Silkroad Online Forums

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121407_assassinating_paul.htm

Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul

Estulin: Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, December 14, 2007

Best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth Daniel Estulin says he has received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community which suggests that people from the highest levels of the U.S. government are considering an assassination attempt against Congressman Ron Paul because they are threatened by his burgeoning popularity.

Estulin, whose information has unfortunately proven very accurate in the past, went public with the bombshell news during an appearance on The Alex Jones Show today.

"I am getting information from my sources that there are people involved from a higher level of the American establishment who are seriously considering - this has not been confirmed - but assassination is definitely on the agenda and I pray to God that this is not the case," said Estulin.

Estulin, an award winning investigative journalist, said that he was given the information from a source that has been reliable for over a decade in providing accurate projections of future events based on what the elite were discussing in their own circles and that assassination was a serious option should the Ron Paul Revolution continue to pick up steam.

Estulin, author of the global bestseller The True Story of the Bilderberg Group described the concept as a "trial balloon from the inner core within the inner core - it hasn't gone beyond that but it is obviously on the table because I think needless to say they are very much concerned," he added.


Best-selling author and award winning investigative journalist Daniel Estulin.

Ron Paul himself has stated on a previous occasion that he is aware of the dangers of being such a bold icon for freedom and understands that political assassinations have occured in the past.

In a June appearance on The Alex Jones Show, Congressman Paul acknowledged that such a threat is "real," agreeing with a number of historical examples where leaders were killed or attacked for successfully standing up to the system. "That's right. They'll do it," Paul said, making reference with Alex Jones to upstarts like Andrew Jackson, "The Kingfish" Huey Long, Bobby Kennedy, George Washington and even George Wallace.

Estulin pointed out that his past predictions about global events were very accurate because of the solid information provided to him from within Bilderberg and the elite. Over 18 months ago Estulin correctly made the call that the Iran war had been delayed and was probably off the table, which is looking to be exactly the case after the release of the recent National Intelligence Estimate. Estulin in featured at length in Alex Jones' film Endgame, in which he is also filmed making the prediction based on his sources.

Estulin said his sources were from within the intelligence community and they were telling him that "the people of the highest levels of government - not related in any way at least visually to George W. Bush - the first initial conversation of what might happen if we were to do this," has taken place.

"The Ron Paul phenomenon has galvanized an entire nation," said Estulin, adding that both the people who discovered the plot and its potential protagonists are terrified at the consequences of what such an action will be because of the difficulty in judging just how severely the general public will react.

Estulin said that the conspirators, which he described as a "small circle of intimates," were discussing what the effect would be if Congressman Paul was "removed" - they are being very careful to use the word "remove" rather than more volatile terms, but Estulin was told directly that "remove" was was a euphemism for assassinate.



Sigh, obviously it's just a rumor ... but they guy coming out with it has been right before about other Political events.

Prey for Dr. Ron Paul =/

Publicity Stunt

Elitist wouldnt go for a hit without the FBI and other huge organized Crime i mean investigating groups where involved and that info wouldnt be leaked

thell just hack voting polls
and says Ron is gunna raise taxes and take away benefits
since 30% or more americans who can vote live off those benefits
Guess who they wont be voting for
% exagerrated But dam sure looks like it correct

+ Elitist will get blamed if he gets killed

All gomvnt systems are corrupt in some way, unfortunately ours seems to be getting worse a little more each election, from people lying just to get a seat. Not even "I Will do X Y and Z for This country" but just like Hillary and the Drivers Licenses to Illegals, Agreeing that they should then saying they shouldn't. either way this shit is going to happen as long as humans can have power.


I hope that doesn't happen to Ron, because he seems like the best candidate so far :\

Yeah people are freaking out that someone like Ron Paul could actually be a great president, so they're threatening to off him.

