Monthly Archives: October 2008
The National Socialist Secret Government Of U.S. Exposed itself with the passage of the Economic Stabilization Act Of 2008 or what is called the “bailout bill”. This was one of the most horrible pieces of legislation to ever pass. It stole tax payer money to bail out Wall Street. Below is the final roll call vote for the House and Senate of the bailout bill. The Library Of Congress website does not have the accurate roll call. Do you think this is a coincidence right before the election on Nov. 4, 2008? If your congressman or senator voted for this bill he or she is a national socialist working for special interests not the American people. Cantontruth urges you to vote out the people who voted yes passing the bailout bill. Most likely the Senators and Congressman who passed the Bill are Trilateral Commission members or Council On Foreign Relation members. A little research to find out is all that is needed. But this I can assure you the Democrats and Republicans are not now, nor have they ever worked for the American people.
House Of Representatives:
H R 1424 YEA-AND-NAY 3-Oct-2008 1:22 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
BILL TITLE: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Johnson, E. B.
Lungren, Daniel E.
Sánchez, Linda T.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress – 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
|Question: On Passage of the Bill (H. R. 1424 As Amended )|
|Vote Number:||213||Vote Date:||October 1, 2008, 09:22 PM|
|Required For Majority:||3/5||Vote Result:||Bill Passed|
|Measure Number:||H.R. 1424 (A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes. )|
|Measure Title:||A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.|
|Vote Summary||By Senator Name||By Vote Position||By Home State|
|Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
|Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
|Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
|Vote Summary||By Senator Name||By Vote Position||By Home State|
|Not Voting – 1|
|Vote Summary||By Senator Name||By Vote Position||By Home State|
|Alabama:||Sessions (R-AL), Nay||Shelby (R-AL), Nay|
|Alaska:||Murkowski (R-AK), Yea||Stevens (R-AK), Yea|
|Arizona:||Kyl (R-AZ), Yea||McCain (R-AZ), Yea|
|Arkansas:||Lincoln (D-AR), Yea||Pryor (D-AR), Yea|
|California:||Boxer (D-CA), Yea||Feinstein (D-CA), Yea|
|Colorado:||Allard (R-CO), Nay||Salazar (D-CO), Yea|
|Connecticut:||Dodd (D-CT), Yea||Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea|
|Delaware:||Biden (D-DE), Yea||Carper (D-DE), Yea|
|Florida:||Martinez (R-FL), Yea||Nelson (D-FL), Nay|
|Georgia:||Chambliss (R-GA), Yea||Isakson (R-GA), Yea|
|Hawaii:||Akaka (D-HI), Yea||Inouye (D-HI), Yea|
|Idaho:||Craig (R-ID), Yea||Crapo (R-ID), Nay|
|Illinois:||Durbin (D-IL), Yea||Obama (D-IL), Yea|
|Indiana:||Bayh (D-IN), Yea||Lugar (R-IN), Yea|
|Iowa:||Grassley (R-IA), Yea||Harkin (D-IA), Yea|
|Kansas:||Brownback (R-KS), Nay||Roberts (R-KS), Nay|
|Kentucky:||Bunning (R-KY), Nay||McConnell (R-KY), Yea|
|Louisiana:||Landrieu (D-LA), Nay||Vitter (R-LA), Nay|
|Maine:||Collins (R-ME), Yea||Snowe (R-ME), Yea|
|Maryland:||Cardin (D-MD), Yea||Mikulski (D-MD), Yea|
|Massachusetts:||Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting||Kerry (D-MA), Yea|
|Michigan:||Levin (D-MI), Yea||Stabenow (D-MI), Nay|
|Minnesota:||Coleman (R-MN), Yea||Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea|
|Mississippi:||Cochran (R-MS), Nay||Wicker (R-MS), Nay|
|Missouri:||Bond (R-MO), Yea||McCaskill (D-MO), Yea|
|Montana:||Baucus (D-MT), Yea||Tester (D-MT), Nay|
|Nebraska:||Hagel (R-NE), Yea||Nelson (D-NE), Yea|
|Nevada:||Ensign (R-NV), Yea||Reid (D-NV), Yea|
|New Hampshire:||Gregg (R-NH), Yea||Sununu (R-NH), Yea|
|New Jersey:||Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea||Menendez (D-NJ), Yea|
