Category Archives: Republican

Accusations of Republican Ben Carson Plagiarism Obscure Real Issues

Written by 
Saturday, 24 January 2015
Accusations of Ben Carson Plagiarism Obscure Real Issues

 “I apologize, and I am working with my editors to rectify the situation,” said expected GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson in a January 8 Facebook post reported by various media outlets. Carson evidently failed to give a proper source citation in his recent book, America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great.

Carson’s publisher, Zondervan, a Christian book company owned by HarperCollins, said, “It has become apparent that further source citation is appropriate in Dr. Carson’s America the Beautiful.”

Plagiarism is usually defined as taking someone else’s words and presenting them as one’s own words. It is not surprising that Carson, a retired surgeon, is now being looked at critically, considering that he is now running fourth in a Huff Post Pollster survey, behind 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney (18.8 percent), former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (10.5 percent), and New Jersey Governor Chris Christee (8.5 percent). With 7 percent, Carson edged out former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Senator Rand Paul. Several other possible candidtes, including Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, were close behind.

Allegations of plagiarism pushed then-Senator Joe Biden out of a presidential bid in 1987. Biden had taken a speech by British Labor Party politician Neil Kinnock, in which Kinnock claimed he was the first in a “thousand generations” of his family to go to college, and basically substituted himself as the first of his family in a “thousand generations” to enter an institution of higher education. Biden’s problem was compounded when it was alleged that he had committed plagiarism while in law school. Still, Biden remained in the Senate, and even made another presidential effort in 2008, losing the Democratic Party nod to fellow Senator Barack Obama. But, Obama apparently considered Biden’s plagiarism problems as unimportant, making him his running-mate.

In comparing the two accusations of plagiarism, Biden’s are clearly much more egregious. Would Carson be given a pass by the media, considering that Biden’s past was not an issue in 2008? Since Carson is a Republican, and is promoted as a conservative, that is not sure.

But Dr. Carson’s views on government are much more important than whether he missed a citation in his book. Just what are his qualifications to serve as president, and what is his political philosophy? At this point, the answers are not entirely clear.

Carson retired in 2013 after a highly successful career as a neurosurgeon. In 1987 he became the first surgeon to successfully separate twins joined at the head. President George W. Bush awarded him a Medal of Freedom in 2008. Carson’s name identification increased dramatically in 2013, after his 25-minute speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, when it appeared he was lecturing President Obama (seated a few feet away at the time) about government-run health care and the national debt. In his speech, which made him an overnight sensation among some conservatives, he decried political correctness, which he called “dangerous,” arguing that it is in opposition to the “founding principles” of the nation, especially “freedom of thought.”
Following the speech, many touted him as presidential timber for 2016. No doubt, Carson’s reputation as a renowned surgeon gave him credibility to discuss the healthcare law. In his speech, he offered his solution. He suggested that when a person is born, he or she should be given “a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health saving account, to which money can be contributed, pretax from the time you are born, to the time you die. When you die, you can pas it on to your family members.”

It is also clear that Carson was seen as a potential candidate because of his race. Many Republicans are understandably desirous of making inroads with African-American voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. David Graham of The Atlantic said Carson compared to Herman Cain, but without the “personal skeletons.” Were the African-American vote to drop from its excess of 90 percent to somewhere around 70 percent in support of Democratic Party candidates, the Democrats would simply be unable to win a national race. Because of this known political fact, black political personalities who stray from a strict liberal, Democratic Party line face savage attacks from the Left. This has been demonstrated repeatedly, with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a prime example. So often, Thomas and other conservative black Americans are considered ‘traitors” to their race for daring to be a conservative in politics.

Is Carson a conservative?

Some of his public statements can certainly lead one to conclude so; however, others have caused conservatives some concern. For example, Carson said in 1999 that he favored continuation of “affirmative action” (although he did want to rename it “compassionate action”), contending that he himself had benefitted from the policy.

Carson has written six best-selling books, and was sixth by Gallup on the list of the world’s most admired men. The son of a Seventh-day Adventist minister, he received a degree from Yale, and then his medical degree from Michigan Medical School. While his Seventh-day Adventist views are somewhat outside of what is considered mainstream evangelical Christianity, it is unlikely that Carson would have to contend with the difficult challenges among evangelicals faced by Mitt Romney with his Mormon religion.

Carson’s comment that semi-automatic guns are not appropriate in large cities raised concern among supporters of the Second Amendment. Despite this, Carson insists that he supports the right to keep and bear arms: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment,” he has declared.

