Nov 30, 2007

Giuliani's Mistress Used N.Y. Police as Taxi Service

Well before it was publicly known he was seeing her, then-married New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani provided a police driver and city car for his mistress Judith Nathan, former senior city officials tell the Blotter on

read more | digg story

Pat Buchanan: The Neoconservatives and Global Wars for Democracy Must Go!

This book is flaming hot. Here is an experienced statesman and journalist who has worked for three Presidents at least, and was a candidate himself, and is saying on foreign policy, war, and the neoconservatives the same thing as Ron Paul. Also warns about the North American Union. Will the new republicans listen to him, a real conservative? Or will they "stay the course", as Buchanan warns, and watch America collapse--economically, socially, culturally, and constitutionally, into indebtedness and chaos, as all empires of the world have done in history due to imperialist expansionism?
clipped from

"America is coming apart, decomposing, and...the likelihood of her survival as one improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course," declares Pat Buchanan. "For we are on a path to national suicide."

The U.S. Army is breaking and is too small to meet America’s global commitments.

The dollar has sunk to historic lows and is being abandoned by foreign governments.

U.S. manufacturing is being hollowed out.

• Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a product of hubris and of ideology, a secular religion of “democratism,” to which Bush was converted in the days following 9/11

• The greatest threat to U.S. sovereignty and independence is the scheme of a global elite to erase America’s borders and merge the USA, Mexico and Canada into a North American Union.

• A new foreign-defense policy that closes most of the 1000 bases overseas, reviews all alliances, and brings home U.S. troops

A purge of neoconservative ideology and the “Cakewalk” crowd” from national power.

Nov 29, 2007

Holocaust Denial, American Style--The "Liberal Media" has Helped Cover-up Iraqi Death Count

Institutionally unwilling to consider America's responsibility for the bloodbath, the traditional media have refused to acknowledge the massive number of Iraqis killed since the invasion. It is five times more than the estimates of killings in Darfur and even more than the genocide in Rwanda 13 years ago:ONE MILLION IRAQIS KILLED.

read more | digg story

Delegate Count Update for West Virginia GOP Convention

Here is the latest delegate count as of last night of registered delegates for the republican state convention:

Fred Thompson 80
Mitt Romney 79
Ron Paul 68
Rudy Guliani 52

AGAIN NOTE: Republican Voters must be registered for special online voting, post marked by this Friday, Nov. 30th, in order to vote for their delegates during January 1-15th within their respective counties for the GOP state convention.


Now take a look at how the "liberal media" at CNN covers Ron Paul, impugning him with the establishment GOP as an "isolationist"--a complete misrepresentation. Note by this that the "liberal media" is supporting the neocon wars! Nevertheless, listen to the commentary about how Conservatives like Ron Paul for "limited government" and fiscal responsibility on several fronts. He is in the news because his momentum is building. Some insiders (outside the polls) say he could very well win New Hampshire, as did Pat Buchanan.

Nov 28, 2007

The West Virginia GOP Establishment vs. Ron Paul; Neoconservatives vs. Conservatives

First a quick update on the delegate count as of last night, provided by a local reliable source, then to the main subject:





Now the voters will vote for delegates by county, to pair them down within county limits established by the GOP.
NOTE: Voters must be registered for online voting by this Friday, Nov. 30th, in order to vote for their delegates in January. (We hope the Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office will be monitoring closely for fairness, accuracy, to prevent mistakes or fraud in the GOP controlled system).

As most are aware Senator Vic Sprouse unleashed a railing alarm against Ron Paul's increasing delegates in a piece entitled Ron Paul attempting to hijack republican convention, whose delegate count was slightly ahead of the candidate that he is a delegate for, Rudolph Giuliani. The backlash from the blogosphere was incredible, the Senators ChangeWV blog receiving about 300 responses alone, and still counting.

What is significant about this is that Senator Sprouse is on the steering Committee of the state GOP party. Note the State party establishment is openly in opposition then to Ron Paul (see previous article), who has entered as a legitimate candidate, but now must be subject to the gauntlet of internal misrepresentation, persecution, even outright slander, because he is not an "establishment" favorite! "I have nothing against Ron Paul supporters", says Sen. Sprouse, but he clearly does, since they are "hijackers". Yet even the party establishment is split upon whom THEY want to 'hijack' the convention for themselves. One man's "hijack" is another man's "victory". It is the party establishment here that is being challenged, who feel threatened.


You see the state GOP, who did no advertising to inform the public about how their complex new Convention system works (which was stacked to favor the already organized establishment--see previous article), finally put out radio advertising (on the state-wide "Talk Line" with Hoppy Kercheval) for delegates--this very last week! That still 1,100 delegates were needed shows the party establishment's failure to inform West Virginians, particularly outside the Capital region--which might just be the way they preferred it, since the GOP chairman McKinney (a Romney supporter) could then select vacant delegate seats himself! Ron Paul's supporters have actually done them a favor by driving attention to the very issue they failed to communicate, including for supporters of Huckabee and Hunter who also suffered by the lack of GOP party communication. So just who was trying to "hijack", through craft instead of open and fair play, the convention?


Sen. Sprouse's warning here is to circle all the war wagons against Ron Paul who they perceive as a threat (a hijacker), while claiming in this post that he is no threat at all and "irrelevant". This is the essence of propaganda to scare people away from a message they might like. What he is trying to claim is that you will be in a small minority if you do not stay with the establishment's candidates, because they say so (i.e. "no one will vote for him"). Therefore, the very nature of the post betrays the Senator's disbelief in his own message. Ron Paul, they fear, could be a big surprise, and you might like his positions if permitted to hear them for yourself.

