WEEKLY EMAIL PRINTED EDITION
THIS WEEK’S ANALYSIS:
Why the Establishment Fears Ron Paul
Rick Perry, New Media Darling
US and NATO Arming Syrian Opposition
Push for Greater EU Integration
Tripoli Rallies Around Gadaffi
WHY THE ESTABLISHMENT FEARS RON PAUL
If Congressman Ron Paul were truly just a fringe candidate
for the Republican nomination for President —“utterly
unelectable”— as the mainstream media proclaims, then
why are they fighting so hard to avoid the mere mention of
his name? If a candidate truly had no chance of winning the
nomination, the media would have no reason to go out of
their way, even to extreme lengths, to make sure the public
doesn’t hear his message. Yet this is exactly what has been
happening this week. We saw the most blatant and obvious
manipulation of primary election results since 2008 when
six major newspapers came out and endorsed John McCain
for president—just to keep Rudolph Giuliani’s collapse at
the polls from accruing to the favor of Mitt Romney. This
time around, not only did the media refuse to announce Ron
Paul’s near win in the Iowa Straw poll, they promoted
Texas Governor Rick Perry as if he were suddenly in the
top tier of 3 just for receiving a few write in votes. This
week we’ll discuss why the media hates Ron Paul and loves
Rick Perry.
USwatchdog.com summarized the injustice: “Watching the
Sunday talk shows and looking at the reporting from this
weekend’s Republican straw poll, you would not think that
Congressman Ron Paul even participated in the event. Paul
came in a very close second to Representative Michele
Bachmann in a field of Presidential Candidates. Bachmann
received 4,823 votes; Paul received 4,671 votes, which
represents a margin of just 152 votes. To me, it appears to
be a statistical dead heat, especially when you consider the
next closest competitor, Governor Tim Pawlenty, received
only 2,293 votes. Pawlenty’s distant third place finish
effectively blew him out of the race.
“On FOX News Sunday, host Chris Wallace ignored the
virtual tie in the straw poll and said, ‘There’s a top tier now
of Bachmann and Perry and Romney, and we haven’t
mentioned, and we should, Rick Santorum who really did
surprisingly well for the amount of money and resources he
had.’ To that I say WHAT!? Santorum came in fourth with
only 1,657 votes, about 1/3 of what Paul received.
Santorum came in behind a guy that dropped out because
he didn’t get enough votes to be a viable Republican
candidate, and Wallace mentions Santorum and not Paul
who was in a virtual tie with the winner? Chris Wallace is
not an amateur; he left out Congressman Paul on purpose.
Why, I do not know, but this is too stupid to be stupid.
AUGUST 19, 2011
“Maybe Wallace does not like Ron Paul’s stance on the
Federal Reserve. It was revealed recently in a Government
Accounting Office report that the Fed spent $16 trillion
bailing out the world. According to Congressman Paul,
about a third of the money went to foreign banks. Do you
think we could create some jobs by loaning some of that
money to private business in America? Where is the
Republican field on this issue? Is the field silent on this
monster rip-off because the bankers fund both parties?
“I keep hearing the talking point by old guard Republicans
and mainstream media (MSM) that Ron Paul is
‘unelectable.’ I never hear any facts or metrics to back that
up. So, to me, that is just code for not liking his message, or
not liking him as a candidate.”
You have to be a sort of political junky to see how blatant
the prejudice has been against Ron Paul. It’s not that no one
gave his vote tally—some did and he was about 150 votes
from a first place win. It’s just that not a single headline
anywhere mentioned his almost win, or any placement at
all. Even (supposedly conservative) Fox News ignored the
outcome.
Here’s a typical headline bending over backwards to avoid
Ron’s near win (from Politico.com): “Michele Bachmann
wins Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty gets third” Doesn’t
second place count, even when a near tie to win? It
certainly would have had it been anyone but Paul.
Apparently Pawlenty’s third place finish was more
important to the press—despite the fact that it was such a
poor showing that Pawlenty immediately dropped out of the
race.
The slight against Paul was so outrageous that even normal
liberal comics like Jon Stewart couldn’t help but see a
grand opportunity to lambast the hypocrisy of the press—
who always claim neutrality but work their distortion by
omitting or removing emphasis of certain news stories. As
Zerohedge.com put it, “[all this] has been captured best by
none other than Jon Stewart in this entertaining clip that
mocks the established mindset of the legacy media to not
dare disturb the status quo, confirming that everyone, left
and right, are really all just the same. For those who have
not seen it yet, this is a hilarious must watch.” Note the
particularly egregious slight at the end when a local
cameraman offers his anchor some clips of Ron Paul, but
the anchors coolly replies, “If you get video of Sarah Palin
or get a sound bite from her bring that back to us. You can
hold the Ron Paul stuff.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO93P6uz9t8
CNN admitted: "We're in the business of eliminating
candidates." But at least Politico.com repented of their
slight and responded with their own analysis of the
disappearing Ron Paul story. Roger Simon wrote, “I admit I
do not fully understand Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do
understand when a guy gets shafted, and Ron Paul just got
shafted. On Saturday, the Ames Straw Poll was conducted
in Iowa amid huge media interest and scrutiny. The results
were enough to force one Republican candidate, Tim
Pawlenty, out of the race, and catapult another, Michele
Bachmann, into the ‘top tier.’