|New Mexico:||Bingaman (D-NM), Yea||Domenici (R-NM), Yea|
|New York:||Clinton (D-NY), Yea||Schumer (D-NY), Yea|
|North Carolina:||Burr (R-NC), Yea||Dole (R-NC), Nay|
|North Dakota:||Conrad (D-ND), Yea||Dorgan (D-ND), Nay|
|Ohio:||Brown (D-OH), Yea||Voinovich (R-OH), Yea|
|Oklahoma:||Coburn (R-OK), Yea||Inhofe (R-OK), Nay|
|Oregon:||Smith (R-OR), Yea||Wyden (D-OR), Nay|
|Pennsylvania:||Casey (D-PA), Yea||Specter (R-PA), Yea|
|Rhode Island:||Reed (D-RI), Yea||Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea|
|South Carolina:||DeMint (R-SC), Nay||Graham (R-SC), Yea|
|South Dakota:||Johnson (D-SD), Nay||Thune (R-SD), Yea|
|Tennessee:||Alexander (R-TN), Yea||Corker (R-TN), Yea|
|Texas:||Cornyn (R-TX), Yea||Hutchison (R-TX), Yea|
|Utah:||Bennett (R-UT), Yea||Hatch (R-UT), Yea|
|Vermont:||Leahy (D-VT), Yea||Sanders (I-VT), Nay|
|Virginia:||Warner (R-VA), Yea||Webb (D-VA), Yea|
|Washington:||Cantwell (D-WA), Nay||Murray (D-WA), Yea|
|West Virginia:||Byrd (D-WV), Yea||Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea|
|Wisconsin:||Feingold (D-WI), Nay||Kohl (D-WI), Yea|
|Wyoming:||Barrasso (R-WY), Nay||Enzi (R-WY), Nay|
Its a strange coincidence that the date for NY Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle’s fatal plane crash happened on 10-11-06. Reverse this date and flip the six to a nine and you come up with 9-11-01. Also the fact that the plane crashed into a building raises this coincidence to a new level. This was so odd to me I had to write a blog about it. Its very hard to believe this was a coincidence only. Below is the article from NY Times on 10-11-06 to prove the date it happened.
Yankee Dies in Plane Crash, Official Says
Chuck Baldwin on Bailout Bureaucracy:
Chuck Baldwin For President 2008:
For The News-Sentinel
“Obamamania” having swept the nation through the anointing of Barack Obama by the liberal media and the money from likeminded socialists, it is, indeed, possible Obama will be our next president. Obama’s election will bring about an assault on many of our cherished American rights and freedoms.
I predict one of the first things we see will be the most draconian gun control bill introduced by Sen. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that will be supported by Obama. I predict this bill will make the unconstitutional gun ban enacted in 1994 and dubbed the “Clinton gun ban” look mild.
Obama’s record on the Second Amendment is as follows: 1. He has supported a complete ban on handguns; 2. He voted to ban most rifle ammunition; 3. He refused to sign a brief supporting an individual right in the “Heller” case; 4. He supported the lawsuits that were designed to destroy the firearm industry; 5. He opposes the right to carry for self-defense; 6. He supports gun registration (which in Germany before WWII was used to disarm the Jews and used in Australia to disarm its citizens); 7. He served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, a rabidly anti-Second Amendment organization; 8. He voted to allow prosecution of citizens for using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.
These are just a few of the problematic facts relating to Obama’s stand on the Second Amendment. He takes these positions despite the fact that wherever concealed- carry laws have been adopted, there has been a reduction in crime. You can also look forward to an international gun ban treaty, being funded by self-anointed messiah George Soros and put together by Rebecca Peters, who was behind the gun confiscation in Australia, to be presented eventually to the Senate for ratification.
Sadly, Obama’s position on the Second Amendment wasn’t even addressed in the debates. The reason for this is that when all of the facts are known, it’s a losing cause for the liberals.
