You can't handel the truth's

The Truth Will Make You Free

Archive for the month “January, 2012”

CBS Reporter Blatantly Excludes Ron Paul From Coverage 01/28/2012

Posted from Diigo. The rest of Truth Will Set You Free group favorite links are here.

Looking Back on a Century of the Fed’s BS

Infowars.com
January 22, 2012

From Gresham’s Law.

After almost a century of the centrally planned dollar we’re delighted to present a timeline of the most amusingly disturbing speeches delivered by the Federal Reserve & Co.

See below for the timeline. Source: Federal Reserve Archival System for Economic Research (FRASER)

Click image to enlarge:

Mitt Romney’s Big Obama Jobs Lie

At the Fox News/Wall Street Journal debate Monday night in South Carolina, GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney made a breathtakingly bogus claim about President Obama’s jobs record. “We have a president in office three years,” Romney claimed, “and he does not have a jobs plan yet.”

Romney is either suffering from selective amnesia or is trying to dupe the public. Last fall, the president unveiled his American Jobs Act, a $447 billion package of tax cuts for businesses; funds to retain more teachers, cops, and firefighters; and money to hire construction workers to upgrade and retrofit public schools nationwide. The bill also included $50 billion for investing in America’s roads, bridges, rail lines, and other infrastructure. All the measures in the Jobs Act are intended to spur hiring and prevent layoffs throughout the American economy. Need more? Check out this entire website devoted to the Jobs Act.

In November, Senate Republicans blocked various pieces of the American Jobs Act on three separate occasions. Now, Obama says he’s going to try to implement job-creating measures on his own without sending legislation to Congress. But to claim that the president “does not have a jobs plan yet,” as Mitt Romney did on Monday night, couldn’t be further from the truth.

How You Ended The War

Chile’s Desaparecidos and Obama’s NDAA

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 15, 2012

 

Investigative journalists in Chile have uncovered a number of previously unreported political executions under General Pinochet’s reign of terror, including the execution of the Nobel Prize-winning poet Pablo Neruda.

More than 3,000 Chileans were “disappeared” after the CIA-plotted coup in Chile.

Investigative journalists at ArchivosChile patched together files from the Legal Medical Service, the General Cemetery, the Civil Registry and the Military Prosecutors. They discovered 890 politically motivated deaths between Sept. 11 and the end of December 1973, according to the Santiago Times.

Chile’s bloody coup was planned and orchestrated by the CIA after the Chilean people made the mistake of democratically electing a socialist, Salvador Allende. It was later revealed that then president Nixon had ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream” in Chile to “prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him.”

Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State, played an instrumental role in the coup. He chaired the 40 Committee, a high-level enter agency group, that ordered the CIA to destabilize the country and plot a military coup installing a military dictatorship that lasted 17 years.

“The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves,” he said at the time. “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.”

Following he coup and the murder of Allende, Pinochet and his military created DINA, the Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional. DINA served as the primary secret police organization for political repression in Chile under the military dictatorship.

 

DINA not only tortured political opponents, but also assassinated them. In 1976, working with the CIA, the French OAS and the Italian fascist terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie, DINA assassinated former Chilean minister Orlando Letelier and American political activist Ronni Moffitt in Washington, DC.

Pinochet’s regime also initiated Operation Condor, a program for the joint monitoring and assassinating of dissident refugees in much of Latin America. Operation Condor was given tacit approval by the United States and resulted in the murder of thousands of activists, including an estimated 30,000 socialists, trade-unionists, and relatives of activists in Argentina.

The United States now has its own version of Operation Condor under the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on December 31, 2011 by Obama. In addition to issuing a carte blanche to indefinitely detain citizens – in Chile, they are called the desaparecidos, the disappeared – the legislation reinstates “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture. It compliments an earlier decision that Americans are legitimate military targets and may be assassinated – as cleric Anwar al-Awlaki allegedly was – on orders of an executive branch that has since the Bush years increasingly resembled an imperial presidency.

“The Bush regime operated as if the Constitution did not exist. Any semblance of constitutional government that remained after the Bush years was terminated when Congress passed and President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act,” writes Paul Craig Roberts today.