Perhaps even more troubling are Carson’s comments in the health care field, where he would have credibility to influence the public. In an 1996 interview with the web magazine Mega Diversities, Carson expressed opposition to the “entire concept of for profits for the insurance companies,” which he argued “makes absolutely no sense.” Instead, he contended, “The first thing we need to do is get rid of for-profit insurance companies…. We need to make the government reponsible for catastrophic health care.” To pay for this, Carson suggested in 1992 that the program could be paid for by taking 10 to 15 percent of the profits from each health insurance company.

In 1992, Carson called for “national guidelines” to determine who did and did not receive certain medical treatments. “As our general population continues to age,” he explained, “we will find ourselves in a position of being able to keep most people alive” beyond their 100th birthday. But he was not so sure this should be done. Rather than putting these elderly patients in an intensive care unit, “poking and prodding them, operating and testing them,” Carson advocated allowing them “the dignity of dying in comfort, at home.” He conceded that such “decisions on who should be treated and who should not be treated would clearly require some national guidelines.”

But what is the constitutional basis for requiring “national guidelines”? What guidelines, specifically, would Dr. Carson advocate? And how would such guidelines — involving “who should be treated and who should not be treated,” and therefore ultimately who should live and who should die — be any different from the “death panels” that Sarah Palin and others warned were part of ObamaCare? Obviously conservatives, constitutionalists, and pro-lifers against the very concept of government interjecting itself into life-and-death healthcare decisions should ask Carson these very questions. And in general, all of us who support limited, constitutional government should diligently examine the record of Dr. Carson and all other potential presidential candidates as measured against the Constitution.


Israel Hayom | Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) : ‘I want Israel to know: Congress has your back’

In an interview with Israel Hayom, n. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vows to make sure that the Iranian nuclear talks are “handled properly” • The U.S. should embargo anyone who boycotts ISesrael, and never give up on the peace process, he says.

Boaz Bismuth
“We have shared interests and common enemies,” says Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)


Photo credit: Lior Mizrahi

If you ask U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) whether the average Israeli citizen should believe the mainstream media’s assertion that relations between Israel and the U.S. are in decline and that the decades-long friendship between them is unraveling, the answer would be a definitive no. If not stopped, he may even launch into a detailed monologue on how committed the entire U.S. Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, is to the Israeli cause.

“There’s been some friction between the administration and the Israeli government but I would say that the friction that has reared its head at times is not the strongest indicator of the relationship,” Graham, 59, says. “I think the U.S.-Israel relationship’s anchor tenant is the Congress.”

He says there is nothing preventing the U.S. from standing by Israel while simultaneously supporting nuclear talks with Iran (without lifting sanctions), the way he does, in efforts to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons. Or while supporting U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in his efforts to jumpstart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. On the latter, he makes sure to point out that “the United Nations is not a good venue for Israel when it comes to the peace process.” This during the same week that the U.N. actually rejected the Palestinian proposal for statehood.

Q: So what is the average Israeli citizen to think about relations between Israel and the U.S.?

“Presidents come and go. [George H.W.] Bush 41’s administration had problems with Israel’s policies [led by then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir]. In business terms, the anchor tenant is the Congress.

“There’s wide bipartisan support in a couple of areas: that the peace process should not be turned over to the United Nations. I sent a letter to the administration together with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) urging the administration to veto any U.N. Security Council resolution that would start getting involved with the peace process. The last thing in the world we should do is to avoid direct negotiations.

“Secondly, there’s a lot of bipartisan support for the idea that sanctions against Iran brought them to the table, and the Iranians need to understand that the sanctions are not going away, unless we get a deal that we all can live with.”

How else does Congress’ support for Israel come into play?

“When it comes to military assistance, economic assistance, Congress is firmly in Israel’s camp. There is absolutely no support in any segment of American political life to restrict aid to Israel. There is absolutely no support for the idea of sanctioning Israel over the settlement issue.

“Sen. Schumer and I are planning to introduce a Hamas sanctions bill that would sanction companies that do business with, or countries that support Hamas, we view it as a terrorist organization. We passed one resolution after another during the recent conflict with Hamas in Gaza supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, applauding Israel’s efforts to restrict civilian casualties and condemning Hamas efforts to inflict as much violence as possible.”