You can also look for the liberals in Congress to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine will be an attempt to stifle conservative views by forcing the stations that air talk radio to provide equal airtime to the liberal viewpoints, which are everywhere every day except for talk radio.
The liberals for years have had control of the mainstream media. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, USA Today, etc., have spewed forth liberal propaganda for years. The problem for them now is that there is talk radio and the Internet. They can’t stand the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Glen Beck and others have a venue to air their opinions. They are upset that many of their pet programs went down in defeat because they were exposed for what they were. How many times has the switchboard in Washington, D.C., been shut down with such a large volume of callers forcing a change in direction?
The Internet provided the platform to expose Dan Rather using a forged document in an attempt to influence an election.
Liberals attempted to compete in the market with conservative talk radio with their “Air America.” George Soros also kicked in several million dollars to get it off the ground. It failed because no one was listening. They could not get advertising as a result.
And let us not forget Obama’s plan for economic redistribution. Taking Americans’ hard-earned money and giving it to someone else. That is the only way he can give tax cuts to 95 percent of Americans.
Our Constitution will be under assault as it never has been before. James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution and our fourth president, said the following: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Be concerned. Be very concerned.
October 17, 2008
Less than a week after the Washington Post reported that the Department of Defense will pay private contractors $300 million over the next three years to “produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort to ‘engage and inspire’ the local population to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government,” Virginia Sen. Jim Webb wrote a strongly worded letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “I have serious reservations about the need for this expenditure in today’s political and economic environment,” he wrote. “Consequently, I am asking that you put these contracts on hold until the Armed Services Committee and the next administration can review the entire issue of U.S. propaganda efforts inside Iraq.”
Such a review, if it were to happen, would be a formidable undertaking, one that would have to start with the declaration of the “War on Terror” itself. It’s a project the Bush administration has always approached as a PR campaign as much as a military one. Who can forget former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card’s explanation for the need to introduce the Iraq War to Americans in September: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” And remember the short-lived attempt by administration officials to re-brand the “War on Terror” by renaming it the “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism”? (Reports at the time were that administration officials worried that the original phrase “may have outlived its usefulness,” due to its sole focus on military might.)
Regardless of what you call it, the so-called “War on Terror” has cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in propaganda costs alone. As with so much of modern war-making, most of this work is carried out by private military contractors. With the word “Halliburton” now shorthand for waste, fraud and abuse for many Americans, taxpayers’ tolerance for war profiteering has reached new lows — especially when private military companies operating with no oversight undermine the very “hearts and minds” that mission propaganda is supposedly meant to advance.
Selling the War to Americans
Perhaps one of the Bush administration’s most egregious PR undertakings in the war on Iraq was revealed this spring, when the New York Times blew the lid off the Pentagon’s military analyst program, in which more than 75 retired military officials were recruited to spout pro-war rhetoric on major networks in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. These “message force multipliers,” as they were branded, were provided with thousands of talking points by the Department of Defense starting in 2002. In one memo, dated Dec. 9, 2002 and titled “Department of Defense Themes and Talking Points on Iraq,” a quote from Paul Wolfowitz — “We cannot allow one of the world’s most murderous dictators to provide terrorists a sanctuary in Iraq” — was followed with a bullet point: “Saddam Hussein: A Global Threat.”
The investigative piece by the Times said the project “continues to this day,” seeking to “exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.”
“Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.” It would be hard to overstate the implications of such a program, particularly for a country that claims to be a beacon of democracy.
Although the Pentagon was said to have suspended its PR briefings of retired military officials shortly after the Times story broke, since claiming that its inspector general is conducting an investigation, in reality there has been precious little fallout. However, in one promising move, earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission sent five letters of inquiry to TV military analysts in an apparent probing of the program. According to one report, “at issue is that some of them were also linked to Pentagon contracts, raising the issue of conflict of interest. In its letter signed by the chief of the investigations and hearings division enforcement bureau, the FCC suggests that TV stations and networks may have violated two sections of the Communications Act of 1934 by not identifying the ties to the Pentagon that their military analysts had.” Diane Farsetta at PR Watch, who has written extensively on the Pentagon’s pundits, particularly their work on behalf of defense contractors, says, “the good news is that that’s (a first) step toward conducting an investigation.”