We now live in a military dictatorship little different than the one that ruled Chile. As of yet, the military is not “disappearing” Americans in large numbers and herding them into sports stadiums little different than the National Stadium in Santiago where 40,000 political prisoners were detained under Pinochet’s CIA-enabled reign of terror.

Political prisoners held at a sports stadium in Chile.

How long before the military in America sets up its own Caravan of Death – a notorious roving death squad in Chile – or establishes counterparts to Colonia Dignidad, the ship Esmeralda or numerous other torture and execution centers in Chile?

We are one false flag terror attack away from a full-blown Chile-style police state. The establishment media assures us the next attack will not come from al-Qaeda cave dwellers, but rather domestic “extremists” and “lone wolf” terrorists.

The Department of Homeland Security and the globalists at the Council on Foreign Relations assure us that the coming terror will resemble Oklahoma City in 1995 – in other words it will be perpetuated by “rightwing extremists,” defined by the DHS, MIAC and “fusion centers” around the country as returning veterans, Second Amendment activists, constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters.

Following that event, the police state apparatus the state has meticulously crafted over the last twenty years will be put into full motion and it will make anything Pinochet and his military did to the people of Chile pale in comparison.

Dr. King family’s civil trial verdict: US government assassinated Martin

“What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history? A fable agreed upon.”  – Napoleon Bonaparte [69]

The following is from : Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%’s crimes then and now (6-part series)

Dr. Martin Luther King’s family and his personal friend and attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty in the wrongful death of Martin Luther King. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, [70] is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King.

The King family’s attempts for a criminal trial were denied, as suspect James Ray’s recant of what he claimed was a false confession was denied. Mr. Ray said that his government-appointed attorney told him to sign a confession in order to receive a trial. When Mr. Ray discovered that his signature meant no trial, his and the King family’s subsequent requests were denied.

The US government also denied the King family’s requests for independent investigation of the assassination.

Therefore, and importantly, the US government has never presented any evidence subject to challenge that substantiates their claim that Mr. Ray assassinated Dr. King.

US corporate media did not cover the trial, interview the King family, and textbooks omit this information. Journalist and author, James Douglass: [71]

“I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?” ”

For comparison, please consider the media coverage of O.J. Simpson’s trials: [72]

“Media coverage of the Simpson trial, which began in January 1995, was unlike any other. Over two thousand reporters covered the trial, and 80 miles of cable was required to allow nineteen television stations to cover the trial live to 91 percent of the American viewing audience. When the verdict was finally read on October 3, 1995, some 142 million people listened or watched. It seemed the nation stood still, divided along racial lines as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. During and after the trial, over eighty books were published about the event by most everyone involved in the Simpson case.”

The overwhelming evidence of government complicity introduced and agreed as comprehensively valid by the jury includes the 111th Military Intelligence Group were sent to Dr. King’s location, and that the usual police protection was pulled away just before the assassination. Military Intelligence set-up photographers on a roof of a fire station with a clear view to Dr. King’s balcony. 20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day. Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper team. Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.

The King family believes the government’s motivation to murder Dr. King was to prevent his imminent camp-in at Washington, D.C. until the Vietnam War was ended and those resources directed to end poverty and invest in US hard and soft infrastructure.

Please watch this six-minute video of the evidence from the trial, [73] and this eight-minute video [74] on the FBI’s disclosures of covert operations against Dr. King, including confirmation from his closest friends and advisors.

Coretta Scott King, Dr. King’s wife, is certain of the evidence after 30 years of consideration from the 1968 assassination to the 1999 trial:

“For a quarter of a century, Bill Pepper conducted an independent investigation of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. He opened his files to our family, encouraged us to speak with the witnesses, and represented our family in the civil trial against the conspirators. The jury affirmed his findings, providing our family with a long-sought sense of closure and peace, which had been denied by official disinformation and cover- ups. Now the findings of his exhaustive investigation and additional revelations from the trial are presented in the pages of this important book. We recommend it highly to everyone who seeks the truth about Dr. King’s assassination.” — Coretta Scott King, Dr. King’s wife.