“There are so many ‘top tier’ stories in the media today
[you’d think they were all reading from the same script]
that I can barely count them, let alone read them all, and
Bachmann is in all of them by virtue of her victory at Ames
[which she bought by handing out 6,000 free tickets to the
$30 a person event. She also provided “free” big name
entertainment—free at least to those who voted for her].
The rest of the tier is made up of two candidates who
skipped Ames, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney [Perry got
4.3% and Romney 3.4%].
As The Daily Beast put it: ‘The new top tier of Bachmann,
Perry, and Romney — created by Bachmann’s Iowa straw
poll win, Perry’s entry into the race and Romney’s lead so
far in many national and state polls — has unleashed
torrents of talk about the reshaped race.’
“Paul’s name was not mentioned in this piece nor in many
others. A Wall Street Journal editorial Monday
magnanimously granted Paul’s showing in the straw poll a
parenthetical dismissal: ‘(Libertarian Ron Paul, who has no
chance to win the nomination, finished a close second.)’
“But ‘close’ does not fully describe Paul’s second-place
finish. Paul lost to Bachmann by nine-tenths of one
percentage point, or 152 votes out of 16,892 cast. If it had
been an election, such a result would almost certainly have
triggered a recount. It was not an election, however, and
that is my point. Straw polls are supposed to tell us, like a
straw tossed into the air, which way the wind is blowing.
“And any fair assessment of Ames, therefore, would have
said the winds of the Republican Party are blowing toward
both Bachmann and Paul. Nonsense, some would say.
Straw polls are just organized bribery, with the campaigns
buying the tickets and distributing them to supporters [True
for Bachman but not for Ron Paul—his votes were from
true grassroots believers in his libertarian, anti-foreign
wars message]. Fine, I’ll buy that [reward for organization
effort]. But why didn’t Paul get the same credit for his
organizational abilities as Bachmann did for hers?
“After Ames, it was as if Paul had been sentenced to the
Phantom Zone. Bachmann appeared on five Sunday shows
following Ames. Paul appeared on none... If Bachmann’s
victory at Ames was good enough to gain her enormous
publicity and top-tier status, why was Paul’s virtual tie
good enough only to relegate him to being ignored?
“So I asked Paul Monday if the media blackout disturbed
him, ‘It did disturb me, but it was not a total surprise,’ he
replied. ‘The result at Ames was significant; it might well
have propelled us to the top tier. The media cannot change
that [wish that were true, but it is not—since the media tells
people who has possibilities, and implies that all others
must be written off. ]... I had one interview scheduled for
this morning, a national program, but they canceled. It is
shocking to be told nobody wants you.’
“Was this because technically Paul came in second and not
first? I don’t think so. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee
came in a bad second to Romney, losing by 13.4 percentage
points. Huckabee managed to spin that into a victory at
Ames and became a media darling [which always tells you
something: If the media loves them, they have to be useful
to the PTB, and not to liberty].
“So Ron Paul almost wins the thing and he remains poison.
Why. Ron Paul himself understands: ‘They [the media]
believe this guy is dangerous to the status quo,’ Paul said,
‘but that is a reason to be more energized. I am a bit more
challenging, but I am not on the wrong track. I don’t think
that my ideas are more exotic. They are threatening.’”
The reason Paul is threatening isn’t because he really could
win. I personally don’t think enough of the electorate would
vote for or even understand the principles behind Paul’s
common sense approach to law and government. The
benefit-corrupted majority, combined with the millions of
liberals who support government cultural and education
subsidies won’t ever change as long as they don’t have to
pay—and deficit spending guarantees the illusion that all
this is free and painless.
The reason the Powers That Be fear Ron Paul is not that he
actually might win, but that his message is so powerful and
his integrity so unquestionable that he ends up building the
movement faster than any other conservative or libertarian
leader. He grew the libertarian-conservative movement by
2x the last time he ran—mostly because of his debate
performance. Why is that a problem if he doesn’t win an
election? —Simply because the larger the mass of
opposition, the more the PTB have to engage in tactics that
show their bias and control of the media—which leads
more people to believe in the reality of conspiracy. This
evasion of Ron Paul has cost them a lot in credibility—
what little the media has left.
Simon continues but shows his ignorance about how the
world works: “Let me say right here that unlike many of
Paul’s supporters, I don’t believe there is a left-wing media
conspiracy working against him. Ralph Nader, who is about
as far as you can get from Paul politically, has the same
problem whenever he runs for president.” If he looked
deeper he would see that the media has a pro-government
agenda, which favors the Left generally, but often time does
promote fringe candidates just as they did with Ross Perot
when a third party or independent movement was necessary
to split off the vote from George Bush and allow Clinton to
win.
the rule of law and defending the constitution: that would
be foolish. Extremists have been in charge for the last 4
years since they've been allowed to print money at will, so
that's why we have overextended ourselves overseas, that's
why we have inflation, depressions, inflations."...etc.
