Who owns the Repubican Party?
Five questions that inquiring minds want to know:
1. Who owns the Republican Party? (That is, who pulls its strings at will?)
2. Where are the corporate charter, bylaws, and filings for the parent entity?
3. What other interests do these owners hold?
4. Do any of them also own the Democratic Party?
5. Why would anyone want to be a member of an institution without knowing the answers to such questions?
-------------------------------
Edited 14 April 2011 to add:
I just ran across this old post today (after having been too busy for online discussion for quite some time). It's interesting, though, that even in the profusion of conversation on all manner of other topics far less fundamental than this one, THIS topic still gets so little attention.
Could it be that we simply find the churn of the daily news cycle so irresistible that we haven't the time for more fundamental questions such as the ones I posed above? Or is it, worse, that somehow, deep down in our hearts, we are afraid of what we might find out if we pursued such questions to their logical ends? Or, as yet another alternative, could it be that we are simply so base as humans that our drive to "belong" to something is our primal motivation, and that, once "belonging" (to whatever group or movement), any natural tendencies toward curiosity and intellectual honesty are practically obsolete?
Regardless, I fear that barking up any OTHER tree is a waste of time until this particular tree has been fully investigated. For as much hoopla is made over the corruption in the Democratic Party, I would expect that honest Republicans would be fit to be tied over the corruption in their own party.
They who are not complaining, therefore, must be either dishonest, uninformed, or afraid of retribution. And if any are uninformed of the corruption in the Republican Party, they must have their eyes and ears firmly shut and covered in an attempt to keep arguing about their "honesty".
But then there are those who still hold out hope of "reforming" the Republican Party to "its conservative roots" (which are a myth). These are either the most dishonest or uninformed of all, however, as there is a clear track record of continual decline in the GOP, and as all reformation movements (such as the Tea Party?) are quickly co-opted and assimilated into the GOP collective.
So what remains are these nagging questions---which do not apparently nag at many other people than me. I, for one, have a considerably more difficult time trusting Ron Paul while he has an "R" after his name. Why? Because that "R" represents a voluntary association with a known criminal organization.
Shall we trust a Mafia member who claims to be trying to reform the Mafia? Or would we rather expect an upright individual to divorce himself from the Mafia altogether? Or what about a candidate for Chancellor who brands himself with the "Nazi" label and claims to be a reformer?
I, for one, am not buying it.
Even if Dr. Paul is authentic and has true hopes of reforming that Party, he is hopelessly naive in those hopes.
Hence, I wonder if the current promise held out in this talk of GOP reform is just too attractive for many of us to resist---like a fifth of Scotch at an AA meeting. Sure, we know in our heart of hearts that it's never going to happen, but it's just too pleasant a dream not to suspend our direct observations to the contrary and hop on board for a while.
I say "our direct observations" because we are already observing the betrayal of those new incumbents who won election by virtue of their "Tea Party" values. We see now, AFTER the election, that they are behaving quite like plain old Republicans. Sadly, however, I believe that a great number of people can be persuaded to ignore the current betrayal if only Ron Paul will declare for the presidency.
And why? Not because he can win. And not because he could fix anything substantial if he DID win. But merely because we fancy believing in fairy tales. We'd rather maintain some "hope" even if it means that we have to lie to ourselves to justify that "hope".
I observe, therefore, that we are actually moving further away from the questions I posed above, and not closer to them. We are in love with our "two party system", even if it bankrupts us and steals our liberty. We are rivals to any battered spouse in the history of mankind. How helpless, we. And pitiful. We take a beating and then we vote for the same list of suspects the next time around.
"Yeah, but the Party promised it would never do that again...."
How one can reform an organization whose leadership and charter are secret is beyond me. It cannot be done with naming names, making specific charges, prosecuting the guilty, and calling for all-out upheaval. No gentle campaign of "influence" has any chance of reforming ANY political party, and we are fools if we say otherwise. Does anyone among us actually believe that a President Paul would have the criminals in government arrested and tried for their crimes? If he is not saying so NOW....
I have no delusions of reforming any institution. Individuals can be reformed, but institutions practically NEVER execute meaningful reformation. Their nature is exactly contrary to the very idea of reform.
Yet so many of us who are becoming increasingly aware of liberty and of the rule of law are foolishly putting our eggs in the basket of the Tea/Republican Party as if there is actually some reasonable chance of successful reform. Damn all the evidence to the contrary; we just need to "pull together" and believe that, although we have never once in history seen the Republican Party diligently protect liberty and the rule of law (while not also stabbing them in the back at the same time), the Republican Party is just "what the doctor ordered" for what currently ails us. (Pun intended.)