The US Department of Justice issued a report in 2000 that explains their investigation into their own possible guilt in the assassination found no evidence to warrant further investigation. Dr. King’s son issued the following statement [75] rebuking a “self-study” rather than the independent investigation the King family assert the evidence demands:

“We learned only hours before the Justice Department press conference that they were releasing the report of their results of their “limited investigation,” which covered only two areas of new evidence concerning the assassination of Dr. King. We had requested that we be given a copy of the report a few days in advance so that we might have had the opportunity to review it in detail. Since that courtesy was not extended to us, we are only able at this time to state the following:

1. We initially requested that a comprehensive investigation be conducted by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, independent of the government, because we do not believe that, in such a politically-sensitive matter, the government is capable of investigating itself.

2. The type of independent investigation we sought was denied by the federal government. But in our view, it was carried out, in a Memphis courtroom, during a month-long trial by a jury of 12 American citizens who had no interest other than ascertaining the truth. (Kings v. Jowers)

3. After hearing and reviewing the extensive testimony and evidence, which had never before been tested under oath in a court of law, it took the Memphis jury only one (1) hour to find that a conspiracy to kill Dr. King did exist. Most significantly, this conspiracy involved agents of the governments of the City of Memphis, the state of Tennessee and the United States of America. The overwhelming weight of the evidence also indicated that James Earl Ray was not the triggerman and, in fact, was an unknowing patsy.

4. We stand by that verdict and have no doubt that the truth about this terrible event has finally been revealed.

5. We urge all interested Americans to read the transcript of the trial on the King Center website and consider the evidence, so they can form their own unbiased conclusions.

Although we cooperated fully with this limited investigation, we never really expected that the government report would be any more objective than that which has resulted from any previous official investigation.”

Let’s summarize: Under US Civil Law, covert US government agencies were found guilty of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was the leading figure of the Civil Rights Movement, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and widely recognized as one of the world’s greatest speakers for what it means to be human. The family’s conclusion as to motive was to prevent Dr. King from ending the Vietnam War because the government wanted to continue its ongoing covert and overt military operations to control foreign governments and their resources.

It is therefore a factual statement that under US Civil Law, the US government assassinated Dr. King.

This is similar that under Criminal Law, both O.J. Simpson and the US government are not legally guilty for murder, but both parties are guilty for killing innocent victims under Civil Law.

People of sufficient intellectual integrity and moral courage will embrace the trial evidence and testimony, jury conclusion, and King family analysis as appropriate and helpful information in seeking the facts.

People who at least temporarily reject challenging information out of fear might say something like, “The government killed Dr. King? That’s a crazy conspiracy theory!”

Let’s consider that statement.

When someone says that a body of evidence is “crazy,” or a “conspiracy theory” (meaning an irrational claim easily refuted by the evidence) that’s a claim. With a claim comes a burden of proof. In this case, the person would have to demonstrate command of the facts to explain and prove why the evidence from the civil trial is somehow “crazy” and easily refuted.

If the person can do this, it would be tremendously helpful in understanding the facts. However, we know from our experience that such statements almost always have zero factual support, and that the person making such a claim literally doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

We also know from our experience, a person making such a statement is really voicing an emotional reaction something closer to the spirit of, “The government killed Dr. King? Ok, I read and understood the paragraphs about the trial and evidence. I read Mrs. King’s and her son’s statement. I haven’t invested the time to verify how valid that information is. I’m not stupid, but because the implications of what that means is so disturbing, I’m going to deny anything about it could possibly be true as my first response. If I’m going to continue being in denial and refuse to discuss the evidence, I’ll attack the messenger.”

We also need to consider the lack of coverage by US corporate media of this compelling evidence, trial verdict, and King family testimony from over 30 years’ analysis of the facts. Recall the evidence of US corporate media reporting being infiltrated by CIA agents to propagandize Americans’ access to information. This included the Director of the CIA’s admission to Congress that they have over 400 agents working in corporate media to make the US public believe what the CIA wants them to believe.