Then Simon misinterprets another little slip by the
mainstream media: “There was a deliciously intriguing line
in The Washington Post’s fine recap of Ames on Sunday. It
said had Paul edged out Bachmann, ‘it would have hurt the
credibility and future of the straw poll, a number of
[establishment] Republicans said.’ So don’t blame the
media. Here are Republicans, presumably Republican
operatives [indeed, but of the central committee variety],
who said if one candidate wins, the contest is significant,
but if another wins the contest is not credible. Amazing.
And disturbing.” Even more disturbing is the real reason,
which Simon doesn’t see—that both major political parties
have the same agenda at the top. There are only differences
at the state and local level.
Zerohedge.com responds by saying that “When the
mainstream media, and when Rick Perry, understands what
Paul is talking about, that’s when America will be worthy
of a good president. Until then, it will have to make do with
whoever wins the popularity contest in any given day,
regardless of the amount of lies uttered in the process. After
all, as Morgan makes it all too clear, it is all just about
‘being electable’ ... the same reason America is currently on
the verge of the end.”
Finally, Simon concluded, “Paul told me. ‘We came so very
close. To come that close to winning, it shows my views are
very mainstream [even I won’t agree with that]. And if we
are worth our salt and our message is sound and we tell it
honestly, we will do well.’ Though possibly no one will
notice [how can they when the media refuses to give him
coverage?].”
On CNN, Ron Paul was interviewed by Piers Morgan, to
find out why it is that Paul, who to everyone's great dismay
(not ours) may actually be the GOP's top candidate for the
presidential position, is being slighted in his own view.
Paul's take:
“[T]hey're afraid of me, they don't want my views out there,
they're too dangerous, we want freedom and we're
challenging the status quo, we want to end the war, we want
a gold standard, and their view is that people just can't
handle all this freedom, they want dependency, they want
socialism and welfarism, so I think they don't like to hear
our views, but I think we'll make the best of it and we'll do
very well."
When Paul was asked about his opinion of Michelle
Bachmann, CNN reported “She is not as far from the status
quo as he would like her to be.” That’s particularly true of
her view that it’s OK to attack Iran if it develops nuclear
weapons. We don’t attack Russia or China, do we? In fact,
few Americans realize we gave Russia the final plans for
their first A-bomb and a shipment of enriched uranium as
well to ensure they would become the next great enemy.
Piers Morgan asked Paul if he was going to soften his
viewpoints to become more electable. Paul's response was:
"why should someone soften their viewpoint on defending
In the Iowa Debates, Paul gave a good presentation with a
well-crafted and rapid fire rebuttal of Rich Santorum’s
neocon rant against his non-interventionist foreign policy.
This was the only part of the debate that was really worth
seeing. It had elements of attack and counter attack and
Paul came off the winner. Everyone else was just posturing.
Thomas Eddlem reports on the fireworks: “Chris Wallace
of Fox News asked libertarian Rep. Ron Paul why he was
soft on Iran and opposed economic sanctions on Tehran.
Paul replied that Iran is small potatoes as a threat, compared
to what we went through with the Soviet Union, and that
anyway it would be perfectly natural for Iran to want a
nuclear deterrent, given that it is surrounded by nucleararmed powers, including Russia, Pakistan, Israel, etc.:
“Just think of what we went through in the Cold War when
I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted into the Air
Force, all through the Sixties. We were standing up against
the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with
intercontinental missiles. Just think of the agitation and the
worry about a country that might get a nuclear weapon
some day.... [but] we tolerated the Soviets. We didn’t attack
them. And they were a much greater danger [and still are,
yet no threat about attacking them, or North Korea].
“Paul’s Libertarian-pro-peace approach to the Middle East
(he not only wants an end to the US confrontation with Iran
but also a complete US withdrawal from Iraq and
Afghanistan)
evoked
a
sharp
response
from
Neoconservative Rick Santorum:
“‘Iran is not Iceland, Ron. [listen to these laughable claims]
Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979.
Iran is a country that has killed more American men and
women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis
and the Afghans have. The Iranians are the existential threat
to the state of Israel.’
Paul: “Santorum has long had a fixation on Iran, and his
statement here is typical of the lies he tells about that
country. He knows very well that the United States is not at
war with Iran, that the conflict between the two countries
has been nothing like the Afghanistan or Iraq Wars. In the
past, Santorum has said that the US is at war with a radical
Islam, at the center of which is Iran. Santorum does not
know that Iran is a Shiite power, whereas most Muslim
radicals like the Taliban are, let us say, committed Sunnis
and have bad relations with Iran. His last statement, that
Iran is an ‘existential threat’ to Israel, telegraphs his
motivation in this war propaganda, which is to attract
campaign contributions from the Israel lobbies.
“The senator is wrong on his history. We’ve been at war in
Iran for a lot longer than ’79. We started it in 1953 when
we sent in a coup, installed the Shah, and the reaction —
the blowback — came in 1979. It’s been going on and on
because we just don’t mind our own business. That’s our
problem... You’ve heard the war propaganda that is liable
to lead us into the sixth war and I worry about that position.
Iran is a threat because they have some militants there, but
believe me, they’re all around the world and they’re not a
whole lot different than others. Iran does not have an air
force that can come here. They can’t even make enough
gasoline for themselves.... and these wars are costing us
trillions of dollars each year that we don’t have [the remark
which got a huge ovation from the audience. Chris Wallace
rolled his eyes in discomfort].’”