You mentioned the need for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

“The Palestinian initiatives to gain statehood at the United Nations without first negotiating a peace agreement with Israel are going to be met with a lot of bipartisan resistance. I think that there is a lot of support on both sides of the aisle to make sure that the U.N. is put on notice that if they give membership status to the Palestinians, any subdivision of the U.N. that recognizes the Palestinians as a state, their funding would be terminated. We did that with UNESCO.”

Despite his clear tone, Sen. Graham makes sure to clarify that “I just want the Israeli people to know that Congress does have your back. I am by no means anti-Palestinian. I am pro-Israel and I want to help the Palestinian people with their legitimate ambitions.”

He also reiterates that “there will be a lot of bipartisan opposition to any effort by the Palestinians to use the International Criminal Court in the Hague against the Israel Defense Forces.”

In Graham’s view, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the key issue, and the most urgent problem at this time is the Iranian nuclear threat.

“The Iranian nuclear ambitions are the biggest threat to the world in general,” he says. “Israel needs to be reassured that Congress will be there in an appropriate way. I can assure you that the Republican control of Senate and the House will be pushing measures to make sure that the Iranian nuclear negotiations are handled properly, that sanctions are reimposed if the Iranians walk away from the table or if they cheat on any deal.”

According to the New York Times, the White House is not committed to bringing an Iranian deal, should one be reached, to Congress for approval. How will you react if they do bypass Congress?

“They seem to want our approval when it comes to operations in Syria and Iraq. We, the Congress, created the sanctions, and we should have a say on whether the deal justifies lifting the sanctions. I don’t know how this will turn out, but I think there will be a strong bipartisan vote in favor of the idea that any deal between the P5+1 [and Iran] should come before Congress before the sanctions are lifted. I can’t think of a more important decision that the world will make in 2015 than how to handle the nuclear ambitions of the ayatollahs in Iran.

“Islamic State and al-Qaida and radical Islam are a threat to our way of life. The Arab world is beginning to see radical Islam as a threat to their way of life as well. There is an opportunity here for the United States, Europe, the Israelis and Arab states to work together against two common enemies: radical Islam and the nuclear ambitions of the ayatollahs in Tehran.”

With an emphasis on Iran?

Finish reading: Israel Hayom | ‘I want Israel to know: Congress has your back’.

Most Americans Say US Gives Too Much Aid to Israel by Grant Smith

Surveys are more accurate with the inclusion of key facts

by Grant Smith, September 30, 2014

Most Americans believe the United States is giving too much foreign aid to Israel according to an online survey. The American Public Opinion on U.S. Aid to Israel (PDF) survey was fielded via Google Consumer Surveys between September 26-29, 2014 as a necessary follow-up to the release of the influential Chicago Council on Global Affairs 2014 report. Middle East analysts eagerly await the biennial Chicago Council survey results and its frank reflections of American views about foreign policy toward the region. Many are surprised by Chicago Council’s conclusions that 64 percent of Americans prefer not to take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict and that 55 percent would oppose sending U.S. troops to protect Israel if it struck Iran.
However, this year the Chicago Council also concludes that the majority of Americans would keep economic and military aid to Israel, Mexico, Taiwan, Afghanistan Iraq, Egypt and Pakistan “about the same.” Only a small percentage would increase aid, while most of the rest would prefer to decrease or stop aid altogether. One problem identified by the Chicago Council is that most Americans believe such aid to most countries is far more than it actually is. A second issue is that “this question was asked before August violence between Israel and Palestinians…” Despite these factors, the Council confidently concludes “Americans tend to support maintaining or increasing military aid to Israel, Taiwan and Mexico. In a pattern similar to preferences for economic aid, the public tends to favor decreasing or stopping military aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.”

The Chicago Council survey suffers a fatal third flaw in its approach to the foreign aid question – lack of relevant comparative data given to respondents. The 2014 U.S. foreign aid budget (PDF) for Mexico is $206 million; Afghanistan is $749 million while Pakistan is $881 million with Iraq getting $73 million. Meanwhile Egypt and Israel receive lion’s shares with $1.6 billion to Egypt and a whopping $3.1 billion for Israel.