Profiting off the “War of Ideas”
Beyond the Pentagon’s pundit “scandal,” the fact that propaganda contracts continue to be awarded to the very companies that have previously been implicated in ethical breaches for disseminating unattributed U.S. propaganda abroad is reason enough to renew alarm. More than the dollar amount, what is outrageous to Farsetta about the most recent propaganda contract is that it is “blatantly illegal.” “If you look at this most recent contract,” she explains, “one of the ’strategic audiences’ is U.S. audiences.” According to federal law going back to World War II, she says “no taxpayer money can go to propagandize U.S. audiences.”
The Washington Post story describes the contract as the latest in a series of cutting-edge PR initiatives undertaken since 2003 that represent a revolution in what it calls “the military’s role in the war of ideas.” “Iraq, where hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on such contracts, has been the proving ground for the transformation.”
“The tools they’re using, the means, the robustness of this activity has just skyrocketed since 2003. In the past, a lot of this stuff was just some guy’s dreams,’” said a senior U.S. military official, one of several who discussed the sensitive defense program on the condition of anonymity.
The Pentagon still sometimes feels it is playing catch-up in a propaganda market dominated by al Qaeda, whose media operations include sophisticated Web sites and professionally produced videos and audios featuring Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants. “We’re being out-communicated by a guy in a cave,” Secretary Robert M. Gates often remarks.
The new contract was awarded to four companies, most of whom Farsetta refers to as “the usual suspects,” including Lincoln Group, the Pennsylvania Avenue company that in 2005 was found to have planted articles written by U.S. military officials in Iraqi newspapers without attribution. (Although the group was cleared of any illegalities, even then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recognized the potential breach, remarking, “Gee, that’s not what we ought to be doing.”
Selling the War to Iraqis
The main target audience for the $300 million contract is Iraqis. But, different from earlier propaganda efforts, the content is not simply meant to convince them of the noble intentions of their American occupiers. “Originally, the major focus was all about the U.S.,” says Farsetta. “The message then was, ‘Hey, you’re free now,’ but over time it has shifted to more ‘make sure you support your own government, your own police.’”
Indeed, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed official who described one component of the program:
“There’s a video piece produced by a contractor showing a family being attacked by a group of bad guys, and their daughter being taken off. The message is: You’ve got to stand up against the enemy.” The professionally produced vignette, he said, “is offered for airing on various (television) stations in Iraq. They don’t know that the originator of the content is the U.S. government. If they did, they would never run anything.
“If you asked most Iraqis,” he said, “they would say, ‘It came from the government, our own government.’”
A pretty blunt admission, to be sure, and one that lays bare the dubious ethical nature of the program (not to mention the extent that the military recognizes Iraqis’ antipathy for the U.S. government). But it’s not the first time the U.S. government has sought to play hand puppet with Iraqi media. Last spring, the NSA obtained and made public a document, along with a PowerPoint presentation, that revealed the Pentagon’s plans in the run-up to the war to create a “Rapid Reaction Media Team.” Jim Lobe, D.C. bureau chief of InterPress Services, covered the revelation in May 2007; as he wrote, the proposal was for a “six-month, $51 million budget for the RRMT operation, apparently the first phase in a one- to two-year ’strategic information campaign’”:
Among other items, the budget called for the hiring of two U.S. ”media consultants” who were to be paid $140,000 each for six months’ work. A further $800,000 were to be paid for six Iraqi “media consultants” over the same period.
Both the paper and the slide presentation were prepared by two Pentagon offices — Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, which, among other things, specialize in psychological warfare, and the Office of Special Plans under then undersecretary of defense for policy, Douglas Feith — in mid-January, 2003, two months before the invasion, according to NSA analyst Joyce Battle.
”The RRMT concept focuses on USG-UK pre- and post-hostilities efforts to develop programming, train talent, and rapidly deploy a team of U.S./UK media experts with a team of ‘hand selected’ Iraqi media experts to communicate immediately with the Iraqi public opinion upon liberation of Iraq,” according to the paper.
