Ziopedia Disinformation?

Posted by James Bowery on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 05:55.

It has come to my attention that Ziopedia’s editor has sent out a link to an article arguing that Ron Paul is a CIA asset who serves as controlled opposition. Reading over the linked article there is only one substantive argument:

“He only voted no, when it had no effect on the passing of the bill. He even voted in favour of the critical hate bill…”

No bill number is given.

I found the only plausible bill to be HR 1592, for which the roll call was:

Yeas 237
Nays 180
Not Voting 16 (including Ron Paul)

Ron Paul did miss that vote, but it had no effect on the outcome whatsoever since the Yeas beat the Nays by an amount greater than the number Not Voting.

Moreover, it is rather strange to expect that Ron Paul, the “CIA Spook”, would deliberately avoid a vote of “No” when not only would his vote would have no impact on the outcome but when he came out with the following public statement about the bill:

Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms

May 7, 2007

Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”...

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Red Baron on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:55 | #

The consequences of what Ron Paul advocates are a mortal threat to the system, indeed radical to the point of being revolutionary. A Ron Paul presidency would end in either utter failure, assassination, widespread rioting, civil war, or his selling-out to the regime.

I like watching energetic supporters of run Paul, I find their naivety charming - like watching toddlers. How many really understand the quixotic nature of his candidacy, do you Bowery?

And, yes, he’s not a CIA asset. Just a guy that is a true believer and evaded - and is tolerated, for now - by the system.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:47 | #

While “reductio ad absurdum” appears in comments about Ron Paul here on MR primarily in my comments about him, I don’t think “Quixotic” is proper. He’s not merely tilting at windmills and his supporters are far from merely “naively charming”. If you are missing the significance of his campaign as a potential focal point for a serious revolution you are severely lacking in perception.

Moreover, if you are so convinced of Ron Paul’s ultimate electoral failure, you can make a quick buck by shorting him at intrade.com. I’m not a true disbeliever as are you, nor is Ron Paul himself—he started out in his campaign very skeptical of his prospects and remains—by his own public statements—outside the “true believer” camp to which you would assign most of his supporters. But let’s get to the heart of the matter here:

It is YOU who are a “true believer”: In his ultimate electoral failure.

Although I would cash in my winnings on his candidacy at the current intrade.com price, the fact that online betting is illegal in the state of Washington is the main reason I didn’t bet for him earlier. Moreover, I’m not about to short his odds. Look at <a href=“http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?c>this graph which indicates a lot more people have lost a lot more money betting against him up to this time than have lost money betting for him</a>.

Posted by Rusty on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:28 | #

“A Ron Paul presidency would end in either utter failure, assassination, widespread rioting, civil war, or his selling-out to the regime.”

You make it sound like a bad thing!

Posted by Rusty on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:33 | #

Ron Paul is clearly not a CIA asset. But, judging from his national campaign (or lack thereof), it seems that those in charge of it might be.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:41 | #

While it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find his campaign, both national and grassroots, riddled with government agents, the only rubber-meets-the-road indication of mismanagement of his national campaign I’ve seen to this point has been the airing of a bad advertisement on TV in NH—one of two ads they’re paying to air there. His campaign has been relatively conservative in its expenditures so far as I can see and hasn’t done anything that I can point to as gross mismanagement.

Do you see such signs?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:50 | #

BTW: One of the tricks to dealing with suspected government agents infiltrating volunteer organizations is to put them to work for you while never giving them any material to work with.

Posted by daveg on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:56 | #

William hill puts him at 12/1, better odds than McCain or Edwards and right there with Thompson and Obama (10/1).

Posted by Alan Pascoe on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:49 | #

I think there are good reasons to believe that Ziopedia is a Zionist front organization.