Furthermore, aid to Israel has increased on average 30 percent annually since 1970. Israel now receives 9 percent of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget while benefiting from Egypt’s 5 percent share which is justified as maintaining the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace agreement. In Israel’s case, the figure understates actual aid levels since Congress is regularly tapped by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its donor network for additional military aid and joint program funding. Official figures also omit the value of intelligence sharing, such as the massive flows of raw intelligence on Americans approved by President Obama in 2009 and revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

How do Americans really feel about aid to Israel when it is put in perspective? To find out, IRmep surveyed the same statistically significant number of American adults as the Chicago Council (around 2,108). Obviously, the IRmep Google Consumer Survey was fielded after the brutal Israeli invasion of Gaza – a significant difference. The survey question, however, included the necessary context that the Chicago Council left out, asking, “The U.S. gives Israel over $3 billion annually (9% of the foreign aid budget and more than any other country). The amount is.” Respondents could choose between “much too much, too much, about right, too little, and much too little.” The order of choices were randomly reversed to avoid bias.
Almost 61 percent of Americans say the U.S. is giving too much aid to Israel. 33.9 percent said the U.S. gives “much too much” while 26.8 percent said it is “too much.” Some 25.9 percent felt aid to Israel was “about right” but only 6.1 percent said it was “too little” and 7.3 percent is “much too little.”
That such an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the U.S. is giving too much aid to Israel may surprise many who are accustomed to seeing polls and surveys (including Chicago’s) incorrectly claiming overwhelming U.S. support for Israel. It should not be this way. The fault lies in flawed questions and lack of relevant context. Comparing American opinion between Israel, Hamas and Iran is about as useful as comparing U.S. aid to Mexico and Israel, though the former may comfort Israel affinity groups (which do a lot of their own proprietary polling) and congress members. Many important questions about Israel are never asked in U.S. surveys. Where results would likely produce a bad outcome, entire categories of polls – such as the World Values Survey in Israel – are almost never fielded.
Chicago Council also confidently notes that Americans uniformly despise Iran, citing the 1979 hostage crisis and Iran’s nuclear program as the core reasons. According to the Chicago Council survey analysis, “They are also prepared to use force if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Chicago claims that the third highest perceived threat to U.S. vital interests is “the possibility of unfriendly countries becoming nuclear powers” followed by the even more specific number four, “Iran’s nuclear program.”

Before making such broad claims it would again be useful to insert the type of control questions that would not only improve survey quality (which Chicago Council does at a basic level) but also ascertain whether respondents have been subjected to a propaganda or scare campaign that explains their most elevated but unfounded worries. In the case of Iran, the Israel lobby has been relentless in its campaign to pit Americans against Iran – and it has really paid off.

Although no credible Western intelligence agency believes Iran currently has nuclear weapons – a majority – 58.5 percent of Americans now do according to IRmep’s Google Consumer Survey.

Most polls dealing with Middle East policy would produce better results by giving American respondents some key facts and relevant data before asking hard questions. What many such polls most reveal is the sorry state of American news reporting and stunning success of Israel lobby propaganda campaigns.
Read more by Grant Smith

via Anti-War

Confused History-Fascism and Secession

As Mr. Benson underscores below, it’s the Quantity of government that the people will tolerate which determines individual liberties. The amount of freedom is bound by the people in a Form of government. Let’s not put our cart before our mule.

In essence, the message sent out by the southern states secession was to establish the same form of government, but separate from the usurpers of their liberties.

From all American historical perspectives Americans were happy under their Constitution. Thus, it will be determined by the people the method used to return to it. 

by Al Benson Jr.

The other night I ran across some sort of forum on the Internet, and one of the contributors to it asked the question: What if? Abraham Lincoln goes Fascist instead of socialist. At this point, I can’t recall what the entire forum was all about and I only printed off the one page that had that comment on it. The person who asked the question seemed willing to acknowledge that Mr. Lincoln could fall into the socialist camp, which is more than many are willing to do. 

But they also considered the possibility that he might end up in the Fascist camp. This might seem an interesting argument to some folks, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of those debating this possibility, but I do have a problem with their conclusions, in that, from my understanding of the political spectrum Fascism is not a rightist, but rather a leftist position–therefore it belongs over there on the left next to socialism and communism.

Fascism, like communism and/or socialism, is a system of collectivism and government control, thus it belongs on the left side of the political spectrum, not on the right. If you are going to view the entire political spectrum from left to right, then you need to place all political systems with total government on the left, and on the right are systems with no government–anarchy–where everyone does that which is right in his own eyes, and that, in a sense, is almost as bad as the leftist position, due to the fact that man is a sinner and, if left to his own devices, he will trample the rights of others for his own personal benefit. And so there needs to be some government, but again, because man is a sinner, the amount of government needs to be limited and defined as to exactly what government can and should do (protection of life and property) and what it is not permitted to do.
So, in a sense, wondering if Lincoln would have ended up as a socialist or a Fascist is almost like saying “Would Lincoln have ended up in socialist party A or socialist party B?” Many forget that the term Nazi stood for “National Socialist.” The main difference between fascists and socialists or communists was that the Fascists were more concerned (at least theoretically) with practicing their total control in a nationalist venue, whereas the communist/socialist had bigger plans and he wanted (and still wants) to do it all on an international scale. Had Lincoln chosen Fascism he would still have been a socialist, just a little different kind than those friends of his that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.
The same night, I also came across an informative article by Tom DiLorenzo, originally published on back in July of 2013. For those who may not know, Tom DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland and is the author of several books, among which are The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. 