The ”hand-picked” Iraqi experts, according to the paper, would provide planning and program guidance for the U.S. experts and help ‘’select and train the Iraqi broadcasters and publishers (’the face’) for the USG/coalition sponsored information effort.” USG is an abbreviation for U.S. government.
In a rather extraordinary quote, the document boasted, ”It will be as if, after another day of deadly agit-prop, the North Korean people turned off their TVs at night, and turned them on in the morning to find the rich fare of South Korean TV spread before them as their very own.”
In the United States, few lawmakers have had a chance to scrutinize this latest deployment of public funds for propaganda. (Like so many other contracts awarded to private defense corporations, this one was awarded with no Congressional approval.) But Webb’s letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggests that it could become an issue.
At a time when this country is facing such a grave economic crisis, and at a time when the government of Iraq now shows at least a $79 billion surplus from recent oil revenues, in my view it makes little sense for the U.S. Department of Defense to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to propagandize the Iraqi people. There is now an elected government in Iraq, which is recognized to have the power and authority to negotiate a long-term security agreement with the government of the United States. Clearly that government is capable, both politically and financially, of communicating with its own people in the manner now contemplated by these DOD contracts — and without being accused by adversaries of being a foreign government that is fulminating internal conditions through propaganda.
Laudable as his efforts to reign in contractors may be — much of Webb’s letter was devoted to military contractors more generally, and Blackwater specifically — his letter made no mention of the myriad ethical questions raised by the propaganda contract. To name a few, says Farsetta, “the fact that the media produced is overwhelmingly not attributed to the U.S. government;” “the fact that one of the ’strategic audiences’ listed in the contract is ‘U.S. audiences,’ in apparent violation of U.S. law;” and “the difficulties in holding private contractors operating in war zones accountable to any standard (ethical, performance or otherwise).”
Webb, who first learned about this contract as did most Americans, from the Washington Post, has called for a thorough review of the Pentagon’s “strategic communications” initiatives, including Congressional hearings.” Were this to happen, says Farsetta, “I would love for those hearings to include representatives from foreign governments and civil society groups where the U.S. has major propaganda operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The heads of firms like the Lincoln Group, L-3 and Rendon should also testify, under oath.”
But, she says, “What really bothers me is that Webb’s using the “we’ve given Iraq so much and now it’s time for them to step up” argument. That argument never fails to amaze and anger me. We bombed them in 1991, then for more than a decade placed them under such devastating sanctions that hundreds of thousands of children died, then bombed them more ferociously over a longer period of time. Yet some politicians have the gall to complain that the Iraqis aren’t doing enough now? That’s not to mention that the argument assumes that Iraqi leaders have the same priorities as U.S. officials. Personally, I say we need to get our propaganda and troops out of Iraq and pay them reparations.”
Americans have cut back on buying cars, furniture and clothes in a tough economy, but there’s one consumer item that’s still enjoying healthy sales: guns. Purchases of firearms and ammunition have risen 8 to 10 percent this year, according to state and federal data.
Several variables drive sales, but many dealers, buyers and experts attribute the increase in part to concerns about the economy and fears that if Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wins the presidency, he will join with fellow Democrats in Congress to enact new gun controls. Obama has said that he believes in an individual right to bear arms but that he also supports “common-sense safety measures.”
“Even though [Obama] has a lot going for him, he’s not very pro-gun,” said Paul Pluff, a spokesman for Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson, which has reported higher sales. Gun enthusiasts are “going to go out and get [firearms] while they still can.”
CBS News ran a TV report about the President’s ancestry, making quaint discussion at his dynastic family’s apparent deep roots in the ruling class:
This week, thanks to a New York Post story about genealogy, we’re getting a glimpse at the rather surprising family tree of President Bush himself, reports CBS News Early Show national correspondent Tracy Smith.
We all know who the president’s father is, but what about his cousins?