When the NY Post ran an online poll of “Who Won the
Iowa Debates?” Ron Paul’s name was not on the list of
choices! But Paul really stood out in the debates, as he does
every time—since his message is completely unique and
rational.
Leftist and neocon commentator Michael Medved raked
Paul over the coals for being soft on Iran. According to
Kurt Nimmo, Medved “revealed a not so hidden truth about
the presidency – candidates have to be unabashed
warmongers in order to qualify for the job. This attributes
applies to both Republicans and Democrats (since there is
basically no difference between them).
“Last week, Ron Paul gave his establishment counterparts
at the dog and pony show GOP debate a history lesson on
Iran and – as Medved’s screed reveals – this outraged the
neocons. Ron Paul, of course, is not ‘pro-Iranian,’ as
Medved ludicrously states. He believes that the United
States should mind its own business and not bomb other
nations back to the Stone Age or engage in Stalin or Mao
level mass murder, as both Clinton and Bush did in Iraq
(Clinton by imposing sanctions, Bush by outright invasion
and slaughter).”
Even Glenn Beck showed up on the wrong side of this
issue again—demonstrating that he still is hoodwinked by
his neocon and pro-military tendencies. Aaron David Ward
analyzes Beck’s latest mistake: “For a man who claims to
be a principled defender of freedom, Glenn Beck leaves a
lot to be desired. He talks out of both sides of his mouth
and never seems to miss an opportunity to bash
Congressman Paul who is one of the few principled
defenders of liberty in a position of power seemingly left in
the U.S.
“At times, the controversial talk show host talks like a
libertarian but every time you think there might be a chance
that Beck will embrace freedom, he disappoints you... On
Friday, August 12, 2011 on his radio talk show, Beck
berated Congressman Paul for daring to tell the truth about
America's foreign policy debacles. During the GOP
presidential debate in Ames Iowa, Dr. Paul was asked what
he would do if Iran developed nuclear weapons. He stuck to
the libertarian principle of non-aggression and nonintervention and said he would pursue diplomatic
discussions and free trade with Iran.
“When replaying Dr. Paul's answer on his radio show, Beck
lost it. He called Paul ‘dead wrong’ to suggest that
somehow the Congressman's response would jeopardize
American lives. Beck, who loves to encourage Americans
to read and understand their history, appears to be ignorant
of the history of American covert and overt military and
political intervention in Iran.
“According to Wikipedia…In spring and summer 1953, the
United States and Britain, through a covert operation of the
CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from the American
Embassy in Tehran, helped organize a coup d'état to
overthrow the Mossadeq government. The operation
initially failed, and the Shah fled to Italy, but a second
attempt succeeded, and Mosaddeq was imprisoned.’ And
Americans wonder why Iranians are hostile to the United
States and its out-of-control government.
“How ironic that Beck is about to embark on a pseudospiritual mission to Israel where he will launch a Rally To
Restore Courage but mocks Dr. Paul for actually having the
courage to speak truth to power.”
CNN’s Jack Cafferty asks if Ron Paul is the only grownup candidate out there: “As the race for the Republican
nomination heats up, there's one candidate who's been
largely ignored by the mainstream media. But Ron Paul is
talking sense and more people ought to listen to him.
“The Texas congressman has visionary ideas about where
the country ought to be going and what sea changes are
necessary in order to continue being a superpower. When
Paul ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 – he talked
about the economy imploding, the untenable nature of the
national debt, the eventual destruction of our currency and a
limited role for government [and was dead right].
“He showed tremendous fund-raising ability and had an
absolutely rabid base of support. The problem was – it was
too small. In the four years since then, many of the things
Paul warned us about have happened: We're deeper in debt.
The dollar is worth less. The federal government is
increasingly dysfunctional, and the country is more divided
than at any time maybe since the Civil War.
“Yes, Ron Paul is a conservative. But he's not one of those
who hits you over the head with his bible. And looking at
the current batch of republican wanna-bees, he stands out as
maybe the only adult in the room. In politics as in life, it's
often the timing that makes the difference.
In the case of Ron Paul, it seems events over the last four
years have finally caught up with the candidate.
“Paul's message hasn't changed – but the urgency of what
he's saying has increased. And it seems like this time, more
people may be listening. He came within an eyelash of
finishing first in the Iowa straw poll. Michele Bachmann
has no chance of being the next president of the United
States. Maybe Ron Paul should be. Here’s my question to
you: Is Ron Paul the only grown-up running for president
on the Republican side?” The others may be grownups but
they are being led around by the nose by the PTB and their
globalist advisors.
One of the world’s most famous investment advisors has
come out and endorsed Ron Paul. Jim Rogers who lives in
the Far East to escape US interference says that Ron Paul
“is the only one I’ve seen in American politics that seems to
have a clue... A pox on both their houses, the Democrats
and Republicans.”
RICK PERRY, NEW MEDIA DARLING
When the pro-government media starts beating the drums
for a supposedly conservative candidate, conservatives
should smell a rat—or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. My
suspicions were first raised when the various mainstream
polling organizations starting inserting Perry’s name into
every Republican poll for President, even before he had
hinted he was thinking about running. It didn’t just happen
once or twice, he was showing up in every poll. That
doesn’t happen by accident.