Does the party establishment believe THEIR thinking represents the thinking of the average conservative (most of whom questioned the justice of the war based on lies), or are the conservative Pharisees (under the cry of "we are your elected rulers, listen to us") trying to whip up a frenzy of opposition because multitudes are beginning to follow? (And do not be offended at the image, the liberal Sadducees are afraid as well). To wit, not one legitimate evidence was provided above of why we should not believe the "myths" about Ron Paul (go back and look), only empty assertions and allegations, in the same manner that the war was sold.

The establishment resistors of Ron Paul are not able to make persuasive arguments, only repeat "withdrawal is surrender" (yet that was the policy after Iraq I, Cheney decrying overthrowing Saddam or occupation as a quagmire), unjustly link him to "the left", or compare him to LaRouche. But withdrawal is not surrender in an unjust war, against Iraqis, not "terrorists" (as the 'liberal media' also calls them), and LaRouche indeed had a following, but Pat Buchanan might be a better comparison, though not entirely.

As for the Hillary fear card, Ron Paul could beat Hillary Clinton
(just like Zogby said any republican could), easily, because republicans would rally around him. But many of us would never, ever vote for Giuliani (but abstain) to overthrow domestic freedom for a police state patterned after NYC and a CFR agenda, which would be the fault of the party establishment for abandoning the constitution, not us.

One thing that is clear is that the party leaders are afraid of Ron Paul, for he threatens not the people, but the establishment's power, who do not confess their wrongs, but stubbornly and impenitently defend abhorrent policies and unjust wars, and still bow to Bush and Cheney and their neoconservatism.
But why should they be afraid, if they are sure they are right, and can defend themselves by debate? And why does Sen. Sprouse want to hijack the Convention for the biggest RINO in republican history--the former democrat Giuliani! Some have the appearance of abandoning the principles of their good legislative record by tying themselves to someone who has done the opposite! It is Sen. Sprouse that has some explaining to do as to why he supports such a candidate like Giuliani, who is a braggart but whose greatest critics are New York firefighters and 9/11 widows, and who takes credit for things not attributable directly to him.


Republicans are scattered now because they are not united on what they believe, as their smorgasbord of candidates shows. The platform is in shambles (praising individual freedom while embracing collectivist policies and Wilsonian wars for "democracy"), and the mistake was making George W. Bush part of the party platform, who is following a neoconservative, not the constitution or conservative, agenda, entirely built upon unjust war (abortion of a million Iraqi lives, invading their sovereign womb), ironically, while justly decrying abortions of the pre-born. Ron Paul is nothing less than the "blow-back" that should be anticipated when just principles are forsaken to follow a new man or agenda, in this case the neoconservatives behind Bush. The republican establishment has failed to read the principles of the neoconservatives for themselves, thus separating themselves from their constituents, and largely had blind trust in the general "Christian"-feigned image crafted of Bush by the agnostic Karl Rove.


But their fears are unfounded. Why should the republican party establishment be afraid of a candidate who is the strongest anti-tax candidate the party has ever seen since Reagan, opposes the communist (collectivist) welfare state, the strongest defender of gun rights, who has consistently opposed abortion, who defends the sovereignty of the U.S. by opposing illegal immigration, NAFTA, and North American Union (as warned of by Jerome Corsi on 58Live)who believes in limited government and states rights, simply because he insists the Constitution should be followed in declaring war (oh, the gaul of him), rejects the creeping fascism of warrantless (not all) domestic surveillance on American citizens, opposes (as does Sen. Sprouse) REAL ID (any national ID card), wants to downsize government rather than expanding its welfare and police powers under the guise of a Gestapo-like "Homeland Security" bureaucracy and creeping surveillance state that are making America look more like Stasi Germany? When did it become radical to really defend Americans' freedom, instead of just saying so and doing the opposite, through threats of fear, and then live in a fantasy world of "24" and American Idol?


And who has "hijacked" the republican party, but the neoconservatives (former democrats, disciples of Strauss and Leon Trotsky) who infiltrated through and with CFR member and David Rockefeller colleague, the RINO Dick Cheney? WHO HAS DECEIVED AND SWINDLED THE PRINCIPLES FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, FOR A PRE-PLANNED WAR AGENDA BEFORE 9/11 AND WERE MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURY? The party leadership is more committed to neo-conservatism than conservatism, without knowing the difference, because they follow men on bumper stickers who use the military as a campaign prop! (What do you think "neo" means anyway, but "new"?) As Pat Buchanan's new book highlighted in Drudge last night warned, the neoconservatives must be swept from the republican party if America is to be restored.

Just who are the "top tier candidates" that the State GOP pushes on us? Why are they all (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson) members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a David Rockefeller organization that embraces an anti-sovereign UN global agenda based upon socialist principles, unleashed immigration, through economic pragmatism (this is Giuliani in spades)--and is pushing NAFTA and North American Union, amnesty for illegals and REAL ID?
IT IS HIGH TIME FOR THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE--EXAMINE CAREFULLY WHO YOU ARE BLINDLY FOLLOWING. "Lay hands on no man quickly" is a biblical principle worthy of political application as well, and the party establishment is blindly pushing the wrong candidates, and fearing the best one.


But the people will judge, if they will be permitted to hear above the fearful establishment's cries to prevent them from listening--the tactics now being employed in desperation here. Meanwhile those who are paranoid by the neocon propaganda about "jihadists that want to kill us every day", despite the plain lack of evidence (and the evidence of fabricated threats from neocon private contractors), and despite that Americans have more reason to fear each other as "terrorists" on the roads than toiletries in airports, will continue their mantra which requires fear in order to maintain power. Most of us want to return to Constitutional government from the rogue "unitary executive" (President as dictator) before our freedoms are entirely lost. That message is popular and rational, contrary to the present neoconservative fanaticism, to which the republican party should wake up. Ron Paul is their best friend, if they would only see it, but they are like a sick patient that does not want to take its medicine from the Doctor, that would heal the government from its frenzied and feverish policies. So the people might change out the republican leadership to obtain what they want, if they have to. To them that would be hijacking, but to the people, reform--revolution. The purpose of voting is to make peaceful revolutions possible, and that kind of hijacking is legal.


