pathetic leaders, wanted to go to war with Germany. They were afraid of how quickly Germany was becoming an economic powerhouse.
Hitler did it with those policies.
But ...
I do not trust ANYBODY who runs the Federal Reserve OR the Congress to do anything financially that would benefit the American People.
I oppose it for that reason.
I say get back to the gold standard -- AND THE CONSTITUTION.
You’re on fire today fren. Keep em coming 👍
LOL
Indeed.
And more broadly speaking, let's not forget that Nixon was framed and forced to leave office because he did things that the power structure that helped install him, did not like.
On the Massie subject, I greatly appreciate this post. I view the general discussion on Massie on GAW as extremely un-nuanced. I don't view him by any means as a Ron Paul type as it became clear that he wasn't some noble ideologue standing on principle. But the numbers don't lie, Israel wanted him gone like yesterday's trash.
And now we have to deal with another Israeli-installed Congressman.