So even though we know better, we'll support the Republican Party if it means getting the Good Doctor elected. Right?
Funny, but if I were the evil wizard behind the curtain, that's exactly why I'd see to it that Ron Paul gets into the Republican debates. ...to keep you folks occupied and disengaged from any meaningful threat to the establishment.
Lenin observed that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it. I observe further that the best way to get the opposition to relent in its threatening of the establishment is to instill in it a sense of hope where no such hope is justified by the facts.
I submit, therefore, that anyone who remains incurious about who owns the Republican Party has an irrational bent toward hope over fact.
Someone cue the crickets, please.
Jack
Anyone remember this comment by Dr. Paul ?
"...victory is not available in the conventional sense..."
_____________________________
Defend Liberty, for Liberty
Vote for President Ron Paul 2012
http://ksa4liberty.com
ksa4liberty,
You can find that comment here.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/blog/2008/03/paul_admit...
It seems to have been offered specifically in the context of the 2008 election, and not in general.
The irony, of course, is that John McCain was a joke in that election until the media all began telling us on the same day that McCain was the frontrunner. At that point, the RNC had spoken (behind the scenes).
Anyway, Paul said this:
The sad fact of the matter, however, is that his language about victories having been won was highly exaggerative. No ACTUAL political reform came about as a result of his campaign. So he had to have been counting something else as a "victory". And if it's just the "winning over" of people's opinions, then that actually doesn't count for a thing UNTIL it accomplishes a measurable political reform.
I am constantly amazed and distressed at how many people think that starting a "grass fire" actually amounts to having done something of political substance. And with our 4-year cycle, the natural order of things is to STOP campaigning on the 2nd Wednesday in November and to do virtually NOTHING for at least two more years. Thus is there a HUGE difference between campaigning for the presidency and campaigning for actual political reform.
Another thing that most people fail to understand is this: If you want to win, you can't stop at trying to get a man in the White House. People act as if we may need a thousand things, but what we REALLY need is a good man in the White House. So rather than campaigning for "a thousand things", they catch their breath for two years and then they campaign to get a man in the White House.
This simply will not do. After you loose the presidential campaign, you STILL need a thousand things.
In short, the people resist the obvious conclusion that an all-out effort is required. They prefer instead to dream that one simple election can be the key to it all. So that's about all they really go for.
And God forbid they should actually WIN that election, because they'll spend the first 6 months congratulating themselves on the "victory" and doing NOTHING of substance. (Which is what we witnessed since November.)
Jack
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Who is the highest bidder?
I think Donald Trump will be taking over that hollow shell soon... GOP baby, blood sweat and tears
The role of a farmer, in Fukuoka's mind, is an observer, not an intervener, of the natural order in his/her particular landscape. How is that any different than Hayek in regards to Economics?
Betchel Corp owns the Republican Party, GE owns the Dems
..... according to John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", these are the two companies that actually OWN the two political parties.... and notice, both are gov-companies, that is, the lions share of their profits come from Government Contracts, for without government contracts, they would be filing for bankruptcy.
I am not sure if John Perkins is right, but it is a very good question.
In peace & liberty,
Treg
Whats the difference?
W initially ran on a platform of smaller government, no nation building and America first BS. Can we ever forget that the republican party was a major influence in standing down on and after 9/11?
END the FED before it ENDS US
Ron Paul makes his constant, recurring 3rd Party stance..
in that it is too bureaucratic and exclusionary (and he's been asked about 3rd party 1,000s of times). Basically he wants to be in the debates, no...matter...what.
But hey, what happens in the late election cycle if Ron is shut out of the GOP. I'm really interested to see his decision at that point.
In 2008, he got into most of the entire GOP nationally televised debate schedule, and that alone had an affect on the American debate.
IDK what entities "own the GOP"... but
I would make the line of demarcation between "the Republican party" vs. "the GOP".
The GOP as a fundraising entity, an advertising entity, a political bloc, and a voting bloc, is all different of men and women are consider themselves "part of the republican party".
And that said, if "the GOP" okays raising the debt ceiling, I'm pretty much all about Ron Paul running independent in 2012. What sucks is that is going to make all the hardcore Jesse Venture VP people much more eager.
There will be no "indy run" by Ron Paul.
Please don't confuse the fantasies of certain posters on DP with reality.
It's nothing more than a few posters' hot air in the blog-o-sphere.
There is no credibility or basis to it.
If anybody wants an indy run, then they need to talk to Gary Johnson or Jesse Ventura, or somebody who might be interested in an indy run.
Ron Paul is not interested in an indy run.