In 2006, George Washington University used a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the US military’s “Information Operations Roadmap.” This formerly secret and approved document details present US government strategies to generate propaganda, and then attack Internet alternative media that provides dangerous facts and discussion. The military promoted the term, “Fight the net.” [76]

Although I won’t enter the burden of proof here, you may know that there are similar and related bodies of evidence that the US government assassinated other American leaders who opposed key policies of an apparent violent faction within US government. The 1975 Senate Church Committee disclosed that the US government initiated and helped assassination attempts on multiple foreign heads of state. [77]

If we were discussing how the population of some other nation could employ critical thinking skills to understand current events from anytime in history, we would certainly understand the importance to anticipate disinformation from government, danger of controlled media, and assassination as a political weapon.

Failure to do so would appropriately elicit the label attributed to the first dictator of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin. Such people who believe what their government tells them when the history and present have overwhelming objective evidence to explain, document, and prove that the government is typical of so many other historical self-serving oligarchies are:

“Useful idiots.”

To the extent the United States today is any different from all other nations and all other times is up to your exercise of critical thinking skills.

endnotes:

69 Conversation with Emmanuel, comte de Las Cases (20 November 1816), Mémorial de Sainte Hélène, v. 4, p. 251.

70 The Martin Luther King Jr. Center. Civil Case: King Family versus Jowers. Transcript of closing statement: http://www.thekingcenter.org/civil-case-king-family-versus-jowers/ .

71 Probe Magazine. The Martin Luther King Conspiracy exposed in Memphis. Douglass, J.: http://ctka.net/pr500-king.html . Mr. Douglass took what he learned from the MLK trial and wrote a book on the explanation and evidence that similar covert US government factions assassinated President Kennedy: JFK and the unspeakable: why he died and why it matters. Reviews for your consideration here and here. Because the evidence for JFK being murdered by interests in our own government is so strong, AP US History teacher John Hankey created this DVD: Dark Legacy.

72 One of many analyses: law.jrank. Media – The O.j. Simpson Case: http://law.jrank.org/pages/12147/Media-O-J-Simpson-Case.html

73 Documentation from the King family, trial information, and video resources: Examiner.com. Martin Luther King assassinated by US government: MLK civil trial decision. Herman, C. Jan. 15, 2011: http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/mlk-assassinated-by-us-government-martin-luther-king-civil-1999-decision . For further documentation of evidence: What Really Happened: The Death of Martin Luther King: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MLK/mlk.html

74 RevolutionNewz. MSM blackout – the US govt executed Martin Luther King…Proven in US court, 1999: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k383kA7p7vs

75 Global Research. Martin Luther King Day: King family statement on the Justice Department’s “Limited Investigation” of the MLK assassination. Jan. 15, 2007

76 George Washington University. The National Security Archive. Rumsfeld’s Roadmap to Propaganda. Jan. 26, 2006: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/ . BBC News analysis: US plans to ‘fight the net’ revealed. Brookes, A. Jan. 27, 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

77 History matters. Church Committee Interim report: Alleged assassination plots involving foreign leaders: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/church/contents_church_reports_ir.htm

Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Etc.)

The American Dream
Friday, January 13, 2012

Wouldn’t it be great if a Republican presidential candidate could just buy the support of just about every major conservative talk show host in America?  Well, it may not be as far-fetched as you may think.


Clear Channel owns more radio stations (850) than anyone else in the United States.  They also own Premiere Radio Networks, the company that syndicates the radio shows of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, among others.  Needless to say, Clear Channel basically owns conservative talk radio in the United States.  So who owns Clear Channel?  Well, it turns out that Bain Capital is one of the primary owners of Clear Channel.  Yes, you read that correctly.  The company that Mitt Romney ran for so long is one of the “big bosses” over virtually all conservative talk radio in America.  Of course Mitt Romney is not running Bain Capital anymore.  He is a “retired partner”, but he still has a huge financial stake in Bain Capital.  We’re talking about millions upon millions of dollars.  If you doubt this, just check out page 34 of this public financial disclosure report.  So if you have been wondering why so many conservative talk show hosts are being so incredibly kind to Mitt Romney, this just might be the answer.

In the media world, there is a clear understanding that you simply do not bite the hand that feeds you.  Some of the most prominent conservative talk radio hosts are earning tens of millions of dollars a year.

If you were making tens of millions of dollars a year, wouldn’t you be very careful to avoid offending your boss?