Then there was the big religious rally in Houston. Perry
wasn’t just an invited speaker, he organized the rally as a
way of establishing himself as the new champion of
evangelical Christians. It was a pure political move.
Anyone who uses religion or his pretensions about Christ as
a political platform ought to be suspect in the eyes of the
spiritually discerning. Sadly, most Christians can’t tell a
wolf from a sheep anymore as long as they tell them what
they want to hear—so hungry are Christians to believe the
fairytale that one of their own is capable of winning a
popularity contest for president.
There was a telling picture someone created in Photoshop
of Perry looking into the mirror. The audience sees George
W. Bush through the mirror. If Christian conservatives fall
for another George W. Bush as president, they deserve to
lose their freedom. The Texas governor has taken on some
of the same neocon advisors that led the Bush
administration down the path to war and occupation:
“Douglas Feith, the uber-hawk who oversaw the war in
Iraq, and Bill Luti, Feith's compatriot in the Bush White
House, who joined with Vice President Cheney to persuade
Bush that an unprovoked attack on Iraq was the right thing
to do, and Dan Blumenthal, another Bush veteran who's
taken up residence at the American Enterprise Institute.”
Perry lost no time in showing up in Iowa, after spurning the
straw poll and announcing his candidacy in a future primary
state (So. Carolina). It is now obvious why the PTB didn’t
need Mike Huckabee to derail Mitt Romney’s candidacy
this time around. They knew they were going to bring Perry
on board. Perry even showed up at the same fundraiser with
Michelle Bachman. I think that was done on purpose and it
spawned speculation about a Perry-Bachmann ticket.
Bachmann is a lightweight politically and intellectually
(though not nearly as lightweight as Palin), so the best she
can do is settle for VP.
Mitt Romney is desperately maneuvering to play like he’s
Tea Party candidate, but it’s too late to change his
establishment stripes. Few are going to buy it. That said,
don’t count him out. Romney will still be a force to be
reckoned with as Rick Perry plays far to the Right. Romney
will play more to the Republican business interests who are
desperate to get the economy turned around. Nobody can
do that, except by printing their way into more inflation, but
Romney will play on his business credentials and talk a
good story.
Infowars.com had the best analysis of the Perry strategy to
play to the constitutional conservative side of the
Republican party. “Texas Governor Rick Perry has shown
his hand immediately. His presidential campaign strategy
consists of attempting to steal away Ron Paul supporters
while the mainstream media aids him by refusing to even
acknowledge Paul exists.
“Perry, on the other hand, is certainly not ignoring Paul, if
his recent ‘attack’ on Ben Bernanke is anything to go by.
Speaking in Iowa yesterday, Perry said, ‘If this guy
[Bernanke] prints more money between now and the
election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we
would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.’ Perry said.
‘Printing more money to play politics at this particular time
in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in
my opinion,’ he added.”
Of course, every candidate except Ron Paul would keep
printing money if they were elected, and few would
protest—so hungry is the public for any solution other than
honest austerity... Perry is correct about the Federal Reserve
and the current administration’s monetary policy. However,
the Texas governor is wholly unqualified to make such
damning statements.
“Under Perry’s governorship, Texas soaked up $22 billion
in stimulus money from the federal government’s bailout
package. During Perry’s 11 year tenure, Texas has run up a
$13.4 billion deficit, which is 31.5% of the 2011 budget.
The Lone Star state has the 3rd highest deficit in the entire
country behind only California and Illinois.
“Unlike Congressman Ron Paul, Perry cannot possibly
paint himself up as a fiscally responsible candidate... 20
plus years ago, back when Perry was expending all his
energy promoting Democratic candidate Al Gore, Ron Paul
was warning the country of the Federal Reserve takeover
and the inevitable economic crises that would result.
“Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that Perry, the
template of a career politician, a man who has flip flopped
not only between issues, but even between the two parties
[He was Texas campaign chair for Al Gore in 1988], is not
going to bring economic prosperity back to the country.
The only candidate who has the will to do so and the record
to back it up is Ron Paul.”
So Perry has to try and recruit away some of Paul’s
supporters. Zeke Miller of Business Insider added, “In
Perry’s case, he has adopted Paul’s ardent criticism of the
Fed and its chairman Ben Bernanke… While it’s unlikely
these overtures will attract Paul supporters while the
libertarian is still in the race, they will help in the event
Perry is still in the running after the early states.”
Will Grigg Jr. (Freedominourtime.com) had the best
rebuttal to Perry’s claim to engineering an economic
miracle in Texas. “‘There is a real irony in having a
governor that rails against federal spending and doesn't
want to take money from Washington, and yet some parts
of our state are heavily dependent on federal spending for
their economic health,’ observed economist Bud Weinstein
of Southern Methodist University's Maguire Energy
Institute.
“That's the same species of irony on display when the same
governor who strategically spouts secessionist sentiments
suddenly discovers a divinely appointed destiny to become
the Dear Leader of the central government he supposedly
despises.”