If RP runs indy then Jesse
If RP runs indy then Jesse HAS to be VP because how else will Ron get media coverage? Unless he runs with Trump.
Ventura 2012
No way man, that's totally a false choice. He could even get
Gary Johnson to abandon his GOP run to join him. As much fantasy that Johnson's immigration policy is, he would be a hell of a lot more viable that Ventura.
Jesse is just too much all over the damn map, by a MILE. Then you have his odd views on sovereignty and healthcare. The guy is personally forceful and yes, I can see how that is useful. But really in the end, he's too much of a lightweight (as far as focus) on one hand, and then too much of a firebrand on the other.
At least stay in the US from now until 2012 and not run off to Mexico for half a year, if you want to be serious Jesse....
You seem to think that its
You seem to think that its easy to get media coverage. Jesse is a celebrity. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are just politicians. The GOP/DEM candidates will have MONTHS of media coverage from the primary races over any independent candidates too.
Ventura 2012
The CFR and assorted PTB,
Along with the banksters at the FED (The Rockefellers, a leading family, are -Nominal Christians __Christians in Name Only. I don't profess to know the faith of all the CFR members, but many if not most, members are church goers, or more properly, 501c3 attendees, W, and Obama among them). Yes, they do OWN both parties, the last two presidents that weren't owned by the CFR were John F. Kennedy (who was assumed by many to have been assassinated because he threatened to put us back on the gold standard) and Ronald Reagan. (who managed to survive an assassination attempt.)
Sorry to break the illusion of Nuclear Kid, however Israel is a tiny nation. They have idiots in their government as much as we have, that have some pull here but no more, proportionally, than Saudi Arabia, or presently, the PA. (Granted , we do give them much aid, but there are others receiving almost as much. See The Revolution, A Manifesto by Ron Paul, the Chapter on Foreign Policy of the Founding Fathers, pg 40.) Statists and statism are the real problem here. Zionism and Zionists are just a distraction. No entangling alliances and no FRNs would go a long way in eliminating the power of the statists.
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
No disrespect, Libera, to you or to....
...anyone else who has chimed in on the primary question of this thread....but the wide range of answers goes to validate the importance of the question, doesn't it?
I would hope that this question (who owns the Republican Party?) would burn increasingly in people's minds as they continue to try to justify Ron Paul's (and their own) affiliation with it.
How can we fight against an enemy that we cannot even name with certainty?
Jack
PS. What really gets me in this overall discussion is the duplicity that so many of the participants exhibit. They say they hate the RNC, yet they're thrilled to work with it on the Paul campaign. This is a corruption in thinking---a self-defeating contradiction that can do little more than to make someone feel better for a time.
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
I hear you...
After the serious disrespect dished out to Ron Paul in '08, I don't get it either. I wish RP would simply hang it all and declare an Indy run...but there are a variety of reasons he may assume he can't. The simplest reason is the difficulty in being heard, even if you are from the Libertarian Party, when you don't have that D or R behind your name. (Although you never know, he may surprise us all and run indy this time-- If not now, when?)
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
To me it seems fairly obvious, Libera.
You mentioned Ron Paul's "difficulty in being heard".
Naturally, the Republican Party establishment is going to be intentionally hard of hearing. That's a given. So in that case, Ron Paul is preaching to the Anti-Choir. No surprise that they're not listening. The surprise is, rather, that he would waste one minute TRYING.
Now, as to the ostensible "members" of the Republican Party (they think they have far more influence than they actually have)---naturally, they are having a hard time "hearing" Ron Paul for the full value of his message because they are also surrounded by other officially-sanctioned Republican-branded politicians whose message is at odds with Paul's. These "members" regularly confuse party loyalty with the actual merits of its platform, so they are always in a state of relative confusion.
Then there are the non-Republicans who see Paul himself as a Republican-branded politician (because that's what he is) and naturally have difficulty completely separating him from the other Republican-branded politicians.
So if he really wants to be heard, I think he needs to change the message from:
to
These superiority of the second message over the first is so naturally obvious that I suspect more and more that Ron Paul's campaign is deliberately compromised. I'm not buying the bit about being in the debates. Does it REALLY make any sense to shoot the entire message in the foot just to get a chance to be in the lineup for a few minutes on national TV? REALLY?
REALLY?
That's the stupidest thing I ever heard---and stupider yet that so many so readily believe it. That's like Jesus campaigning as a Pharisee just so that he can get into the televised Pharisee debates. Funny that no such compromise was deemed necessary for Jesus. Yet for Ron Paul, millions seem to be sold on the notion that compromise with the tyrants is his best chance. So rather than fight the only battle that could actually MATTER, he fights another battle entirely. And get this---he doesn't really believe he can win EITHER one.