Nov 26, 2007

Analysis of West Virginia GOP Convention; Ron Paul Leading Giuliani in Delegates

The Charleston Gazette reported today what every registered republican or even independent should read. Here below, in their words, is the current delegate count with final deadline for delegates to register being this Friday, Nov. 30th.

Fred Thompson has 55 delegates ...Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney follows with 49 delegates wishing to represent him. Ron Paul of Texas has 38. The Texas congressman is edging out former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his 37 committed delegates....Another 148 delegates aren’t backing any candidate, giving each GOP contender a chance to win them over.

This will change of course by the end of this week, while 1,100 delegate seats are still up for grabs, demonstrating the public ignorance and confusion in this novel new process hastily created by the state GOP party. Rush and maneuvering will trump thoughtful deliberation in order to meet the deadline, forcing hasty decisions on delegates, perhaps largely pledging to a particular candidate without objective examination where superficial name recognition and crafted image are the primary influence.


For the best and simplest explanation of how the radically new TWO PART PROCESS of the West Virginia republican State Convention and Primary works is found here (another must read), from the Ron Paul 2008 campaign which managed to summarize it better than the state GOP website.

Note that 'uncommitted delegates' are the prize and lead the count standings in what will be a "winner take all" convention in February, with online county voting in January (requiring registration also). The regular primary will be held in May but for fewer (one half) of the delegates remaining. The entire process with this radically new state convention, you could say, is "stacked" for the GOP 'establishment' to deal and play and make it difficult to beat their favored candidate(s), since they control the majority of delegates within the convention with even the state chairman being able to appoint for any unfilled seats after the deadline Friday--where over 1,000 delegates are still needed! The few in the GOP establishment could decide for the many. Delegate counts, not straight up voting by registered republicans (i.e. votes are made within each county, thus candidates for each county are key to winning), will determine the convention winner, in this serious game.


The state GOP says this is an open process that rewards not necessarily the candidate with most money, but the most organized. But the GOP establishment, pre-emptively favoring their own candidates with the most money, are already embedded in the formal organization, and generally pre-disposed against truly open and free debate, and seeking to steer the nomination process toward the neo-republican and CFR candidates of the leadership, and a continuation of Bush's neoconservative war policies and new Homeland Security government. This is something Gnewt Gingrich even warned about, that the republicans would lose the White House if their candidate was perceived to be a continuation of Bush policies, which the polls on Bush plainly indicate. Also, some outlying counties were not granted (by the establishment gods) any "at large" delegates and also weighted delegate counts to counties who went for George W. Bush (i.e. a man with a neoconservative policy became part of the party platform, instead of conservative principles) in 2004. Thus the delegate counts by county are conceded to be stacked toward a "continuation" of the policies of George W. Bush while 70 percent of the nation is opposed to the war and Bush's approval ratings at an all time low. Thus while Gen. Chuck Yeager endorsed Duncan Hunter you will not hear much about him, or the former televangelist Huckabee, which Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum virtually called a liberal in conservative clothing (see the WSJ op-ed "Another Man from Hope?").

Ron Paul's grass roots support, however, which has also included strong fund raising, like spontaneous combustion, has broken through and fronts the only conservative yet revolutionary platform of change--a counter-revolution to restore Constitutional rule of law, versus both the neoconservatives and democratic socialists, a genuine "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution that republicans sometimes talk about, but never adhere to themselves. The attraction of this candidate has increased dramatically in direct proportion to those who hear his speeches or read his Congressional track record and policies for themselves, who are alarmed at the anti-constitutional radicalism of the neoconservatives who have hijacked the republican party and are moving America from freedom to fascism while nation building toward a global federation of democracies, largely by threatening wars upon nations never attacking the United States under pretense of "war on terrorism". His anti-tax positions (including abolishing the Income Tax and IRS) have made him a favorite conservative, his 2nd amendment record shows he has pushed to roll back gun regulation, his opposition to abortion consistent as both a doctor and Congressman, who has a record of consistency in principles and personal integrity, who opposes illegal immigration, who was among the first to support Ronald Reagan toward limited government and states rights, and who calls for a return to the "just war" principles of Christianity which limits wars largely to self-defense only, contrary to neoconservative democratic jihads, which have indebted the nation and overthrown its principles.

Among the state GOP party establishment are such as Sen. Vic Sprouse who, shockingly, despite his own conservative legislative record, is a delegate for the former democrat Giuliani and the McKinneys who appear to rally around Romney, the former governor of Ted Kennedy's state. Both of these "establishment" candidates are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that supports both NAFTA and a North American Union (warned against by Dr. Jerome Corsi on 58Live), compromises toward amnesty on immigration, and are "anti-gun" in their 2nd amendment history, as well as historically pro-abortion candidates--all of which they have sought to excuse or suddenly modify, paying lip service, like Chameleons, to the Constitution and more conservative principles. Romney also signed as governor the first mandatory health insurance state law in the country--a dictatorial socialist policy. Fred Thompson has been openly cheer leaded by Daily Mail editorialist and blogger Don Surber. Yet Fred (who admittedly is being attacked by both FOX and neocon pundits like Charles Krauthammer, apparently favoring Giuliani who would follow their radical and revolutionary policies precisely) also has a history of lobbying for pro-abortion entities, is also a member of the CFR that threatens U.S. sovereignty, and already has demonstrated (prior to his official announcement) his willingness to be a pawn toward the pro-Israel lobby and the neoconservative propaganda wars against "Islamo fascists" consistent with the blueprint for a "new middle east", that has cost Americans both blood and $800 billion by invading countries that never attacked the U.S. nor harbored terrorists. Generally Fred seems to take a "maintenance" position, "strolling" toward the Presidency largely on his celebrity image, rather than presenting any concrete change of the present course in both domestic Homeland Security policy (stripping away Americans' freedoms) or foreign entanglements. It can be summed up that the party establishment is predisposed toward the neo-republican CFR candidates who follow a neoconservative, rather than conservative, agenda. The Gazette documented this too:

...Both Thompson and Romney have two state party officers and two county GOP chairmen among their Feb. 5 convention delegates. However, Thompson also has 11 legislators, while Romney has one.

Among the notable Republican Party figures committed to candidates:

- Thompson: Senate Minority Leader Don Caruth, R-Mercer; House Minority Leader Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha; former Congressman Mick Staton.

- Romney: National Committeewoman Donna Gosney; state school board Vice President Priscilla Haden; former state Supreme Court Justice John McCuskey; Sue McKinney, Harrison County GOP chairwoman and wife of the state chairman.

- Giuliani: Wood County Commission President Rick Modesitt; Sens. Frank Deem of Wood County and Vic Sprouse of Kanawha.

- McCain: Mason County Commissioner Miles Epling; Fayette County GOP Chairman Gary Lilly; former lawmaker and veteran lobbyist Larry Swann.

- Huckabee: Ashley Stinnett, head of the state’s Federation of Young Republicans.

- Hunter: Marion County GOP Chairman Andrew Sabak.

- Paul’s roster, meanwhile, suggests a more grass-roots appeal; 35 of his 38 delegates are at-large.

West Virginia GOP still needs 1100 delegates
Charleston Gazette - WV,
Ron Paul of
Texas has 38. The Texas congressman is edging out former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his 37 committed delegates. ...
See all stories on this topic

Nov 24, 2007

Neocon Contractors Threaten Americans with Anthrax

The government never solved the anthrax attacks. It is clear that the evidence was planted, the letters from New Jersey (the home state of Michael Chertoff) said "Allah is great" and "take penicillin" and "Sept. 11th"--marks to mislead authorities to "Arab terrorists", attacks that were only made against leading Democrats in Congress (Daschle and Leahy)! Is it credible that "terrorists" would only attack leading Democrats, who resisted the PATRIOT ACT, until this happened? (Hint: This was done, as planted evidence indicates, by secret third party to push the neocon agenda and legislation, an act of coercion indeed).

Pay attention to who is warning us here. James Woolsey (former CIA chief) is a key neoconservative, member of the Project for New American Century (and many other neocon and Israeli think tanks), part of the secretive cabal that have hijacked the government since 9/11. This "terrorism expert" is with a leading private contractor of the Pentagon who earns his living from your tax dollars, in order to spread this same fear-mongering propaganda (without evidence) and obtain Pentagon contracts.

This is tantamount to threatening Americans, particularly since only the U.S. government controls the anthrax strains, the previous anthrax being traced to Ft. Detrick Maryland (yet no conviction). Before such warnings the government should be made to solve the previous anthrax crimes and be held accountable for the use of that anthrax which was obtained from government sources. (Who had access?). The U.S. also provided anthrax (per Senator Byrd's research) to Saddam Hussein of Iraq under previous administrations, along with West Nile virus, another strain warned of after 9/11.

One thing Woolsey does do here is demonstrate just how access to anthrax could be gained (thus he fronts possible conspiracy theories). One of such is to threaten someone, or scientists, in order to gain access. (It is also true that many such scientists world wide have been killed since 9/11). So why not apply what he states to the previous attacks, and increase security on those strains, instead of warning of future attacks to the people? The purpose of course here is propaganda, and "I told you so" is being set up, notably in a suggestion of public attacks, and the Academy Awards. Now why do you suppose he suggested that scenario--to Hollywood (that has produced critical films)? The purpose of this is to produce fear and to coerce (the definition of terrorism) the neoconservative agenda, of which he himself is a demonstrable part.
clipped from

U.S. remains vulnerable to anthrax attack, experts say

WASHINGTON | The United States is still “very poorly prepared” for an anthrax attack six years after a 2001 assault against Congress and television broadcasters, a former CIA director says.

“There is very little attention being paid to biological weapons,” former director James Woolsey said this week. “And that’s a shame.”

Woolsey spoke at a news conference called to release a report from ExecutiveAction, a Washington-based consultant, analyzing three anthrax attack scenarios, including a hypothetical attack at the Academy Awards.

Neil Livingston, ExecutiveAction chief executive officer, said the report was meant to be an “educational document” for the public and to show the risks that America faces.

“Terrorists could recruit a scientist at a laboratory who had access to a lethal strain of anthrax,” Livingston said. “Alternatively, they could break into a laboratory, bribe a scientist or threaten a scientist to obtain a sample.”

Nov 23, 2007

Scrutinizing Romney: Supporters False-flagging 'Bigotry' Calls?

This excellent Blogometer article scrutinizes Romney through major blogs. It begins with a look at a National Review article looking into the rumors that Romney's campaign or supporters were actually false-flagging the anti-Mormon calls (feigning they were made by his oppositions' push pollsters), and the vehement yet vague "spin" behind Romney's answers. This of course he dismisses as a "conspiracy theory". Yet in this article even his supporters wonder.