“While the economy of North Texas has been sustained by
the Warfare State, the border region's banking and real
estate sectors have prospered immensely from the Regime's
drug war in Mexico. ‘Texas dominates drug entry into the
U.S., which means it dominates the wholesale drug trade,’
wrote Tina Rosenberg of New York magazine. ‘It's a big
business: The DEA's rough guess is that $27 billion in drug
proceeds flow back out of the U.S. to Mexico, Colombia,
and so on. And another pot of money stays here.’
"‘If you have a few million, would you invest in a war zone
or a bank in San Antonio?’ asks Jack Schumacher, a
recently retired DEA official who was stationed in Texas.
Schumacher told Rosenberg that ‘In San Antonio, a highdollar trafficker can buy a $2 million or $3 million place
and exist for a long time.’ This might help explain why
median home prices in San Antonio are higher now than in
2005. The sudden arrival of wealthy drug war refugees
might also explain why San Antonio's housing market
spiked dramatically in the first quarter of 2010, which -given the prevailing national trend -- was an interesting
anomaly.
“Mexicans in Texas are hardly new, but in recent years it's
middle- and upper-class families in Mexico's north who
have also made the exodus, bringing their savings and
businesses with them,’ Rosenberg points out. Many of them
are productive entrepreneurs seeking to avoid the
U.S.-instigated violence that has claimed the lives of 40,000
lives since 2006. Some of them, speculates Michael
Lauderdale, a professor of criminal justice at the University
of Texas, ‘come with funds from the drug trade.’
“It's not just the banks and real estate companies that have
come to depend on narco-boodle. Many Texas law
enforcement agencies have grown dependent on funds
seized through ‘asset forfeiture.’"
In summary, endoftheamericandream.com had 14 Reasons
Why Rick Perry Would Be A Really, Really Bad President.
“Many believe that if Rick Perry enters the race, he will
instantly become the frontrunner for the Republican
presidential nomination in 2012. Perry certainly looks the
part and he knows how to give a good speech, but when
ordinary Americans all over the country take a hard look at
his record, they may not like what they see.
“The truth is that Rick Perry is a big-time globalist, he has
raised taxes and fees in Texas numerous times, he has
massively increased the size of government spending and
government debt in Texas, he has been trying to ram the
Trans-Texas Corridor down the throats of the Texas people
and he tried to force young women all over Texas to be
injected with the Gardasil vaccine. No, Rick Perry is not
going to save America. In fact, he would likely be very,
very similar to both Bush and Obama in a lot of ways. But
before Republicans get too excited about Rick Perry, there
are a whole lot of things that they should know about him.
#1 Rick Perry is a "big government" politician. When Rick
Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total
spending by the Texas state government was approximately
$49 billion. Ten years later it was approximately $90
billion. That is not exactly reducing the size of government.
#2 The debt of the state of Texas is out of control.
According to usdebtclock.org, the debt to GDP ratio in
Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645. In
California (a total financial basket case), the debt to GDP
ratio is just 18.7% and the debt per citizen is only $9932.
#3 The total debt of the Texas government has more than
doubled since Rick Perry became governor. So what would
the U.S. national debt look like after four (or eight) years of
Rick Perry?
#4 Rick Perry has spearheaded the effort to lease roads in
Texas to foreign companies, to turn roads that are already
free to drive on into toll roads, and to develop the TransTexas Corridor which would be part of the planned NAFTA
superhighway system. If you really do deep research on this
whole Trans-Texas Corridor nonsense you will see why no
American should ever cast a single vote for Rick Perry.
#5 Rick Perry claims that he has a ‘track record’ of not
raising taxes. That is a false claim. Rick Perry has
repeatedly raised taxes and fees while he has been
governor. Today, Texans are faced with significantly higher
taxes and fees than they were before Rick Perry was
elected.
#6 Even with the oil boom in Texas, 23 states have a lower
unemployment rate than Texas does.
#7 Back in 1988, Rick Perry supported Al Gore for
president. In fact, Rick Perry actually served as Al Gore's
campaign chairman in the state of Texas that year.
#8 Between December 2007 and April 2011, weekly wages
in the U.S. increased by about 5 percent. In the state of
Texas they increased by just 0.6% over that same time
period.
#9 Texas now has one of the worst education systems in the
nation. The following is from an opinion piece that was
actually authored by Barbara Bush earlier this year....
• We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation
rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a
high school diploma.
• We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy
and 46th in average math SAT scores.
• We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries.
#10 Rick Perry attended the Bilderberg Group meetings in
2007. Associating himself with that organization should be
a red flag for all American voters.
#11 Texas has the highest percentage of workers making
minimum wage out of all 50 states.
#12 Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal
immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been
incredibly soft on the issue. If Rick Perry does not plan to
secure the border, then he should not be president because
illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of
the southwest United States.
#13 In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making
minimum wage or less. By 2010, that number had risen to
550,000.
#14 Rick Perry actually issued an executive order in 2007
that would have forced almost every single girl in the state
of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the
sixth grade. Perry would have put parents in a position
where they would have had to fill out an application and
beg the government not to inject their child with a highly
controversial vaccine. Since then, very serious safety issues
regarding this vaccine have come to light. Fortunately,
lawmakers in Texas blocked what Perry was trying to do.
