Rep. Ron Paul on Wiki Leaks: "Which is More Dangerous, WikiLeaks or Government Lies for War"?

Republican Representative and former candidate for U.S. President Ron Paul speaks before Congress regarding what he calls the "hysterical over-reaction" to WikiLeaks and reminds everyone that 1) Julian Assange stole nothing, 2) as an Australian he cannot be guilty of treason, 3) its direct parallel to the Pentagon Papers during Viet Nam (published by the New York Times, similar to WikiLeaks today) and the high court cleared the NY Times of any guilt, along with those involved.

He then focuses on the real issue, that WikiLeaks threatens government propaganda for unjust wars upon false pretenses (e.g. like Iraq) and the global (and "neocon") agenda for Empire which spreads lies to justify its course and contain its criticisms and embarrassments.

Freedom of the press has now just moved to the internet and the publishing of "leaks" from "confidential sources" is as old as the New York Times (e.g. Pentagon Papers) and Washington Post (e.g. Water-Gate).

Judge Napolitano of FOX's Freedom Watch Also No Longer Believes 9/11 Official Story!

Judge Andrew Napolitano, who hosts the FOX program Freedom Watch, just recently interviewed FOX associate Geraldo Rivera about his show (see previous post below) about 9/11 and Building 7 alleged "collapse".  Now the Judge has gone public himself, as shown in this recent clip, and no longer believes the official story about the destruction of Building 7 on September 11th can possibly be true. 

So now not one, but two FOX show hosts are on record as disbelieving the official story of 9/11 based due to the evidence presented on WTC 7.  Now since they have, why shouldn't we discuss this publicly?  This then is a clear mark that Political Correctness about 9/11 is finally being shattered in even main stream media, just as when the legendary boy shouted, "The Emporer has no clothes", and people more concerned about other's opinions of them, instead of plainly observable truth, were made ashamed.   The official story is clearly now open for debate publicly.

FOX News Does 9/11 Interview About Building 7 Controlled Demolition--3rd Party Candidates Vindicated

Watch this!  Geraldo Rivera in this FOX segment admits the recent ad campaign (during election week in November) in New York City changed his mind, i.e. that there is a compelling case of controlled demolition in the collapse of the 3rd tower!  His interview is with a 9/11 family member and an architectural engineer (among 1, 200 others) who have staked their professional reputations on the line by affirming this position.

Locally in West Virginia, gubernatorial candidates Jesse Johnson (Mountain Party) and Jeff Becker (Constitution Party) have recently publicly stated their own belief that this position is viable, and took heat from the media (which criticism very prejudicially focused more on Becker, less on Johnson).  Their position is vindicated in this FOX Geraldo Rivera segment.

NBC Nightly News Comes to West Virginia for Manchin/Raese Contest

Governor Joe Manchin and his campaign underestimated Raese's challenge for Byrd's Senate seat. Now they are fighting desparately to win. Campaign Manchin overestimated themselves and were entirely blind, until too late, at how upset average West Virginians are at Washington, thinking that the outrage and discontent was "just a Republican thing". Wrong.

Manchin, who wanted the glorious stamp of approval from the voters, might be wishing now he would have just appointed himself to fill Byrd's seat, which as Governor he had full power to do. But, he was absolutely sure he would be stamped 'approved'--relying on his popularity as Governor--without any trouble from an outsider with almost no political experience. Wrong again. A proverb warns: "Pride comes before the fall", and the "certainty" of Manchin winning the election (as he thought when deciding not to appoint himself) seems to be slipping from his political grasp. Rasmussen just reported that Raese's lead has increased.


It's all about Obama and a referendum against the present Congress and Obama administration in power that has railroaded sweeping new European type legislation that is the most socialist since FDR.

Now West Virginia wants change, ironically, and Raese is just a far better bet than the governor who is loyal to the Democrat party establishment. Obama is experiencing blow-back to his "Change" agenda. Mark it, for it will continue two years after this as well, when Rockefeller's seat comes up for election.

The State and local media too, which leans Democrat, has underestimated just how angry and vehement West Virginians are against the present Washington agenda. Even Rockefeller would have a hard time this year, if his seat was up for election against even the most novice Republican candidate.

The NBC video also proves the Gazette and Democrat establishment wrong in trying to portray the Tea Party movement as "extreme right-wing republican conservatives", as they interview Democrats voting for Raese too.

Governor Flipper? Manchin Goes National with FOX Against Obama Policies

FOX News did a nationally broadcast interview (see video below) with Governor Manchin pressing him whether he has now flip-flopped in support of President Obama's policies, primarily health care reform, to save his political hide from Republican challenger John Raese who is presently leading in the polls by 6 points (with early voting starting soon). This directly addresses the ad campaign Raese has leveled at Manchin, justly pointing out that he would likely become a political partisan in Washington and "rubber stamp for Barack Obama" (as Rep. Shelly Moore Capito was accused of by state democrats with Bush), because that is what tends to happen there for anyone who desires to gain power and personal advancement. (And make no mistake, Manchin's ego insists on personal advancement above all). Raese struck a nerve, and it is working. Watch Manchin play defense, desperately.