That dog won't hunt. No matter how many people believe it, it's still a false premise.
"Compromise" is quite often a euphemism for cowardice or treachery. So how come a poor analyst can figure this out on the sheer power of logic, history, and direct observation, but a bajillion-dollar campaign can't figure it out?
Or CAN they? That's why I suspect that he is losing on purpose.
I'd much rather lose a fight in which I was going for the trophy than one in which my goal was simply to come in second. And if losing is inevitable, why not inflict as much injury as possible while you're in the ring?
Jack
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
The refusal last time to endorse
McCain spoke volumes. (Giving a sledgie toward the Simon Peter type --read further on to see what I mean) I hope he has the intestinal fortitude to run Libertarian, but I would not place any bet on it, no FRNS and certainly not silver. Your third paragraph is quite telling, and honestly, I have been wondering about it myself. I would be more inclined to believe cowardice than treachery, simply because he seems more like the Simon Peter type than the Judas type. To continue the parallel, I hope Ron realizes that freedom has risen, the people are disgusted with BOTH parties,(The SadDucees and the PhaRisees) and the harvest is ripe for the taking.
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Libera,
I certainly don't presume to know Ron Paul's motives. Liking so much of what he says, my HOPE is that he has simply failed to realize the situation for what it truly is. And again, if his campaign is deliberately compromised, it could still be the case that he himself is not the designer of that compromise.
You wrote "...the people are disgusted with BOTH parties...".
I'd like to believe that, but I'm not seeing it. At least, not in any MEANINGFUL way. Until I see a bunch of "No-Party System" bumper stickers, I'm not going to put much stock in the importance of the current level of unrest. Unfortunately, I believe that the "this, too, shall pass" paradigm is alive and well in the RNC.
Jack
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
I see your point...
It seems they are only disgusted with the ones in office at the time, and do not see they are two sides of the same coin the PTB are using to purchase us as slaves.
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Very simple answer
Israel. And they own both parties. Once Americans stand up to these Zionist lunatics, things will change. It's obviously starting to happen but will take some time. The situation is the same in a lot of ways to the Bolshevik era. That eventually ended and now Russia embraces its Orthodox Christian roots across the board. The country has been completely revamped and - gasp - they can even celebrate Christmas again.
Zionism has it's awful grip on American society right now. The internet has thankfully exposed many of its evils. Still have a ways to go but eventually it'll be shown the door and we'll return to our sound Christian ways. Just takes time.
Two Party Tyranny
Yes, the same group that runs the democrats also run the republicans. The puppet masters of both parties move in concert. Have you ever wondered why presidential candidates are never properly vetted by either party? And, when Bush committed treason and genocide, the democrats didn't want to impeach him.
Both parties are comprised of cheap grade b actors who can't even remember their lines and need the assistance of teleprompters.
There is ONE great lie of omission that both parties are guilty of...
Neither will dare tell you as sovereigns, nations may issue their OWN money free from banker debt. The financial chaos we are going through today is by choice not necessity.
And we are going bankrupt by choice as legislated by both parties.
END the FED before it ENDS US
Look, if we run independent
Look, if we run independent we get some independent voters but no partisan Republicans or Democrats. If we run Republican we get independent voters AND partisan Republicans. Its that simple. Use the two party system against them.
Ventura 2012
Bmore, history shows otherwise.
If you run Republican, then the RNC stabs you in the back...as well as their darling media...as well as the Democratic Party.
If you run independent and take a PURE message to members of the R and D parties, then you win people from everywhere who value a purer government. And you don't have to compromise a THING along the way.
You can't play with snakes and expect not to get bitten.
The need here is not to succumb to "partisan Republicans and Democrats" by picking one party or the other and then broadening the tent to include a sufficient number of independent voters. Rather, people everywhere need to be helped to change their paradigms. This sort of pure message needs to ring out loud and clear.
The "two party system" ALWAYS serves to benefit the two parties. Always. What is needed is a circumpartisan approach. Simply go around them.
Otherwise, it's just too convoluted to make any sense to anybody:
1. if you're a Democrat and you hate the Republicans, vote for Ron Paul, a Republican.
2. if you're an independent and hate Republicans, vote for Ron Paul, a Republican.
3. If you're a conservate and hate Republicans, vote for Ron Paul, a Republican.
4. If you're a Republican and think the Party needs a serious reform, vote for Ron Paul, a fellow who has failed for many years running to reform the Republican Party---AND a fellow that the RNC can discredit and stab in the back anytime they like.
All that is a far cry from "Vote for Ron Paul, an independent candidate who calls people from ALL parties to unite in restoring our country."