According to Wikipedia, many were troubled when
‘apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry
were reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign
contribution and Merck's hiring of former Perry Chief of
Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work.’”
If the conservative media does its job, Perry’s flip-flopping
should be condemned with as much relish as critics take
after Romney. Out of one side of his mouth Perry sounds
like a confederate Texan with secessionist plans. Out of the
other side of his mouth he pushes for the globalist agenda
with the North American Union plan of integration with
Mexico and Canada. He is also a secret ally of Big
Pharma—which is bound to cause him grief.
Maggie Haberman details Perry’s history of defending his
executive order mandating distribution of Gardasil and his
sudden turn around. “The Texas Tribune's Jay Root does a
deeper dive on Perry's comments at last weekend's New
Hampshire house party about a controversial decision he
made as governor that could ring poorly with conservatives
- a mandatory vaccination for girls to prevent the HPV
virus [which only affects girls having sex with infected
partners].
“What he said Saturday was, ‘I signed an executive order
that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is that
I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we
needed to have a substantial conversation with our
citizenry. But here’s what I learned: When you get too far
out in front of the parade, they will let you know, and that’s
exactly what our Legislature did, and I saluted it and I said,
'Roger that, I hear you loud and clear.' And they didn’t want
to do it and we don’t, so enough said.’”
Sounds repentant, doesn’t it? But don’t be deceived. Listen
to his other statements as recent as last year before you
decide if he hears us “loud and clear.”
Root writes: “Until now, Perry never yielded to opponents
who said he should have handled the issue differently rather
than through a unilateral executive order. U.S. Sen. Kay
Bailey Hutchison tried to make it an issue in her
gubernatorial campaign to unseat him in 2010. In a January
2010 debate, Perry defended his decision to issue the
executive order. It was not a mistake — ‘no sir, not from
my position,’ he said. ‘I stand proudly by my pro-life
position [as if playing to this narrow crowd of promiscuous
girls equates to being “pro-life”—a term exclusively
referring to abortion].
“Later, in a September 2010 interview after an East Texas
gubernatorial campaign swing, Perry was still sticking to
his guns that his decision to issue the executive order was
the right thing to do. ‘Let me tell you why it wasn’t a bad
idea: Even though that was the result I was looking for, and
that becoming the standard procedure for protecting young
women against this very heinous deadly dreadful disease, it
caused a national debate [only because the abortion crowd
is intent on protecting all illicit sex as well as the bad
consequences],’ Perry said. ‘I knew I was going to take a
political hit … at the end of the day, I did what was right
from my perspective, and I did something that saved
people’s lives and, you know, that’s a big deal.”
Nonsense. There was nothing to stop these girls from
getting the drug on their own. Why mandate this drug on
all? It was only when the drug was found to be dangerous
that Perry had second thoughts—added to the political
advantage of siding against an unpopular position.
US AND NATO ARMING SYRIAN OPPOSITION
Kurt Nimmo of Infowars.com reports that “On Friday, I
wrote about a U.S. proxy busted in Lebanon attempting to
smuggle weapons into Syria to be used against the al-Assad
regime. The story was covered in the Middle East but
predictably ignored by the corporate media here with its
CIA-manufactured ‘Arab Spring’ narrative supported by
Obama’s State Department and Hillary Clinton.
“Now the Iranians are reporting that NATO is sending large
arms caches – including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles,
mortars and heavy machine guns – to Syrians resisting the
al-Assad regime. ‘Turkey’s military will protect the arms
caches on their passage to Syrian rebels,’ Press TV reports,
citing the Israeli intelligence front, Debka. Syrian rebels
have been receiving training inside Turkey to use the
weapons for two weeks.’” This is why America is hated—
not for our freedom.
PUSH FOR GREATER EU INTEGRATION
Not a few pundits are predicting the breakup of the
European Union over the unsolvable debt crisis. It is,
indeed, unsolvable, but I have long said that the globalists
will not take no for an answer. This week, The American
Dream website warns about something I foretold long
ago—that any crisis in Europe, financial or otherwise,
would be used to expand the powers of the EU. They will
never contract.
“The integration of Europe is about to go to another level.
As the European debt crisis deepens, there are cries all over
the EU for full economic integration in Europe. On
Wednesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German
Chancellor Angela Merkel sent a letter to European Council
President Herman Van Rompuy which stated that they want
a new ‘economic government’ for Europe to be formed.
According to the letter, Sarkozy and Merkel want the
leaders of the eurozone countries to elect a president for the
new ‘economic government.’”
The real reason for all this is that the EU financial union
has the power to issue debt as a Union—only individual
nations can do so. They want to be like the Federal Reserve.
But pooling their collective liability (harder to come back
on the EU than an individual nation) the European PTB can
create a whole new level of debt that will provide the
bailout necessary to extend the date of collapse for a decade
or more.
“A whole lot of ‘experts’ in Europe are proclaiming that
without full economic integration and the creation of
‘eurobonds’, Europe is doomed [in terms of default on debt
only]. This is often how huge changes occur in our world
today. First a huge problem is created, then there is a
negative reaction and then a solution is presented to us.
Right now in Europe, the problem is the sovereign debt
crisis. We are being told that the only way that the eurozone
can survive is if all of the countries agree to much deeper
economic integration.”