So does he really mean what he says? Or, has John Raese forced the Governor into it, through political threat, and now Manchin is playing the pragmatist to win. Manchin has everything riding on this as far as his political future, and he was arrogant enough to think it would be easy. Well guess what. Governor Joe is finding out that the Tea Party movement in fact is non-partisan, and he is now shifting with the political wind.

But why then did he have Bill Clinton campaign with him in Morgantown today? Campaigning with Clinton was a stupid move and sends an entirely different message than to the one in this interview with FOX.

It is also sickening to hear him brag about West Virginia's good financial situation, as if he deserves the credit, when it was done only by passing Table Games legislation and expanding the State government via gambling revenues, when the majority in the state opposed it, and the State Constitution does not permit it, nor was amended. So make no mistake, the state finances were fixed only by dishonest, unconstitutional dirty dealing to create more Gambling Revenues, not by job expansion or attracting employers. So, "Governor Soprano" (as Raese called him once) seems to fit the way Manchin operates, and he is not above using slick shady dealings to get done what he wants. The governor is more pragmatist than principled, which makes where he stands uncertain.

Credibility will be the issue here, for if Manchin was critical of Obamacare and fiscal policies he did not say anything about it until now, when his Senate race is on the line. Voters will decide soon.

The Royal Presidency: The Cult of Modern Presidents

Since the founding of America the idea of the Divine Rights of Kings has been held as abominable and a doctrine that turned Kings into tyrants who could do whatever they pleased contrary to the common national will.  The idea of having kings became repugnant and the founders' Constitution installed the Presidency instead in a three-way balance of power.  Today, however, with Barack Obama coming before the public via various media constantly, the presidency has been expanded and enlarged to almost a dictatorial position.  Historically, this is a recent phenomenon. 

This excellent podcast is about how the role of U.S. president has radically changed in America in contrast to what the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers had in mind.  Especially beginning in the 20 century (as wars increased to a global scale) American presidents began to usurp more and more power and have become a "national leader" in attempt to control and set the agenda for the entire country instead of the more limited role originally intended.

This pod cast from Cato is a real eye-opener to just how excessive and dangerous presidents have become, irregardless of party.

Watch this at cato

Professional Pilots: Hijackers Could Not Have Flown The Planes on 9/11

First is the testimony of a former Air Force and American Airlines pilot who flew the same planes.





Next is a discussion about the difficulty of controlling the aircraft in order to hit the WTC towers and Pentagon by commercial pilots from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.  Listen closely and ask yourself if these pros could not do it, how could the alleged novices, who trained only on small aircraft, have done this, perfectly, on the first try?
 


The official story--which is without any hard evidence, but only repeated allegation--cannot possibly be true.

Moralityphobia--Get Over It

This anti-social and political disease is a virtual pandemic that infects all discourse within the arenas of government and public debate. Governors, state legislators, teachers, and media (including talk show radio hosts that claim to be "conservative") either promote or are complying in a slavish manner to new Humanist commandments that frame the New Public Mores of "democratic society" (by definition a humanist society without regard to God), which persecutes, scolds and attempts to censor those who do not bow to their rules of Progressive Political Correctness. It is as if there were these new higher laws, graven on modern virtual tablets, written by the finger of Democratic Man:

I. "Thou shalt have no other gods but Tolerance".
II. "Thou shalt not obey old laws, but thou shalt obey the written new rules of Political Correctness (which at present hold legislator's captive by fear and intimidation)
III. "Thou shalt not judge by old standards (only because they are old), such as Virtue, especially from historically respected books, like the Bible."
IV. "Thou shalt not take the name of Tolerance in vain (for Tolerance is intolerant of that, and demands to be worshiped, by some more than others), and make no mention of sins in the old fashion, whether public or private, or such as blasphemes Tolerance".
V. "Thou shalt make no mention of the Bible or its moral teachings, or Jesus (except for Progressive legislation for Tolerance)".

When discussion about homosexuality occurs (since the revolutionary firebrands require it) those who oppose the abhorrent, unnatural, and perverse behavior (and those who practice, promote or legalize it), and are on the side of moral society and what used to be called "public virtue," are branded, slandered, and villified as if they have done evil. A new public "shaming" is put upon them instead, and government bows in fear and even repeals its own laws. (Note the other party's blind hypocrisy about "not judging others"). Thus public debate about Morality is either censured or censored....at least the Old Morality is, but only to be replaced by the New.

Well, this dated article addresses this subject and rings true, and the rope of its bell needs to be pulled again. To the general public: "Hear ye, hear ye...

Get over your Moralityphobia

Americans need to get over their "moralityphobia."

mo·ral·i·ty·pho·bi·a (n.)

• 1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong, despite the awareness and reassurance that the distinction is not dangerous.
• 2. A squeamishness or [anti-social] discomfort that compels one to avoid any discussion of what is right and wrong.
• 3. A strong dislike [hatred!] or aversion to a [former] system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.