CBS’s visual diagram of Bush’s ‘famous’ ancestry reveals over-lapping ties to very powerful and influential family stock:
Socially-speaking, sources exposing the Bohemian Grove, Skull & Bones, the CFR, Free Masonry and other secret societies have illustrated the fact that our rulers and their advisors meet in secret and form a cohesive network of mutual benefit (to the exclusion of the many).
To what degree, then, is it true, that membership in today’s “democratic” and “open” society determined by descendancy from historically-well connected, ruling class bloodlines? A collusion of presidents past & present, and presidential contenders as well, suggests an answer.
It is interesting to note that George W. Bush, who comes from a dynastic family deeply connected to the occult, and, who is related on two-sides to fellow Skull & Bones brother-under-the-skin John Kerry, is also related to Vlad the Impaler, a king in his own (birth)right [notably the tyrannical inspiration for the Dracula persona] on two-sides, at least one of which is shared with John Kerry.
Although this Vlad relationship is relatively far removed, and the present seemingly apart and separate from the past, the relations are fascinating, and the practice of breeding together elite stock makes it a fact that modern-day pseudo-royalty is connected to royals throughout history.
Historically, royalty has used dynasty as a succession-engine, but it apparently supplies candidates to the field of succession for American Presidents, too, who allegedly derive from a selection of the country’s best and brightest. Instead, they too come from royal stock, at least to a certain degree.
President George W. Bush is not only the son of President Bush the Elder, but he is related to his Vice President (Cheney) AND the presumptive next President (Obama) AND ALSO Bush’s former opponent for president (Kerry), who each have over-lapping ties to his genealogy. It is clear that not just anyone can grow up to be president, despite the hopeful illusion.
Instead, it is all too obvious that one likely must share a common pedigree to some degree, not only genetically, but socially, economically– in other words, must hold a pass into the inner-ring of the ruling class based on background connections.
The President is also related to powerful celebrity elites including actors Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, Marilyn Monroe, and top celebrities Madonna, Celine Dion and Hugh Hefner.
Canadian Free Press
October 29, 2008
WARREN: “Senator… I want to start off asking the same question I did when we talked via satellite last week. We were talking about your comment that the next president would face a generated crisis that would test him. I asked ‘if you believe we are going to have a crisis, how has Obama been tested in the past to deal with it?’ You gave us a long list of mistakes you believe John McCain has made, but nothing for Senator Obama.”
Last week, this is what Biden said to my question: “Let’s start off, John McCain has never been tested either. And when they’ve both been tested and state their opinion as senator, John McCain has been wrong. Barack Obama has been right. Barack Obama warned about the mistake in Iraq. He was right. John McCain said we’d be greeted as liberators. He was wrong.”
WARREN: “So, second bite at the apple. Any specifics examples of senator Obama’s experience that prepare him to lead in a national security crisis?”
BIDEN: “Barack Obama suggested we’d be in real trouble if we went into Iraq the way we did. Barack Obama has been calling for a year and a half that we need to invest more resources in Afghanistan where the actual folks who plotted against us are still living the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Barack Obama suggested we should be negotiating with North Korea, as the Bush Administration finally did getting an agreement to do away with their nuclear facility.”
WARREN: “There were a lot of issues where he might be siding on the right issue, but what I’m wondering is any concrete examples of how he’s actually impacted policy that has affected national security?”
BIDEN: “He’s changed the entire debate on policy by leading the effort to say that we in fact should set a timeline to draw down American troops in Iraq handing over authority to the Iraqis. What’s happened? George Bush has now adopted the Barack Obama plan. You saw that prime minister Maliki the guy who heads up the government in Iraq embracing Barack’s policy.”
WARREN: “Many of the polls show that your ticket may be headed to victory in November and that the Democrats may pick up a larger number of seats in the House and perhaps win 10 seats for a filibuster proof Senate. Republicans are beginning to make the argument that that means Democratic dominance in Washington, unchecked power. Is that a good thing?”