In this article Professor DiLorenzo made several comments pertaining to the Declaration of Independence. He stated: “The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the ‘free and independent’ states, as they are called in the Declaration…If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.” 

Folks, I hate to have to say it, but that day has arrived, if only we will take our heads out of the sand and confront the sad fact. Ahhh, but it’s so much easier to just watch the Reality shows and tune all that nasty stuff out. And the Christians will agree and say “Well, we don’t need to worry about all that. The Lord will return anytime now (momentarily if not sooner) and rapture us all out of this mess so we don’t have to deal with it. We don’t have to get involved. After all, politics is a dirty business anyway.” The fact that it might be a little less dirty if Christians had stayed involved instead of tucking tail and running, is a concept that totally eludes them. But I’m getting carried away here with one of my main concerns–Christian couch potatoes.

Professor DiLorenzo continued: “This was the fundamental understanding of the Declaration of Independence–that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British Empire-…” We seem to have lost that concept today. People don’t even want to think about it. I’ve been taken to task for even saying it in some quarters.
Interestingly enough, Professor DiLorenzo quotes the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat

for January 11, 1861, where it said: “The founders of our government were constant secessionists. They not only claimed the right for themselves, but conceded it to others. They were not only secessionists in theory, but in practice.” Such an editorial would never make it into a newspaper today–it would be considered “politically incorrect” and the vast majority of newspapers in our day strictly adhere to political correctness (Cultural Marxism).
Also quoted by Professor DiLorenzo was an editorial from the Washington, D.C. States and Union newspaper for March 21, 1861, which said: “The people are the ruling judges, the States independent sovereigns. Where the people chose to change their political condition, as our own Declaration of Independence first promulgated, they have a right to do so. If the doctrine was good then, it is good now. Call that by whatever name you please, secession or revolution, it makes no sort of difference.”
And then DiLorenzo carefully noted: “This last sentence was in response to the Republican Party propaganda machine of the day that invented the theory that the Declaration allows for a ‘right of revoluton’ but not a right of ‘secession.’ The States and Union recognized immediately that this non-distinction was nothing more than a rhetorical flimflam designed to deceive the public about the meaning of their own Declaration of Independence. It is a piece of lying propaganda that is repeated to this day by apologists for the American welfare/’warfare’police state, especially the Lincoln-worshipping neocons at National Revue, the Claremont Institute, and other appendages of the Republican Party.”
That’s a pretty telling analysis of something that has been used since the days of “Father Abraham” right up to and including our day, when we are informed that we have a “right to revolution” but no right to secession. I’m sorry, but I have to consider that rationale to be a pile of high-grade cow chips.

Source revisedhistory

Ted Cruz: married to the establishment

If you consider yourself a Cruzer supporter watch where you step. If you think the “tea party” is your safe haven, you’ll be disappointed when you find out it’s just another appendage for GOP neocon leadership propaganda. 

The mouse trap is baited, don’t lunge for the cheese. Promise us all you’ll jump off a bridge after you support whom you thought was the ‘lesser of two evils’, when in fact there is no lesser! The Cruzer and an opponent  worship at other alters than you or me.

Good Fellas Blankfein, Goldman CEO and
Head Abortion Meister Buffett
During his CPAC speech this weekend, Senator Ted Cruz took shots at previous Republican presidential candidates Dole, McCain, and Romney, for lacking a “clear distinction” from big-government democrats. Well, I think Mr. Cruz has got some ‘splaining to do. It seems he’s just as married—literally—to the establishment as any of them.
A report from the ever-busy reveals that Cruz’s wife, Heidi, has some rather behemoth credentials:

Cruz’s insider connection is a family affair. His wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs vice president in Houston, Texas, according to her LinkedIn profile. She also served as an economic advisor for the Bush administration. In 2011, a Cruz campaign spokesman portrayed Heidi as “an expert on North American trade,” in other words she is savvy when it comes to globalist transnational trade deals like NAFTA, the single most destructive government move against the American worker in history.
She was also a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations (see her bio at Claremont McKenna College), a position that expired prior to her husband’s attack on the globalist organization.