Jack
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
There are way more partisan
There are way more partisan Republicans and independents open to voting Republican than there are Conservatives and independents who would not vote Republican(if they were then they would be voting only for Democrats and third parties).
Ventura 2012
Bmore, the problem with....
...your approach is that you are trying to work through the CURRENT paradigms when a REAL solution mandates a massive paradigm shift.
If you don't go after the paradigm shift, but only go after getting elected, then:
1. You are failing to LEAD, which is the most pressing need, and
2. You will not win anyway.
3. Even if you DID win, the country is not ready for, and will not tolerate, what you intend to do in office.
Jack
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Getting elected as a Ron Paul
Getting elected as a Ron Paul Republican is symbolic of a paradigm shift, duh. Its not like we are lying to get elected.
Ventura 2012
OK, Bmore, but how many....
...more years will you invest in watching that fail before you admit it's a waste of time?
Most libery/constitution people think that Reagan was at least SOMEWHAT better than business as usual for the Party. But look how long THAT lasted. They couldn't manage to get a "Reagan Republican" elected to take his place. (Nor did they want one.) And today, those who love Reagan pretend that it's practically impossible to find anyone like him.
My point is that Reagan Republicanism is a failure. And Reagan represented a MUCH more moderate position than does Ron Paul. That is, Reagan called for 2 or 3 changes to every 10 of Ron Paul's.
If Reagan's influence failed to reform the Party, then Paul hasn't a prayer. If they won't budget 2 steps, then they most certainly won't budge 50.
And as to the paradigm shift you claim is underway, the people still don't understand very fundamental things such as the rule of law in a constitutional republic. Nor do they come anywhere close to grasping how far we have strayed form being one. Thus can they be of NO use in any meaningful reform. Sure, some of them like Ron Paul, but when he loses, they'll still be useless---because they're pinning all their hopes on him, and haven't the wherewithal themselves to get anything accomplished.
The point here is that a MASSIVE shift is necessary, but Paul and others are pretending that an incremental shift will suffice for now. This is a colossal error in judgment/strategy, and time will prove it for those who would presently like to hope otherwise.
What is necessary must be done; not what would be merely convenient. Business as usual involves defending the status quo. It is impossible to change the status quo through conventional channels. There is no such thing as a successful Republican reformer and there never has been. If you beg to differ, then please name one. You can look all the way back to 1854 and you won't find one. On the contrary, they have all left it worse than they found it---where liberty and the Constitution are concerned.
If Dr. Paul, therefore, is supposed to be the sole success in this ugly chain of tyranny, then however shall he achieve that success by engaging in what amounts, more or less, as "business as usual" within the Republican Party and under their rules, influence, and tyranny?
All you have here, Bmore, is raw hope. History and reason are simply not on your side.
So if you won't do the math now, then wait a decade and tell me how it's going. Meanwhile, however, it is my hope that others will already have been long busy building something that can actually succeed.
Jack
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
The Ron Paul Revolution is
The difference between Reagan and Ron Paul is that Reagan was a total and utter fraud and Ron Paul is not. The Ron Paul Revolution is only 4 years old so I'll give it another 11 years.
I think you're just another libertarian attention wh0re to be honest, there are so many false messiahs in this movement. Which makes sense in any marginalized movement, as "individualists"(actually just contrarians) flock to the fringe.
Ron Paul gave us results, Ron Paul woke up MILLIONS and changed the political discourse in this country. The fed has been audited. We got a Senator in there that can filibuster. CNBC hosts are calling for a Gold standard for crying out loud. This is in 4 years.
Ventura 2012
The Fed has been audited?
Please provide a source for this assertion, Bmore.
Jack
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Not fully, but this:
Not fully, but this: http://40yrs.blogspot.com/2010/12/federal-reserve-releases-d...
Its a very big step and coupled with the Bloomberg suit has revealed a lot. The Fed is no longer in the shadows thanks to Ron Paul and the Gold standard is no longer a dirty word.
Ventura 2012
You're kidding, right, Bmore?
Think about it. Ron Paul supports chant "audit the Fed!" for years and then when the Fed releases internal audit information with no third-party verification, who claims the victory? Ron Paul supporters?
The very people who should be shouting "no compromise" are so desperate for some good news that they'll find a way to brag about Ron Paul losing the election and about him losing on the audit-the-Fed campaign.
That's pretty weak, if you ask me.
Just when everybody should be piling on, people are relaxing and congratulating themselves and carving notches into their gun stocks as if they've really done something.
So let's have this talk again in a couple of years and we'll mark the progress at that point. We'll see who's right.
Jack
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com