The deal in which Bain Capital became one of the owners of Clear Channel was initiated just a short time before Mitt Romney’s first run for president.  The following comes from Wikipedia….

On November 16, 2006, Clear Channel announced plans to go private, being bought out by two private-equity firms,Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital Partners for $18.7 billion, which is just under a 10 percent premium above its closing price of $35.36 a share on November 16 (the deal values Clear Channel at $37.60 per share).

The deal was finalized in 2008.  Today, Bain Capital is still one of the primary owners of Clear Channel.

One of the subsidiaries of Clear Channel is Premiere Radio Networks.

Premiere Radio Networks distributes a whole host of conservative talk radio shows.  Everyone in the conservative world knows names such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.  Clear Channel also controls some other conservative talk radio hosts (such as Michael Savage and Mark Levin) that are not part of the Premiere Radio family.

The power that Premiere Radio Networks has is absolutely staggering.  The following is directly from the official Clear Channel website….

Premiere Radio Networks Inc., a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications, syndicates 90 radio programs and services to more than 5,000 radio affiliations and reaches over 190 million listeners weekly.  Premiere Radio is the number one radio network in the country and features the following personalities:  Rush Limbaugh, Jim Rome, Casey Kasem, Ryan Seacrest, Glenn Beck, Bob (Kevoian) & Tom (Griswold), Delilah, Steve Harvey, Blair Garner, George Noory, John Boy and Billy, Big Tigger, Dr. Dean Edell, Bob Costas, Sean Hannity and others. Premiere is based in Sherman Oaks, California, with 13 offices nationwide.

So do you think that any of those hosts is going to risk viciously attacking Mitt Romney and Bain Capital during this election season?

Not likely.

One of the controversies that has plagued Premiere Radio Networks in recent years has been the uproar over their use of paid actors to call in to their radio shows.

The following comes from Wikipedia….

Clear Channel, through its subsidiary, Premiere Radio Networks, auditions and hires actors to call in to talk radio shows and pose as listeners in order to provide shows, carried by Clear Channel and other broadcasters, with planned content in the form of stories and opinions. The custom caller service provided by Premiere Radio ensures its clients they won’t hear the same actor’s voice for at least two months in order to appear authentic to listeners who might otherwise catch on.

So perhaps that explains where some of the “Romney callers” come from.

There is nothing illegal about what Romney and Bain Capital have done, but it sure does not pass the “smell test”.

Conservative talk radio has the potential to sway millions of conservative voters in one direction or another, and it is just not proper for Bain Capital and Romney to have such an overpowering financial interest in conservative talk radio.

And yes, Mitt Romney is still bringing in lots of money from Bain Capital.  The following comes from a Wikipedia article about Mitt Romney….

At the time of his departure, Romney negotiated an agreement with Bain Capital that allowed him to receive a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds.[62][57] With the private equity business continuing to thrive, this deal would bring him millions of dollars in income each year.[57] As a result of his business career, by 2007 Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million, most of it held in blind trusts.[62] An additional blind trust existed in the name of the Romneys’ children and grandchildren that was valued at between $70 and $100 million as of 2007.[63] The couple’s net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and was still held in blind trusts.

In addition, Bain Capital and Bain & Company continue to pour huge amounts of money into Romney’s campaign coffers.

Just check out the following list of the biggest donors to the Romney campaign.  These numbers come from opensecrets.org….

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250
The Villages $97,500
Vivint Inc $80,750
Marriott International $79,837
Sullivan & Cromwell $79,250
Bain Capital $74,500
UBS AG $73,750
Wells Fargo $61,500
Blackstone Group $59,800
Citigroup Inc $57,050
Bain & Co $52,500

As with anything, whenever you want to get to the real truth you just need to follow the money.

Earlier this week, Sean Hannity told Rick Perry that his attacks on Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital sounded like something that “Occupy Wall Street” would say.

Just the other day, Rush Limbaugh compared Rick Perry to Fidel Castro and rabidly defended Mitt Romney on his radio program….