The details come from a pagelisting Clermont-McKenna College’s Board of Advisors, on which Mrs. Cruz apparently served. In addition to being one of only three of W’s economic advisors,

She also served in the Administration as the economic director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council at the White House, advising the President and then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. She also is a former director at the U.S. Treasury Department and was special policy assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, then Chief U.S. international trade negotiator.

It also reveals that before Goldman Sachs, she worked for another tentacle of the vampire squid, JPMorgan, “focusing on international structured finance.”
None of this says “Tea Party,” “small government,” “sound money,” and contrary to Cruz’s latest pitch, it also does not much support “standing on principle”—unless that “principle” is fiat money, TARP bailouts, financing wars, revolving doors, etc.
Now perhaps Mrs. Cruz’s career is not representative of the Senator’s views. Or, if it is, perhaps the Senator has changed views in recent years. He did later blast the CFR, but that seems to have come only after his wife’s Term ended, and only when trying to present himself as a Tea Party candidate.
But Cruz has wasted no time showing us to his views. Only a day after falling a distant second behind Ran Paul (Paul 31%, Cruz only 11%) in the CPAC straw poll, Cruz took a swipe, albeit a weak one, at Paul. reports that despite being a “big fan” of Rand Paul, Cruz stated, “I don’t agree with him on foreign policy.”
There’s no doubt Paul is not an imperialist or a warmonger, but he has certainly deviated from his father’s uncompromising non-interventionism. When Fox News Sunday asked about his foreign policy, Paul answered,

I see my foreign policy in the same line as what came out of, probably, the first George Bush. Henry Kissinger wrote something in the Washington Post two days ago [here] which I agree with. I see it coming out of the mainstream of the Republican position.
I opposed with real fervor the involvement of us in Syria, and that became the dominant position in the country—both Republican and Democrat. There’s not one Republican who’s saying we should put military troops in Crimea, in the Ukraine. So I think I’m right in the middle of that position.
And I think that those who would try to argue that somehow I’m different than the mainstream Republican opinion are people who want to take advantage for their own personal political gain. I’m a great believer in Ronald Reagan. I’m a great believer in a strong national defense. . . .

It’s perhaps not surprising then that in his sideswipe at Paul, Cruz didn’t really give any real specifics, just vague sentimental references:

U.S. leadership is critical in the world. I agree we should be reluctant to deploy military force aboard, but there’s a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did. When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, when he stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and said ‘Tear down this wall.’ Those words changed the course of history. The United States has a responsibility to defend our values.

Of course, Paul seems to share all of these platitudes: who doesn’t believe in “defending our values”? Who doesn’t believe in “U.S. leadership”? So as criticisms these fall flat.

The real questions are things like, “Do we need 800 international military bases to accomplish this?” “Do we need to maintain military bases in 63 countries?” “Do we need standing armies of 255,000 soldiers in foreign countries?” “Can anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility and small government seriously maintain $680+ billions each year in ‘defense’ spending?” And this is all not even considering the biblical doctrines regard the military and war (Paul has hinted at some. Cruz has not, as far as I know).
Since Paul shares the views Cruz mentioned, it seems that Cruz is either uniformed (unlikely), dishonest (harsh), or is engaging in careless political volleys.
Consider the results of CPAC, the latter seems most likely.
In fairness, Cruz was asked about Paul by an interviewer, so he had no choice but answer. But his answer is vague grandstanding on things Paul agrees with.
So, if we are to believe that Cruz’s answer distinguishes him from Paul somehow, then he must have very different definitions of “U.S. leadership” and “defending our values” than those articulated by Paul. For Cruz, these must be euphemisms for “imperialism” and “interventionism.”
If Cruz’s familial associations—Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, W, CFR— are any indication, then I think we know the answer. I suspect there is, therefore, some truth in’s conclusion:

Like the domestication of the Tea Party and the expulsion of its more purist liberty-minded activists, the Cruz the warrior pitted against the establishment motif is another slick subversion directed at the political elite’s most puissant opposition – the real Tea Party and a threatening number of patriot activists gnawing at the edges of the political establishment.

If Cruz gets more prominent for the 2016 primary, I suspect there will be an attempt to scrub these associations.

Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan an appeaser. In the Middle East, Reagan strategically pulled back our forces after the tragedy in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 Marines, realizing the cost of American lives was too great for the mission.

Without a clearly defined mission, exit strategy or acceptable rationale for risking soldiers lives, Reagan possessed the leadership to reassess and readjust.

Today, we forget that some of the Republican hawks of his time criticized Reagan harshly for this too, again, calling him an appeaser. . . .

How many leaders were as great as Reagan, willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them and put their country before their own reputation and legacy?

Today’s Republicans should concentrate on establishing their own identities and agendas, as opposed to simply latching onto Ronald Reagan’s legacy—or worse, misrepresenting it.

Source AmericanVision

Koch Front Group Mails False Registration Information to Hundreds Of North Carolina Voters

By Jason Easley
PoliticusUSA, September, 26, 2014
Koch brothers front Americans For Prosperity is reaching into their bag of dirty tricks by sending hundreds of North Carolina voters and one cat incorrect voter registration information.
According to the Raleigh News & Observer:
Hundreds of North Carolinians – and one cat – have received incorrect voter registration information, according to the N.C. State Board of Elections. The information – an “official application form” – was sent by Americans for Prosperity, a national conservative group with a state chapter based in Raleigh.
Since then, hundreds of people who received the forms have called and complained to the State Board of Elections, said Joshua Lawson, a public information officer for the board.
“It’s unclear where (Americans for Prosperity) got their list, but it’s caused a lot of confusion for people in the state,” Lawson said. One resident even received a voter registration form addressed to her cat, he said.
In North Carolina, it is a felony to intentionally send out incorrect voter registration information. Americans For Prosperity is claiming that the incorrect info was a mistake, so no charges will be filed. What makes the actions of Americans For Prosperity suspicious is that the correct information is publicly available on the Board Of Elections website.
The letter that the Koch group sent gave voters the wrong office and zip code to send their information to. One of the great mysteries is how a house cat got on the Koch list. Trying to register a cat to vote Republican would take the Koch’s voter fraud efforts to a whole different level. Americans For Prosperity is either an incredibly sloppy organization or they were continuing the modern tradition of trying to help Republicans win by keeping as many voters away from the polls as possible. This isn’t the first time that Americans For Prosperity has made this “mistake.”
In 2011, the group pulled the same stunt during the Wisconsin recall elections. It is difficult to believe that they are making a mistake when AFP keeps doing it over and over again. Republicans aren’t doing as well as they thought they would in the polls, so it looks like the Koch brothers are reaching deeper into their bag of dirty tricks in an attempt to complete their purchase of the United States Senate.

via constatine report

Why Christians Are Criticizing Cruz-and Israel

What is there to add to the extremely rich vein of commentary elicited by Ted Cruz’s  shameless Israel lobby pandering at a Washington forum intended to call attention to the plight of Mideast Christians in the age of ISIS? The pieces by Ross Douthat, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and the several posts by Rod Dreher say a great deal of what needs to be said, making many points I would likely never have thought of.
One takeaway from the controversy, which continues to reverberate around the conservative blogosphere, is how many socially conservative/Christian/Republican-leaning thinkers have sensed, perhaps for the first time in their relatively young careers, how morally flawed is the entire Christian Zionist/McCainist/Commentary/Washington Free Beacon/Likudnik group, whose views have long driven “mainstream” conservative foreign-policy opinion in Congress and the GOP presidential primaries. 
I think this may grow into an important schism on the right, one that weakens neoconservatism, to the Republican Party’s long-term benefit. I don’t want to ascribe views to people who don’t necessarily have them, but when I see young conservatives reacting viscerally against the tweets from the Breitbart site and other movement conservatives, tweets putting scare quotes around the word “Christian” in order to denigrate the Mideast patriarchs and bishops and other figures who attended the gathering, attacking them because they failed some sort of “stand with Israel” litmus test, it feels like a kind of Kronstadt moment. This sentiment also comes when I see the disgust felt when Weekly Standard editor Lee Smith implies that Mideast Christians are simply a kind of ISIS lite. 
I witnessed personally a comparable repulsion a year or so ago, when an old friend, long a prudently neocon-friendly author and Wall Street Journal writer, reacted to the smearing of Chuck Hagel by the same group. It’s as if the Israel lobby has grown so accustomed to the deference accorded it by everyone else in the American political system, it has lost any sense of its own limits.
Still there are other points to be made. Several of Cruz’s critics responded as if the Mideast Christians who came to the gathering deserved a sort of indulgent understanding for their lack of enthusiasm for Cruz’s admonition that Israel is their greatest friend. 
It was sometimes noted as historical fact that most Palestinian Christians live under Israeli occupation, and that others were ethnically cleansed by Israel in 1948; that the Lebanese Christians had once been Israel’s allies, which had not worked out well for them: in other words, all these groups had understandable excuses for their chilliness towards Israel. These Christians are, according to this discourse, genuinely vulnerable—they can be forgiven for not loving Israel. But this argument—and there are elements of it in most of the conservative pieces which chastized Cruz—scants the fact that Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestine is also opposed, often quite publicly and with increasing energy, by ever growing numbers of non-Mideast Christians.
I wonder if Cruz would similarly walk out and denounce Pope Francis as an anti-Semite, considering the new Pope visited the Holy Land and expressed his wishes for dignity and freedom for both Israelis and Palestinians and said a prayer outside the Israeli wall that severs Bethlehem from neighboring Jerusalem and has largely rendered the town of Jesus’s birth a walled off ghetto. (The Israeli right went into conniptions about the Pope’s visit, with the incomparable Caroline Glick accusing the Pope of licensing “Holocaust denial” by his prayer at the Bethlehem separation wall.) If there is an argument that the Pope, with his stand in support of peace and dignity for both peoples in the Holy Land, is some kind of outlier among Catholics, I have not yet heard it.