As usual no one is talking about, let along worrying about,
the fact that to issue debt in the name of the EU, all nations
will have to cede financial sovereignty to the EU in
Brussels and be bound to sustain those debts. In reality, this
is an easier sell to short sighted smaller nations who now
face having to fork over millions in Euros as their part in
the Greek and Italian bailout. By giving assent to an EU
bond issue, they can postpone having to contribute more
cash for the short term. In addition, the issuing of EU bonds
is just the beginning. They have much more in mind, as the
endoftheamericandream.com illustrates through Britain’s
the Daily Mail.
“While some are applauding the possibility of increased
integration in the eurozone, others are warning about the
potential consequences. For example, a Daily Mail article
entitled ‘Rise of the Fourth Reich, how Germany is using
the financial crisis to conquer Europe’ contained the
following assessment of what deeper economic integration
for Europe would mean….
“‘This would entail a loss of sovereignty not seen in those
countries since many were under the jackboot of the Third
Reich 70 years ago. For be in no doubt what fiscal union
means: it is one economic policy, one taxation system, one
social security system, one debt, one economy, one finance
minister.’”
The big mistake the Daily Mail makes, however is to claim
that all of the above would be “German.” Leftists always
blame capitalist greed on everything. In fact, Merkel and
Sarkozy are far more dedicated to serving the globalists
than they are to serving their own national interests.
“It is said by many here that tens of thousands are ready to
repulse invaders who try to enter Tripoli. Support for
Colonel Kaddafi appears to reflect even Western polls such
as the one referred to by the UK Guardian recently that
Libya’s leader Colonel Gadaffi’s popularity had perhaps
doubled during the current conflict. This morning’s
Rasmussen poll claims that support for NATO-US
involvement has plummeted to just 20 per cent among the
American public due to among other reasons, NATO killing
of civilians. It is even lower in several other NATO
countries.
“Except for the recent increase in NATO bombing sorties
Tripoli has been a fairly pleasant place to be. On 8/17/11
things abruptly changed and no one knows for sure in
which direction daily life is now headed [the brooding
sense that NATO is closing in on them]. At nearby Green
Square, crowds began to gather by 2 p.m. and rally against
‘NATO rebels’ and I was told thousands of Libyan citizens
were ready to move to the edges of town, man check points,
and support army units and repulse any advances from Al
Zawieh to the West, Gheryan and several villages from the
South or Brega and closer villages from the East.
“Some people are leaving Tripoli but it’s hard to estimate
how many. Most people I have asked say they will stay and
they do not think “NATO rebels” can enter this well-armed
and apparently well-organized city of still around 1.5
million people.
TRIPOLI RALLIES AROUND GADAFFI
The Libyan opposition is in shambles, beset by deadly
infighting. While NATO and the US keep promoting the
charade of a unified and benevolent opposition, Libya is a
mess of tribal factions and those in the capitol city of
Tripoli are determined to not come under the deadly
sectarian leadership of this untrustworthy and rag-tag group
of lackies to Europe and the USA.
“Libyan students at Tripoli’s Al Fatah University and even
some government officials have told this observer that they
have vowed to dig in and wage a ‘Stalingrad Defense’ of
Tripoli against the advancing ‘NATO rebels.’ Certainly the
neighborhoods are very heavily armed. Some, including
this observer, lack the heart to remind these dear students
that at Stalingrad, the Russian citizens were holding out for
the arrival of the Red Army that did indeed save many of
them in the end. One does not sense that a Red Army is en
route to lift the threatened siege of Tripoli. But maybe
Tripoli’s defenders will not need a Red Army to lift a siege
of Tripoli.
Franklin Lamb sent a timely dispatch from Tripoli: “I’ve
been based in Tripoli the past nearly eight weeks, have not
taken very seriously occasional media predictions that
Tripoli might soon be invaded by ‘NATO rebels’ -- though
not by NATO country forces putting their boots on the
ground.
The Coming Guerrilla War. The US is not used to
fighting guerrilla wars through surrogates, and what the
Libyans have planned is going to play havoc with US
desires for a quick victory and successful exit. Lamb sent
out this warning about the Tripoli Libyans intent to wage a
war of attrition:
“The reasons include observations that the Libyan
population is increasingly expressing anger over members
of their families and tribes being killed by NATO sorties
[that includes US fighter-bombers despite Obama’s claim
that US has no combat role] claiming to be ‘protecting
civilians.’
“How we will defend our capitol Tripoli if NATO bombs a
path so rebel forces can arrive here and try to enter our
neighborhoods? We discuss this often among ourselves
during the night. It is not private information that our
defense will be from every buildings on every main street,
square or roundabout. We can and will keep for as long as
possible every meter that NATO forces try to take. Every
apartment building, factory, warehouse, street corner,
intersection, home or office building is waiting and
supplied with guns of different types, RPGs and mortars.
Snipers and specially trained small 5-6 man units are ready.
Our defense will be a house to house battle. From every
floor and from hole in the floor we will fight NATO rebels.
Also from the sewers we will fight and every basement. If
NATO enters a front door we will fight them for every
room in the house and from the piles of debris created from
them bombing us.” We’ll see if NATO has the stomach for
this. [END]