“There’s no way you can try to dress that up,” Limbaugh fumed. “I don’t understand it. Well, politically I understand it, but that’s just absurd. It’s sad. ‘Cause I really, really, really like Rick Perry! I really do. I had such hopes! I did. I’ll tell you, I did, but all of this talk about “corporate raiders,” and as I listen to politicians start talking about capitalism, lights are going off in my head. “Maybe they don’t really know what it is. Maybe they’re under some misconception about what capitalism is, because this characterization of it? A distinction with venture capitalism and vulture capitalism? This bite from Perry doesn’t compute.”

So why are these conservative talk show hosts defending Mitt Romney so furiously?

I think now we know.

 

It is all about the money.

When you have enough money, you can get conservative talk show hosts to promote an extremely liberal candidate.

Yes, of course Bain Capital does not “control” what these talk show hosts say.

Yes, of course some of the talk show hosts toss some light criticism at Romney from time to time.

But they simply do not go after Romney like they should be.

The truth is that Mitt Romney is really a Democrat that is masquerading as a Republican.  When you closely examine his record, he is very similar to Obama.

There is no way in the world that any self-respecting conservative should ever cast a single vote for him.

But right now Mitt Romney is running away with the race for the Republican nomination.

If Republicans can be fooled this badly, is there any hope for the future of the Republican Party?

Meet the White Obama

 

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 11, 2012

 

Mitt Romney, the establishment declared GOP front-runner, is the white Obama. He earns this title because on crucial issues he mirrors Barack Obama. Consider:

Climate agenda and carbon taxes:

He has stated that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is real. In 2005, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney imposed strict state limitations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In a memo issued by Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Hale, the Romney administration bragged that it was “the first and only state to set CO 2 emissions limits on power plants.”

In short, Romney did what Obama’s EPA wants to do now. It is revealing that Romney was advised on this drastic step by none other than Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren.

In his book, No Apology, Romney advocates carbon taxes through a “tax-swap plan” and declares that resultant “higher energy prices would encourage energy efficiency.” The plan is favored by economist and Romney adviser Greg Mankiw and many other “Republican-leaning economists.” In 2007, Mankiw wrote an op-ed for the New York Times entitled “One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax.” He wrote that “if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.”

Obama also wants to push a carbon tax on the American people and declared his intention to do so before he took office. “President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote on November 19, 2008.

Obama’s agenda to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent fits right into the globalist plan to attain the ultimate civilization-killing goal of zero carbon emissions, as espoused by the Carnegie Institute.

 

Romneycare:

In December, Romney told Fox News that he stands by the health care at gunpoint plan implemented while he was governor of Massachusetts. “The plan is not perfect, there are things that I’d change in it, but I’ll stand by the things we’ve done,” he said, defending the plan.

Obama and the Democrats were so enthralled with Romney’s statist health care boondoggle, they based their plan on it.

“Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act,” NBC reported last October.

Abortion:

Like a good Demopublican, Romney supported a woman’s “right” to kill her fetus – that is before, as a “conservative,” he changed his mind – or as it is usually called, he flip-flopped on the issue.

He was so adamant about abortion, he attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 2004, but now supports the Pence amendment sponsored by Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence aimed at eliminating all Title X grants for Planned Parenthood. He even instituted tax-funded abortion on demand two years after his orchestrated “pro-life” conversion.

Obama, of course, is “pro-choice” and has appointed a number of outspoken pro-abortion advocates to his administration. If elected, no doubt Romney will do the same.

Illegal immigration:

Mitt claims to oppose illegal immigration, but does not advocate sending illegals back – or, apparently, even arresting them for breaking the law.

“Those people that are here illegally today should have the opportunity to register and to have their status identified,” he said in November.

He said nothing about illegal immigrants paying back taxes, learning English, not having criminal records, or being deported and going through legal channels for immigration.

Romney sounds a lot like Obama, who said: “I think most Americans feel there should be an orderly process to do it. People shouldn’t just be coming here and cutting in front of the line essentially and staying without having gone through the proper channels.”

Mitt Romney is basically indistinguishable from Obama and supports the same globalist agenda, albeit with “conservative” flourishes. His flip-flopping on key issues is designed to make his pre-arranged agenda more palatable to so-called conservatives, who will naturally be hoodwinked as they are every election cycle.

If elected, Romney will become the white Obama. The only job requirement will be an ability to convincingly read a teleprompter and follow orders handed down form his globalist masters the same as his predecessor.