Willard Milton Romney is a crafty silver-spooner who has played the anti-Mormon legitimate concern into a "bigotry" and "feel sorry for me" campaign. It would be stupid to not consider any candidates personal beliefs, and the true nature and history of Mormonism (which is not the Christian faith, but is similar to freemasonry, and based upon a work of fiction, the Book of Mormon) which he has defended, as consideration of a man's rational capacity, philosophy, and ideological principles.

As far as the religious issue and theological honesty a blogger Dotan in an article worth reading "Who is Willard Milton Romney" breaks down Romney's defensive tactics on the Mormon question (in order to garner the powerful Christian conservative vote) into three protocols, none of which are forthright debate, but dishonest evasion and confusion:
Here is the full Romney protocol as we understand it.

(1) Stonewall and ridicule: “Did Inglis say that to you?” I asked. “I don’t know,” Romney said. “He may well have.” “You don’t recall the conversation?” “I have a lot of conversations. I don’t recall the exact words of people, but if he says he said that, I’ll take his word for it.”

(2) Muddy the waters: “You know, the term ‘Christian’ means different things to different people,” Romney told me.

(3) Blur distinctions: “I’ll just describe what I believe and not try to distinguish my faith from others.”
Note the primary Romney strategy IS religious--i.e. to deceive and blur his proud Mormonism as equivalent to Christianity in religion, to capture the conservative evangelical vote block. THIS ISSUE IS VALID THEREFORE FOR POLITICAL REASONS, THAT A DISHONEST BLURRING OF "MORMONISM IS CHRISTIANITY" IS BEING PLAYED FOR POLITICAL POWER. This legitimizes the religious issue as a principle concern. (Anyone who has read anything of Mormon history knows they were considered a cult and seceded into the Utah territory while attempting to draw many with them by this same manner of confusion). It is an issue of Trustworthiness, and therefore worthy of public scrutiny as a valid issue on the principles of intellectual, religious, and political honesty. If Mitt is proud of his Mormonism, why does he blur it then with mainstream or historic orthodox Christianity, as if there were not different origins and distinctions? One man's "bigotry" is another man's convictions and principles. Everyone judges and divides, only by different standards. Perhaps he is not so full of conviction of his own "faith" as he would have you believe, since he sees it as not much different than others!

The mark of pragmatism haunts Romney as much as Giuliani, and political pragmatism is the mark of untrustworthy opportunists, not principled statesmen. Note the final part of the clip demonstrates Romney is really unprincipled, a vote-seeker, (his principles, and the Constitution "evolve with him") who speaks on an issue what the voters want to hear.......UNTIL HE GETS INTO OFFICE! No one like this could be trusted, period.

People also should note that Iowa has a large active Mormon constituency who always vote monolithically for Mormon candidates (always), and they were rallied during the state's earlier straw poll for Romney. Do not expect his Iowa support to be replicated in other states, except Utah and Idaho.

Yesterday's Mark Hemingway article on NRO, which investigated that rumor that Mitt Romney's supporters paid for the anti-Mormon phone calls in order to gain sympathy for their candidate, provoked angry denials from both the Romney campaign and TargetPoint Consulting. In the conservative blogosphere, however, the speculation and finger-pointing continues unabated. It remains to be seen whether this scandal will have a lasting impact on the race or will simply blow over in the next couple of days.

ROMNEY: Overplaying The Bigotry Card?

The Directors at Red State accuse misguided Romney backers of funding the calls

Soren Dayton examines Romney spokesman Kevin Madden's increasingly vague statements of denial and writes: "You can smell the rubber of the backtracking."

Wolf also addresses Romney's shift on social issues: "I'm going to maintain some intellectual honesty about all of this. I think a lot of his positions are staked out based on his estimation of what the voters he needs want.

Nov 20, 2007

OVERBLOWN: The U.S. Over-Reaction to 9/11, and Why It Must Stop

It's time to put fear in its proper position and events in more rational light. Over the last six years in America there have been no terrorist attacks despite the fact that we were told there are "sleeper cells" and that everyone should be "on guard" yet "go about their daily lives". The media, and particularly talk radio and editorial columnists, have constantly told us of the "very real threat" of "jihadists that want to kill us every day". But if we are to believe their propaganda we must conclude that the "Islamo fascists" are either waning in zeal or are not very determined after all to wage "terrorism on the West". Any group of high schoolers could have created more terrorism than the pretended "sleeper cells" from the "radical one percent" of Muslims living in the U.S. (this is the mantra from the "terrorism experts"). There has not been so much as a firecracker in a mall. What there has been, however, is random shooting in schools, bridges collapsing, the usual high amount of traffic deaths, and of course crimes throughout the U.S.. While seeking to strain for the gnat we have swallowed the proverbial camel.

In West Virginia there have been no acts of terrorism. Last year there was another airport profile scare, the arrest of an innocent Muslim woman who had over packed her toiletries at Tri-State Airport, one of which set off a detector, a gross and flagrant crime in the new Amerika. (The FBI handled this quietly. We are unsure whether this was a test drill for security or simply a mistake). Then there was the very "danger" of some men purchasing large quantities of cell phones--very openly and conspicuously, as if real terrorists would draw attention to themselves. (These always occur at key political moments too). Meanwhile in the fanaticism and propaganda after 9/11, West Virginia joined with other states to lobby for the new loot of a newly created Homeland Security bureaucracy, established a state office of the same as Emergency Services, and obtained two Homeland Security boats. (Why not get new toys from this terrorism business?). The security merchandisers, making the most of 9/11, lobbied and won massive government contracts to implement new security measures, training exercises for state police, "counter terrorism" operations, and surveillance cameras have become the new obsession in government budgets. (Just ask Danny Jones). The merchandisers for REAL ID cards also lobbied and gained new contracts from the DMV, before even receiving any state government approval. (We also wonder how many have financial conflicts of interest within government who expect their portfolios to increase with these new security company contracts).