Take off the tin foil hats and realize this Daniel Estulin guy is just shilling for his new book. The more outrageous his claims, the more attention he gets, the more people want to read his book to "find out more." Come on, you are all smarter than this. Best line of the whole article:

"Over 18 months ago Estulin correctly made the call that the Iran war had been delayed and was probably off the table, which is looking to be exactly the case..."

Well, non ego man is now predicting that the impending US invasion of Mexico, scheduled for December 20, 2007, has been called off. My sources tell me that the US will not, in fact, be invading Mexico tomorrow. Now if the US doesn't invade Mexico tomorrow, you will know my sources to be extremely reliable and my information to be rock solid.

Come on people, use your heads.

Hershey wrote:This shows how great a country the U.S is...

What? That we have the freedom to spread silly stories about assassinations (and UFO's and 9/11 conspiracies, etc etc) in order to sell books? Or that our uneducated populace laps it up and considers "weekly world news" level reporting as reliable and informative?

i think the whole Ron Paul Best President is BS,
politicians r good at what they do, deception.

saying COULD
and IS
are different before any president takes office there is always hand fulls of ppl saying HE COULD
but when he is in office HE ISN'T

non ego man wrote:Take off the tin foil hats and realize this Daniel Estulin guy is just shilling for his new book. The more outrageous his claims, the more attention he gets, the more people want to read his book to "find out more." Come on, you are all smarter than this. Best line of the whole article:

"Over 18 months ago Estulin correctly made the call that the Iran war had been delayed and was probably off the table, which is looking to be exactly the case..."

Well, non ego man is now predicting that the impending US invasion of Mexico, scheduled for December 20, 2007, has been called off. My sources tell me that the US will not, in fact, be invading Mexico tomorrow. Now if the US doesn't invade Mexico tomorrow, you will know my sources to be extremely reliable and my information to be rock solid.

Come on people, use your heads.

Oh no, hmm don't get me wrong. I don't really care who said it or what's been said. It's just the realization that it could and probably might actually happen.

Yeah I'm with you on the whole ~ Predict the obvious and claim your a freaking prophet kinda stuff, but he has a point. Regardless of his intentions to promote his book.

Silver0 wrote:are different before any president takes office there is always hand fulls of ppl saying HE COULD
but when he is in office HE ISN'T

Bingo. The people aren't the problem, the institution is. If you think there is any difference between George Bush, Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, you're fooling yourself.

Democracy has problems. We're seeing them. If you want to see how democracy destroyed ancient Athens, study the trial of the naval leaders after their victory in the battle of Arginusae. When rhetoric overcomes common sense and truth to persuade an uneducated populace to choose an ill conceived course of action. The US now elects rhetoricians, not leaders. Ron Paul is simply promoting the anti-establishment rhetoric when he really has no interest in changing the institution. He needs the institution. He has no identity without the institution.

Crumpets wrote:It's just the realization that it could and probably might actually happen.

I don't think so. For many, many reasons, Ron Paul is hugely valuable to the establishment republicans. He will be used in the same way that establishment republicans have used their fringe candidates in past presidential elections. Don't think that he poses any threat to them. Just the opposite. Fringe candidates are unwittingly the strongest allies of the establishment candidates.

you source is shady at best

Get your news from other sources

Ron Paul is an internet fad, this is probably a publicity stunt...

shoto wrote:you source is shady at best

Get your news from other sources

-.- I know pp ain't that reliable. Like I said before, it's not bout who's saying it or where it's posted. It's about realization.

Crumpets wrote:

shoto wrote:you source is shady at best

Get your news from other sources

-.- I know pp ain't that reliable. Like I said before, it's not bout who's saying it or where it's posted. It's about realization.

realization of?....

XemnasXD wrote:realization of?....

The extreme lengths 'one' (Read: U.s. Government ) would go too to secure their planned fate.


http://www.newsnet5.com/news/14890454/detail.html


1 down, 10-ish to go.

non ego man wrote:If you think there is any difference between George Bush, Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, you're fooling yourself.

