WASHINGTON (AFP) - While John McCain is practically assured the Republican presidential nomination, many party members are having a hard time accepting him -- and showing it with symbolic votes against him in primary contests.

The Republican nomination battle has been all but decided for over two months. Still, some Republicans used the April 22 Pennsylvania primary and last week's votes in Indiana and North Carolina to register their unhappiness with the de facto victor.

Some vote for libertarian Texan Ron Paul, who has refused to quit the race and has racked up more than one million votes, according to his campaign.

Other Republicans keep voting for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas -- both markedly more conservative than McCain -- although both have long since dropped out of the race and endorsed him.

As many as 25 percent of Republican voters want a different candidate to represent their party in the November 4 presidential election. In Pennsylvania, 27 percent opted for Huckabee or Paul; in North Carolina and Indiana on May 6, McCain opponents earned 23 percent of the vote.

The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, calculated that McCain had garnered no more than 45 percent of the Republican vote since January.

McCain's reputation as a party maverick and a compromising moderate has left the party's most conservative and ideological members disgruntled.

He focused this week on winning their backing, delivering a major speech on legal issues and promising to nominate conservative justices to any possible new Supreme Court vacancies, as President George W. Bush has done. Article

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

The Revolution:
A Manifesto

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

By Paul Joseph Watson

Luminaries at the Trilateral Commission meeting in Washington expressed confidence that they own all three major presidential candidates, who, despite political posturing, will support sovereignty-surrendering measures such as NAFTA and the "North American Union."

"John has always supported free trade, even while campaigning before union leaders," said one. "Hil and Barack are pretending to be unhappy about some things, but that's merely political posturing. They're solidly in support."

He was referring to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Mrs. Clinton, they noted, held strategy sessions as first lady on how to get Congress to approve NAFTA "without changes." As president, they agreed, she would do no more than "dot an i or cross a t."

Candidate Obama has not denied news reports in Canada that his top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, assured Canadian diplomats that the senator would keep NAFTA intact and his anti-trade talk is just "campaign rhetoric."

PETRIFIED ABOUT PAUL

While they are confident they can deal with any "potential president," the Trilateralists paid huge tribute to Ron Paul in an equally large twist of irony, by expressing alarm that he is causing "significant future damage."

They expressed concern that Paul's rallies have attracted multitudes of young people who are getting "their political education." They want Republicans to pressure Paul to drop out now and stop his education rallies. This assignment was given to Thomas Foley, former U.S. House speaker.

The reasons Paul's "education campaign" strikes fear into Trilateral hearts are obvious. Paul would refuse to surrender an ounce of U.S. sovereignty to an international organization and TC wants world government.

Paul would immediately bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan and from 130 UN "peacekeeping" missions around the globe. TC wants to enjoy war profiteering and global power. Paul would abolish the federal income tax while the TC wants to pile on a global tax payable to the UN.

The formal agenda was loaded with everything Paul and American patriots detest: higher taxes, more foreign giveaways, more immigration, both legal and illegal, into the United States and "engaging Iran," among others.

AMERICA NEEDS TO PAY HER FAIR SHARE?

The Trilaterals got down to real work on Saturday, April 26, with a high-powered panel called "U.S. Foreign and Domestic Policy: Broad Outlines for a New Administration."

It was presided over by journalistic pimp David Gergen, who will write nothing about TC in his magazine, U.S News and World Report. Also participating were Kenneth Duberstein, former White House chief of staff for President Ronald Reagan; Strobe Talbot, president of the Brookings Institution and former deputy secretary of state; and Joseph Nye, former assistant secretary of defense. Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state and long-time Bilderberg leader, was present and listed as a participant. But a TC staff member crossed his name out. Some speculated he had throat problems.

This panel had these orders for the next president: increase foreign aid across the board because "America does not pay its fair share", pay up the arrears in UN dues, allow as many immigrants into the United States as want to come and provide "amnesty" for illegal aliens already here.

Little, if anything, was said about the fact that American taxpayers pay one-fourth of the UN's operating costs and one-third of the cost of 130 "peacekeeping missions" or the fact that immigrants from South America depress wages here and the average immigrant family costs the government thousands of dollars a year in welfare, health and other "benefits."

Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank and another long-time Bilderberg boy, largely echoed these views in a sweetheart "interview" by another journalistic strumpet, Lionel Barber, editor of The Financial Times, who will obediently report nothing.

FIGHT WARMING; ALLOW IMMIGRANTS

There were "subgroup" meetings on "climate change," "water and sanitation" and "migration and development." Every nation, especially the U.S., should spend big bucks to fight "global warming," they agreed. The United States should spend more "because Americans cause the most pollution," one argued. Americans should send more money to Africa so natives can drink clean water and scrub themselves, they said.

Antonio Garrigues Walker, chairman of Garrigues Abogadas y Asesores Tributarios, joined Peter Sutherland, the UN secretary-general's "special representative on migration and development", to call on the United States to not only allow unlimited immigration, but to throw more money at Mexico and other impoverished Latin countries. It was, somehow, their "right" to have more U.S. dollars. Sutherland is chairman of British Petroleum and Goldman Sachs International. He is also a long-time Bilderberg leader.

MEDIA BLACKOUT

Bill Emmott, another kept journalist, spoke on "the rise of Asia" at a reception-dinner held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Emmott, former editor of The Economist, will report nothing.

Sunday morning, Robert Blackwill, former U.S. deputy national security adviser for Iraq, led a panel discussion on "engaging Iran and building peace in the Persian Gulf Region." For the first time, there was dissent. Blackwill tried to rationalize the invasion of Iraq. Others doubted that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9-11 terrorist attacks or was a nuclear threat. Blackwill said the military option remains but he hopes diplomatic efforts succeed.

Other participants were Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations, which functions as the propaganda ministry for TC and Bilderberg; Volker Perthes, head of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and Hitoshi Tanaka, former Japanese deputy minister of Foreign Affairs.

MORE, MORE, MORE MONEY

More foreigners demanded more U.S. money at a lunch panel called "European and Asian views on U.S. Foreign and Security Policy." Participants were Elisabeth Guigou, a member of the French National Assembly and former minister for European affairs and Han Sung-joo, former minister of foreign affairs for South Korea.

An afternoon session addressed "global health" with more calls for American tax dollars. A major voice in this cause came from Sylvia Mathews Burwell, president of Global Development Programs, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates has attended at least one Bilderberg meeting.

EXCUSES FOR IRAQ; PLANS FOR IRAN

John Negroponte, U.S. deputy secretary of state, addressed the evening dinner on "U.S. foreign policy perspectives." Again, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were rationalized and an invasion of Iran held out as a possibility.

The Monday morning finale addressed the Global Financial Crisis involving these luminaries: Robert Kimmitt, U.S. deputy secretary of the treasury; Martin Feldstein, former chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers; David Rubenstein, managing director of The Carlyle Group; Naoki Tanaka, president of the Center for International Public Policy Studies and Sir Andrew Crockett, president of JP Morgan Chase International.

Among them, there was much talk of the U.S. government's "duty" to "intervene" on behalf of "financial institutions under stress." Little or nothing was said of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are losing their homes because financial institutions lured them into buying houses they could not afford.

Throughout the weekend, no American voices were heard objecting to the demands on their country. Instead, there were smiles, nods and applause.
by: James P. Tucker Jr. May 6, 2008