Yet for all this there have been no acts of terrorism in West Virginia. What there has been is many "crimes of passion", both husbands and wives (like the impenitent Morgantown nurse who smiled upon her sentence) murdering each other (largely for treasonous infidelity which the State winks at, and a previous governor and senator paraded openly without shame or apology) as reported in newspapers, crimes and shootings of various sorts, traffic deaths on ATVs and automobiles, hunting accidents, and some deaths due to medical malpractice, treatment with heart stints, or from taking pharmaceuticals that caused heart failure. There was one "bomb" that killed several in the state, but it was an exploding propane tank in Ghent, improperly maintenanced.

The truth is that West Virginians have more to fear, statistically and rationally, from each other
--i.e. from domestic acts of treachery, local crime and traffic accidents than from the pretended "jihadists that want to kill us every day", that Shelly Moore Capito parroted from 58 Live "newspeak" when voting for another surge of troops. You have more chance of being killed by motorists who drive like terrorists, or by a deer on the highway than from the mythical "Islamo Fascists". Given that terrorism has been the dominant and primarily Republican (neoconservative) message, it must be stated for what it really is, a message that is irrational and paranoid in the light of plain evidence and facts. It is a wild over-reaction that is also killing our freedoms and inflames fanaticism, the irrational and psychopathic fuel of unjust wars. (Over one million Iraqis have been killed, through sanctions or war, that never attacked the U.S.).

At some point we must stop listening to the boy who cried wolf, and those who cry out with him, and who do so for their own agenda.
And if another incident does occur it should be investigated and judged on hard and solid evidence rather than from mere allegation and repetitious propaganda (contrary to the evidence), or from anthrax notes from New Jersey that say "Allah is great" on them, as if planted evidence is uncommon in crimes to shift the authorities attention away from the real perpetrators.

Enter now a new book released earlier this year to speak truth and reason in the face of fanaticism. You remember about the boy and the Emporer's New Clothes? Well the professor who wrote this book dares to stop the irrational over-reaction and insane wars and put the "terrorist threat" into statistical perspective that no one can refute. Multitudes more people die in traffic accidents in a year and you have (statistically) more chance of being killed by local criminal acts than from "Islamic jihadists that want to kill us every day".

Every federal and state official, governor, congressman, and the American public should read this book. It demonstrates with more definitive data that Americans are being manipulated through propaganda-induced fear that could be called paranoia into an agenda of complete fanaticism, i.e. irrational behavior toward unjust wars and a growing Security State that is overthrowing common sense and particularly Constitutional rule of law, the very "freedoms" that "terrorists hate us for". It is an irrational course, that is still being pushed upon us through particularly the republican establishment and 2008 candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) and the neocon "terrorism experts" constantly interviewed by the sycophant media.

This book refutes the fear-mongering and propaganda, and is the rational basis for repealing the anti-constitutional and tyrannical laws that have been coerced through Congress by the mantra that "911 changed everything". No, it only changed what the government told us, which is full of lies. This book also is the basis for refuting most of the agenda proclaimed by the 2008 Presidential candidates (except Ron Paul) who want to continue down the road from freedom to fascism and their global Democratic Jihad for "regime changes".

Read the reviews here from Amazon for yourself, and note the book can be purchased from our Bookstore at bottom of the blog:

Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them (Hardcover)

by John Mueller (Author)

Editorial Reviews
From Booklist

Among possible U.S. terrorist targets listed by the Department of Homeland Security are a petting zoo in Alabama and a roadside water park in Florida. By listing such unlikely targets, the administration has heightened fear and the cost of protecting citizens, according to Mueller, a political science professor and national security consultant. He examines how terrorism hypervigilance is threatening civil liberties, the economy, and lives. Mueller explores three themes: terrorist threats are overblown; we can learn from the lessons of previous international threats that they are often exaggerated; and by applying these lessons, we can create policy that reduces fear and the cost of overreaction. Among other observations, Mueller notes that despite fears of chemical attacks, most such weapons are "incapable of perpetrating mass destruction," and our counterterrorism tactics tend to be expensive "self-flagellation" that bolsters the image of the terrorists. If the objective is to keep Americans frightened and willing to spend money and relinquish freedom, then the terrorists are winning, Mueller maintains. Interesting reading on a subject that will continue to hold great political sway. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Book Description
Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11? It is ridiculously easy for a single person with a bomb-filled backpack, or a single explosives-laden automobile, to launch an attack. So why hasn't it happened? The answer is surely not the Department of Homeland Security, which cannot stop terrorists from entering the country, legally or otherwise. It is surely not the Iraq war, which has stoked the hatred of Muslim extremists around the world and wasted many thousands of lives. Terrorist attacks have been regular events for many years -- usually killing handfuls of people, occasionally more than that.

Is it possible that there is a simple explanation for the peaceful American homefront? Is it possible that there are no al-Qaeda terrorists here? Is it possible that the war on terror has been a radical overreaction to a rare event? Consider: 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants have been subjected to fingerprinting and registration, and more than 5,000 foreign nationals have been imprisoned -- yet there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist crime in America. A handful of plots -- some deadly, some intercepted -- have plagued Europe and elsewhere, and even so, the death toll has been modest.

We have gone to war in two countries and killed tens of thousands of people. We have launched a massive domestic wiretapping program and created vast databases of information once considered private. Politicians and pundits have berated us about national security and patriotic duty, while encroaching our freedoms and sending thousands of young men off to die.