I must be fooling myself then. Besides the obvious fact that they hold different offices excuse me for believing that Paul isn't another turd in the sewer.

non ego man wrote:Ron Paul is simply promoting the anti-establishment rhetoric when he really has no interest in changing the institution.

Depends on what you're using institution to describe. He has almost zero interest to change the constitution but is interested in changing the way government is used. It won't be new, we were doing it from 18xx-191x, but it will be a nice change considering the way govt is handled now isn't the way/reason it was setup.

non ego man wrote:He needs the institution. He has no identity without the institution.

That just doesn't make sense.

Pauls policies reek of states right...WAY to many states rights, theres a reason the federal Gov't was established and i think that when its put to good use it can actually do some amazing things (Post WWII, The Great Depression) Its seems stupid that in a time of war we should limit federal powers, i think the gov't is abusing them but its better than 50 different mandates and codes to follow which will only further divide the country....that all imo mind you....

Reek of states rights? His policy gives them more choice. State>Govt enforcement any day.
FYI, we didn't declare war.
From all your other ramblings I would've thought you weren't a big govt person.
Oh, and on the more divided part you couldn't be more off track. States already have different laws, but right now we have govt institutions. Also, who lives in two states at one time?

Crumpets wrote:1 down, 10-ish to go.

LOL

Hillary: Dude, I think you killed the wrong one
Barack: What do you mean?
Hillary: I mean, he looks like a bank robber, not a congressman
Barack: Ummm...
Hillary: Now if we kill the real Kucinich, people will know we're assassins
Barack: Damn. Do you still have gun you used on Vincent Foster?
Hillary: No it's held as evidence
Barack: Damn

And don't feel bad Nuklear. I used to get all excited about candidates who would "make a difference" and were "outside the beltway" and would "change the status quo." Now I'm just a cynical old man who knows they're all the same. Just imagine what you have to look forward to.

non ego man wrote:

Crumpets wrote:1 down, 10-ish to go.

LOL

Hillary: Dude, I think you killed the wrong one
Barack: What do you mean?
Hillary: I mean, he looks like a bank robber, not a congressman
Barack: Ummm...
Hillary: Now if we kill the real Kucinich, people will know we're assassins
Barack: Damn. Do you still have gun you used on Vincent Foster?
Hillary: No it's held as evidence
Barack: Damn

You couldn't possibly be implying Hillary had anything to do with it right?

Though obviously meant for solid publicity, it's a shame i actually think this might be able to happen. Atm that's how i see the current higher political regions of the US.

I don't like it either.

Crumpets wrote:You couldn't possibly be implying Hillary had anything to do with it right?

<.<

>.>

You didn't hear it from me!

Nuklear wrote:Reek of states rights? His policy gives them more choice. State>Govt enforcement any day.
FYI, we didn't declare war.
From all your other ramblings I would've thought you weren't a big govt person.
Oh, and on the more divided part you couldn't be more off track. States already have different laws, but right now we have govt institutions. Also, who lives in two states at one time?

Im actually for a Strong Federal Gov't but its only works when its run by the right people. More states rights=different standards of education, health, jobs, etc like the idea of a Unified Country with a solid set of rules rather than 50 smaller countries held together only for stronger military and economic power...

Even if the right people are put in power, which most likely won't work because of the corruption currently, they'll most likely turn down the same path. Maybe you like the idea of having a few people make decisions for all of us, but it hasn't worked efficiently so far and there's no evidence it will. 1 size fits all = fail.
Different standards could ensure that states have the right treatment. What works in one doesn't necessarily work in another.
I may be wrong but wasn't the govt set up to ensure our freedoms? Maintaining a big govt with the institutions that go with it are the opposite of that.

this is a typical federalist vs anti-federalist argument which is pointless because both have pros and cons and i don't plan on change my opinions on Gov'ts anytime soon, im sure you'll say the same so lets just agree do disagree on this one....

That's fine by me. You'll come around.