BIDEN: “First of all, we’re no where near there. We have 8 days to go. This is the most important election in the public’s life. They are looking at these races very closely. I think this is going to be much closer than everyone thinks it is. Second, with regard to the Democratic Party, this is a new Democratic Party not the party of the 70s and 80s. This is a party that has adjusted to the realities of a new world order.” He went on to say, “I think there is going to be a collaborative effort to make the 21st century an American century.”
WARREN: “You mention that you’ll have to work with leaders on the Hill, which would include the Speaker of the House a Democrat and the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. Can you give me some specific examples where your team might differ from their agenda or are your agendas identical?”
BIDEN: “I don’t know that. It’s too early to tell. Not only are our agendas similar in how to deal with the economy, how to deal with foreign policy and taxes. It’s a view shared by a significant number of Republicans.” He went on to say, “There’s an emerging consensus that we need a new direction and it’s got to be done in a bipartisan way.”
WARREN: “Sarah Palin is making a big swing through Virginia today, stopping in salem this evening. She’s making the claim that you guys are already doing your victory lap and that Senator Obama has already written in inaugural address. Is your team a little over-confident?”
BIDEN: “Not at all. Looks when’s the last time a Democrat won Virginia for Lord’s sake? 1964. I’m in North Carolina, our 10th time here. I would not call that over confident. We think this is going to be a very difficult race. I think that the reason Governor Palin and Senator McCain are talking the way they are is because they don’t want to talk about the economy. They don’t have anything to talk about. So what are they talking about? They’re talking about attacks on Barack Obama that we’re measuring the drapes and taking victory laps. We have a long way to go before that victory lap. I think it’s going to be a very close election.”
New With Views
October 29, 2008
As I write, little more than a week remains before E-Day, on which most Americans will vote. Nerves are being fearfully wracked. Even people who are usually somnolent say they can’t take the stress. There is a real danger that, unaddressed, the frustration of choosing between a Communist illegal alien raised by a Communist sex pervert and a POW traitor who is a Soviet front man could lead to an epidemic of Acid Reflux Disease or even an outbreak of Restless Leg Syndrome.
The purpose of this modest piece is to reassure you. Stop tormenting yourself. Further self-flagellation is pointless. Your next President has already been selected. Didn’t you know? Sure, go ahead and vote if you like, if you have nothing else to do, if you don’t mind standing in long lines between Obamatron morons and McCrud zombies, but enjoy the reassurance of knowing that the powers above Ponzi Paulson and Helicopter Ben Bernanke and Co. have already made their choice.
He is Zbigniew Brzezinski. What? Who? Is this some kind of Polish joke? Sadly, it is not. The lustiest enjoyer of Polish jokes in my experience was a remarkably gorgeous Polish lady I knew many years ago in the Bay Area. Every couple of years, I would come through on a speaking tour and she would press me for the latest Polish jokes I had heard. Again Zbigniew Brzezinski is not one of them. He is not just a victim of partial vowel deprivation.
In 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book entitled Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York, Viking Press). Let’s browse through it to find out what Zbigniew is. Zbig dedicates the book to Ian, Mark and Mika, his kids. A nice touch, don’t you think? He’s a family man. Starting on page 72 of my Penguin edition, he explains “why Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.”
Marxism is “a victory of reason over belief. . . . To a greater extent than any previous mode of political thinking, Marxism puts a premium on the systematic and rigorous examination of material reality and on guides to action derived from that examination.” In other words, Marxism is a better system than our own. Marxism examines material reality and recommends action better than does the U.S. Constitution.
Page 83: Marxism “represented a major advance in man’s ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world.” It carried “an essentially ethical message.” It “was derived from a totally rational method of inquiry.” P. 123: Marxism “provided a unique intellectual tool for understanding and harnessing the fundamental forces of our time. . . . [I]t supplied the best available insight into contemporary reality; it infused political action with strong ethical elements . . . .”
By the way, as you see, I am making it easy for you. I am digging out the juicy nuggets. They are embedded in a prose the pompous turgidity of which recalls Isabel Paterson’s comment that the writing of John Foster Dulles compels the eyeball to rebound from the page. Subjecting the normal mind to such an aberration should be punished as a war crime or at least a species of torture.