Obama or More of the Same

11 January 2012 No Comment
Mitt Romney Wins in NH

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com 

Mitt Romney, who finished first in New Hampshire last night, got a raw deal from the mainstream media (MSM) and his Republican opponents about a comment that was totally taken out of context.  It was reported that Mitt Romney said, “I like to fire people.”  That would make you think he was some sort of cold hearted person who doesn’t care about people.  What Romney actually said was in the context of health care providers and being able to fire companies who give you bad service.  Romney actually said, “I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me.”  (Click here to hear Romney for yourself.)  I agree with Romney on this one.  This was a totally false representation of what Governor Romney said, and everyone who carried this story and used this in a campaign should be ashamed.

Yesterday, FOX News came to Romney’s defense and rightly so.  FOX gave wall-to-wall coverage defending this injustice, but the “Fair and balanced” network does not apply its righteousness evenly.  What about Congressman Ron Paul?  Many on the MSM and FOX have ignored the presidential candidate.  Some on FOX, such as Judge Andrew Napolitano, have given the Congressman a fair shake, but many have not.  Where was FOX when The CBS “Early Show” left out Ron Paul in a poll done by Suffolk University right after the Iowa Caucuses?   Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford said, “A new Suffolk University poll shows him (Romney) with a commanding lead in New Hampshire at almost 30 points above his rivals.”  (Click here and see this biased report from CBS.) 

CBS should fire Crawford, the network’s “Chief Political Correspondent,” for two reasons.  Reason one, for being politically biased in leaving Dr. Paul out of her story even though he held second place in the Suffolk University poll!  The second reason CBS should fire Crawford is because she is an idiot who can’t do second grade math.   The poll totaled only 65% without Paul.  If you are going to do someone in, at least be clever, but I digress.  Why aren’t the people at FOX defending Paul, a Republican?  I think it is because many on that network do not want him to get the GOP nomination.   FOX News made a lot of time to talk to Rick Perry, who finished dead last, but Congressman Paul, who finished a respectable second, got about a minute at around 11:20pm and then was talked about a little more after that.  “Fair and balanced”?  FOX should retire that slogan.  If you are a news organization, you cannot be “Fair and balanced” to only the people you like.

I don’t think either party wants Paul to be the GOP candidate.  Republican and Democratic special interests know both will take a hit under a President Paul.  Republicans, like Romney, will not rein in the banks, stop the ongoing bailouts or truly clean up the kleptocracy we call a financial system.  Obama surely won’t either because he said to reporter Steve Kroft, last December, on “60 Minutes, “I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal.”  Kroft didn’t bother to challenge the President, even though he did an expose’ on widespread and systemic mortgage fraud earlier last year.  (Click here for more of this disgusting story.)   

I think Romney will end up the GOP nominee, but I have serious doubts he can defeat Obama and his nearly $1billion war chest.  It will also take more than money to replace the President.  Romney’s main strength is corporate America and its “Super PACs.”  Paul probably would have a better chance of winning.  Paul gets about 50% of the youth vote.  It’s hard for the GOP to comprehend that young people respect Paul, and he’s 76 years old!   I think it is also safe to say that liberal Democrats will not vote for Romney, but Paul on the other hand, would take some votes away from the President’s base.  I mean, let’s face it, a candidate that wants less war and less of the Federal Reserve will appeal to liberals disillusioned with Obama.  Also, consider the “Indefinite Detention” bill the President just signed into law on New Year’s Eve.   The ACLU says this legislation guts the Constitution, and you just can’t get more liberal than these folks.  The left is not happy with Obama’s unyielding support for Wall Street which is a big campaign donor.  Wall Street knows how to rig the game and contributes just as much to the Republicans.  Mitt Romney is their GOP poster boy.  So, if Romney gets the Republican nomination, and it’s not over just yet, the choice will be Obama and more of the same.

Ron Paul is the ONLY Candidate Opposed to the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, and SOPA

Youtube

Ron Paul campaigning in New Hampshire discusses how to restore individual civil liberties, by repealing the USA PATRIOT Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and he expressed his opposition to Internet control bill SOPA.

 

Post Navigation