It is time to consider the hypothesis that dare not speak its name: we have wildly overreacted. Terrorism has been used by murderous groups for many decades, yet even including 9/11, the odds of an American being killed by international terrorism are microscopic. In general, international terrorism doesn't do much damage when considered in almost any reasonable context.

The capacity of al-Qaeda or of any similar group to do damage in the United States pales in comparison to the capacity other dedicated enemies, particularly international Communism, have possessed in the past. Lashing out at the terrorist threat is frequently an exercise in self-flagellation because it is usually more expensive than the terrorist attack itself and because it gives the terrorists exactly what they are looking for. Much, probably most, of the money and effort expended on counterterrorism since 2001 (and before, for that matter) has been wasted.

The terrorism industry and its allies in the White House and Congress have preyed on our fears and caused enormous damage. It is time to rethink the entire enterprise and spend much smaller amounts on only those things that do matter: intelligence, law enforcement, and disruption of radical groups overseas. Above all, it is time to stop playing into the terrorists' hands, by fear-mongering and helping spread terror itself.

Nov 19, 2007

New York firefighters to oppose Giuliani

A group of American firefighters opposed to Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front-runner in the 2008 presidential race, are planning to run damaging adverts expressing skepticism about his 9/11 leadership.

read more | digg story

Powell to Propaganda: Iran No Nuclear Threat

Let the neoconservative sycophants in the media and talk radio swallow this, and bite their tongues. That also includes local talk radio, especially 58 Live's Michael Agnello, and programs like 60 Minutes.

Yes, if you read the article of course the AP had to cover their lying tales by stating that the IAEC said it could not "rule out" anything being done in secret. As everyone should know, by logic, it is impossible to disprove a negative suspicion even it it contains no evidence. Such statements could be said, using the same model of propaganda, for ANY country in the world.

It appears Colin Powell, who gave the most deceitful presentation on Iraq WMD to the United Nations, now completely refuted by expert counter-testimony (see Veterans Day article below), wants no part in pushing a resistant military and public into another neocon war. While Drudge put this on his front page we will not hold our breath to see if the networks report the same.
clipped from


Powell: Iran far from nuclear weapon

KUWAIT CITY - Iran is far from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and despite U.S. fears about its atomic intentions, an American military strike against the Islamic Republic is unlikely, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.

Former US Secretary of State General Colin Powell addressing a symposium on 'Opportunity and Crisis in the Middle East' in Kuwait City on Sunday, Nov. 18, 2007. (AP Photo/Gustavo Ferrari)

Tehran rejects claims by the United States and some European Union countries that its nuclear program is aimed at secretly producing weapons, insisting it is for peaceful purposes only.

"I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon," said Powell, who was invited by the National Bank of Kuwait to speak on economic opportunity and crisis in the Middle East.

A recent report by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog found Iran has been generally truthful in the information it has provided the agency about aspects of its past nuclear activities.

There is no base of support among Americans for such an action, Powell said, adding that the U.S. military already has enough on its hands

Meet George W. Bush, Defender of the Constitution--Not!

Unfortunately it is not just Mr. Bush that suffers from cognitive dissonance. (That is too kind; try blatant, compulsive lying). It is still too many in the American public, a vast majority among republicans in particular. If his claim were true, then why are people filing suits and candidates like Ron Paul running against him? Tyrants in history typically make the plea of "necessity" (as West Virginia's Constitution points out above) and redefine both tyranny and justice while railing against their opponents. It is a classic case of despotism, and the people need to overthrow it to restore rule of law back to the Constitution (unless you want Hillary or any party's future Executive to exert the same "unitary" powers).

Good article, republished here and linked to the original. What he points out especially as well is just how the media covers the truth while not evidencing any objective inquiry or journalistic investigation.

But first the readers should bear this quote in mind, and that article too is worth reading. (I don't like the language either, so complain to the White House about it, instead of us.)

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

-- Pres. Bush to GOP Congressional leaders about PATRIOT ACT; Capitol Hill Blue, Dec. 2005

Bush's Clever Cognitive Dissonance
So, George W. Bush sees himself as the great defender of the U.S. Constitution.

Global Research, November 18, 2007

To many Americans who have been aghast at Bush’s six-plus years of trampling the Constitution, such pronouncements might represent a textbook case of “cognitive dissonance,” a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension when one’s stated principles are at odds with one’s actions.

For Bush, however, this divergence of words from behavior may be closer to the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes, when the monarch strutted about in invisible garments while his terrified subjects kept quiet about his nakedness.

In this case, the Washington press corps reported on Bush’s speech as if the President were entirely sincere and left out contradictory facts.

For instance, there was silence about how Bush prevailed in Election 2000 by getting five partisan Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop a recount of votes in Florida that – if it had been allowed to tally all legally cast ballots – might well have put Al Gore in the White House.

Instead, the five Republican justices cast aside any sense of neutrality – and their own principles about avoiding federal interference in state decisions – to hammer together a twisted ruling that halted the recount and gave the election to George W. Bush. [For details, see our new book, Neck Deep.]

Yet, in his Nov. 15 speech, Bush declared how important it was for judges to act as honest umpires.

“When people see the umpire rooting for one team, public confidence in our courts is eroded, the sense of unfairness is heightened and our political debates are poisoned,” Bush said. “So we will insist … on judges who call the game fairly.”

Bush also declared that he was committed to the original intent of the Founders as expressed in the Constitution.

“Tonight I will discuss a judicial philosophy that is based on what our Founders intended,” Bush said. “The President's oath of office commits him to do his best to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ I take these words seriously. I believe these words mean what they say.”

‘Plenary’ Powers

Yet, even many conservative legal scholars, such as former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith, believe that Bush and his inner circle have stretched the wartime powers of the President far beyond what the Founders intended or the Constitution allows.