I honestly believe that were we to strap your eyeballs to Zbigniew’s prose, you would run screaming from the premises, unless we had prudently tied you to a chair. The next time you feel like complaining about something you see in my columns, about my language or some joke, please remember that I am providing this onerous service at no extra charge.
Zbig Brother even excuses Stalin’s purges and mass murders. Page 134ff: “Yet though Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy for both the Russian people and communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was, as we shall see, a blessing in disguise. . . .” What? Yes. You see, “the internal violence employed by Stalin . . . had a restraining effect on unbridled nationalism.”
But isn’t Zbig today fanatically opposed to the continuing Soviet Union? Yes, he is, but not because he opposes Marxism. As we have seen, he is a lifelong Marxist. He opposes the Soviets precisely because he loves Marxism so much. He believes the Communists have misused it. He believes that he, Zbigniew Brzezinski, could impose it correctly, the way old Karl himself would have done it.
Enter David Rockefeller. David is a confessed traitor, a conspirator who is working in a secret cabal to destroy the United States. What? David Rockefeller? How do we know that? In 2002, Random House, in New York, published his Memoirs. Remember, this is not someone accusing him of something. This is David Rockefeller himself talking on page 405:
For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Because this sleazy extrusion of an unmarried female canine is a traitor – because he loves totalitarianism – he was naturally attracted to lifelong Marxist Zbigniew Brzezinski. Zbig became David’s prime minister. In 1973, under David’s direction, Zbig formed the Trilateral Commission, which is the foreign ministry of the Council on Foreign Relations, a preeminent founder of which was Marxist Edward M. House.
Both these groups work tirelessly to promote world government, which would mean the abolition of our own. Remember, the United States government and world government are mutually exclusive. You can’t have them both at the same time. If you are working for the latter, you are trying to destroy the former.
In 1976, Zbig and David literally interviewed dour peanut farmer Jimmy Carter at David’s Tarrytown estate. They liked what they heard and installed Democrat Jimmy as President of the United States. From the beginning, Jimmy was a Rockefeller factotum. Zbig Brother was his National Security Adviser. Jimmy came close to wrecking our economy. Okay, but what does all this have to do with the 2008 campaign?
In the 2000 campaign, Zbigniew Brzezinski, lifelong Marxist, was foreign policy adviser to Senator John McCain, who said this: “I am honored that Zbigniew Brzezinski will join my foreign policy team. As a former national security adviser and a highly respected foreign policy expert, his broad experience makes him an invaluable asset to my team.” So Zbig went from Democrat Jimmy to Republican John. Remember that at the top – above the candidates – you have one party with two branches.
What about this year? This year, Zbig is back, running foreign policy for Hussein. Indeed, remember Mark, son of Zbig? Mark was one of the sons to whom Zbig dedicated Between Two Ages in 1970. Mark is all grown up now and shaving. Can you imagine? Mark is foreign policy adviser to Senator Hussein. So who is foreign policy adviser to Senator McCain this year? The envelope please! El Senador Juan McCain’s foreign policy adviser this year is Ian Brzezinski, the other Zbigniew son.
That is correct. Lifelong Marxist Zbigniew Brzezinski – David Rockefeller’s Prime Minister – controls both sides of the forthcoming charade through his sons. Again, you can relax. It really makes no difference who wins. The only difference will be a difference in style, a difference in personality, natural differences peculiar to us all. Remember, David Rockefeller admits, boasts, that he and his family exercise inordinate influence over the United States. This is how he does it.
Do you need to know anything more to understand that a literal conspiracy controls both main political parties, and that at the top – above the candidates – both parties are the same? What was that you said about “change?” Remember, Zbig ran foreign policy for McCain in the 2000 campaign. This year, Hussein is just as much a factotum of Goldman Sachs and other instrumentalities of world government as McCain.
Notice that our Communist media say nothing about this. They understand perfectly well that if they sass David Rockefeller they could lose their jobs. So they specialize in arguing about lesser fry. So, sure, vote next week, but do so with the assurance that it makes no difference; that the conspiracy for world government has already chosen our next President. He is Rockefeller prime minister and Marxist Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Long live Zbig Brother!