Bush has asserted “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as Commander in Chief for the duration of the indefinite “war on terror.” In Bush’s view, that means he can ignore the rights that the Constitution grants to both citizens and other branches of the federal government.

While the Founders envisioned “unalienable rights” for all mankind, Bush claims that he can even waive habeas corpus, a principle dating back to the Middle Ages requiring the government to present evidence of a person’s guilt.

Habeas was a right that the Founders considered so fundamental that they embedded it in the body of the Constitution. But Bush’s former White House counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Gonzales’s unorthodox view – which left Republican Sen. Arlen Specter sputtering in disbelief – also wasn’t just theoretical. Bush and his administration have locked up people, including American citizens, while denying them their day in court. [See’s “Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus.”]

Bush also has formulated military commissions – first unilaterally and then through legislative action – that represent a parallel legal system operating outside the rules of the U.S. Constitution.

In effect, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 casts aside not only habeas corpus but the Sixth Amendment, which grants the accused “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” and the right to confront one’s accusers. By contrast, in Bush’s system, there is no guarantee of either a speedy or a public trial. Secrecy dominates in a process run by U.S. military officers whose careers depend on the favor of the Commander in Chief.

The military commissions also would apply not only to foreign “unlawful enemy combatants” but to “any person” who aids the enemy “in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States,” presumably a reference to U.S. citizens. [See’s “Who Is ‘Any Person’ in Tribunal Law?”]

In his warrantless wiretapping program, Bush also has brushed aside the Fourth Amendment, which requires that the government establish “probable cause” before it can conduct searches of Americans. In his wiretapping operation, Bush ignored, too, the specific legal requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Bush’s approval of harsh interrogation tactics, including simulated drowning by “water-boarding,” also has made a mockery of the Eighth Amendment and its ban on “cruel and unusual punishments,” not to mention federal statutes prohibiting torture.

Unitary Executive

Still, Bush’s Nov. 15 speech talked glowingly of the constitutional “checks and balances” as a guard against tyranny.

“When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear understanding of tyranny,” Bush said. “They also had a clear idea about how to prevent it from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to separate the government's powers into three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. …

“Each serves as a check on the others. And to preserve our liberty, each must meet its responsibilities – and resist the temptation to encroach on the powers the Constitution accords to others.”

But for the past six years, Bush has asserted his right as “unitary executive” to ignore any law that he chooses by asserting his "plenary" powers and attaching “signing statements.”

In effect, if one examines Bush’s claims of unlimited executive power – and overlays that with a “war on terror” of indefinite duration – a fair conclusion is that the President has, in effect, eliminated both the "checks and balances " and the “unalienable rights” that the Founders enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Under Bush’s theories, constitutional rights can be selectively denied by one person, him.

Yet, in his Federalist Society speech, Bush was the rock-ribbed protector of the Founders’ dream of a constitutional Republic. He chided his political opponents for their more flexible interpretation of the Constitution.

“Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a ‘living Constitution,’” Bush said. “In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean. They forgot that our Constitution lives because we respect it enough to adhere to its words.”

But what Bush has sought in key federal judicial appointments, including his Supreme Court selections of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, are judges who will predictably assent to Bush’s extraordinary assertion of presidential powers, regardless of the words in the Constitution or the intent of the Founders.

Cognitive Dissonance

In a broader sense, Bush’s Nov. 15 speech reflected what has been a core rhetorical device of the modern American Right, the clever use of cognitive dissonance – the confident assertion of positions that fly in the face of reality.

I first encountered this tactic in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan sought to frustrate the intent of government policies from the 1970s by appointing individuals who were hostile to those goals but who claimed to embrace the same principles.

For instance, Reagan disdained President Jimmy Carter’s emphasis on “human rights” but instead of making a complete break, Reagan appointed Ernest Lefever as the State Department’s human rights pointman.

Though Reagan and the Right hailed Lefever as a champion of human rights, the nomination foundered after critics, including his own family members, presented evidence of his racial prejudices and fondness for South Africa’s apartheid government.

(After Lefever’s nomination was pulled, Reagan turned to a more astute practitioner of this technique, a bright and aspiring neoconservative named Elliott Abrams.)

In dealing with environmental issues, Reagan took a similar tack. Instead of directly challenging environmental policies enacted during the previous decade, he appointed right-wing “environmentalists” who talked about their love of nature while quietly dismantling regulatory protections.

What the Right – and especially the neocons – drew from these experiences was that the Washington press corps could be tough when contesting some narrow falsehood or a slight hypocrisy, but would ignore audacious misrepresentations, at least when they came from Republicans backed by aggressive right-wing media attack groups.

Bush has proved to be a master of this technique because he shows even fewer scrupples than the average politician in making claims that are at clear variance with the truth.

For instance, in his last two addresses to the United Nations General Assembly, Bush has hailed the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights although its tenets are in contradiction of his claims that he can kill, kidnap, detain, torture and spy on anyone of his choosing anywhere in the world.

Nevertheless, Bush displayed a well-founded confidence that the U.S. press corps wouldn’t challenge him on these obvious hypocrisies – and he was right. [See’s “Bush to World: Up Is Down.”]

Indeed, one of the most successful features of Bush’s presidency may be his ability to exploit cognitive dissonance to avoid accountability for his actions. While Bush doesn’t blush when his actions belie his words, the American political system can’t seem to cope, incapable of either reconciling Bush’s dishonesty or enforcing any accountability upon him.

The national press corps and other Washington institutions – like the emperor’s subjects in the old fable – try as best they can to ignore the obvious.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to

Robert Parry is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Robert Parry