Finish reading

Neo-Con Republicans Make Pilgrimage to Vegas to Kiss the Ring of Oligarch Sheldon Adelson

Chris Christie, Sheldon Adelson and Jeb Bush are pictured in this composite. Republican hopefuls are appearing in Vegas in part to court . (

Posted on April 1, 2014

Oligarchs are ruining America. They are ruining the economy through their rampant theft and corporate welfare handouts. They are ruining our social structure with their billions used to buy and sell politicians as well as entire Presidential elections. They represent an existential threat to the Republic and the cancer needs to be addressed at once.
Oligarchs now control both phony political parties. On the Democratic side, we have Warren “tax loophole” Buffett and George Soros. On the Republican side, we must become increasingly aware of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who boasts an estimated net worth of around $37 billion.
For those still daydreaming that the GOP may nominate a more libertarian-leaning candidate in 2016, rather than the typical big government, warmongering neo-con, the biggest obstacle in your way is Sheldon Adelson and his billions. This threat was on clear display this past weekend in Vegas when Chris Christie, Paul Walker and Jeb Bush all made the pilgrimage to “kiss his ring.”
The serious threat to our political system posed by Adelson was covered by both “left-leaning” and “right-leaning” commentators (although I hate those terms). First, Juan Cole writes at Bill Moyers that:
A series of pro-corporation Supreme Court decisions and the latter’s disingenuous equation of money with speech, including Citizens United, have turned the United States from a democracy to a plutocracy. It is not even a transparent plutocracy, since black money (of unknown provenance) has been allowed by SCOTUS to flood into elections. These developments are not only deadly to democracy, they threaten our security. It is increasingly difficult to exclude foreign money from US political donations. We not only come to be ruled by the billionaires, but even by foreign billionaires with foreign rather than American interests at heart.
The perniciousness of this growing plutocracy was on full display on Saturday, as GOP governors Scott Walker, Chris Christie and John Kasich trekked off to Las Vegas in an attempt to attract hundreds of millions in campaign donations from sleazy casino lord Sheldon Adelson. 

Since Adelson is allegedly worth $37 billion, he could fund the Republican side of a presidential election (which costs $1 billion) all by himself. In the last presidential election he is said to have donated $100 million.
One important thing he thing he failed to mention was that Jeb Bush was also there, featuring prominently at a private dinner with Adelson and others.
The case of Adelson exhibits all these issues of corruption and eccentricity. Much of his current fortune is recent and derives from the Macao casino, and Adelson has admitted to “likely” breaking Federal rules against using bribes to do business in other countries. (A reference to allegations that his company was involved in rewarding legislators of the Chinese Communist Party for supporting his Macao project.) There was a time when this admission alone would put the donor off limits for mainstream politicians.
Adelson has a right to vote and advocate for his candidates. But the idea that he and his like should choose the next president is too awful to contemplate. One person, one vote isn’t one person, $100 million worth of votes. That isn’t democracy…
CBS has also chimed in with some interesting commentary:
Both Christie and Bush are cut from the same mainstream Republican cloth: well liked by the donor class and viewed suspiciously by conservative activists. If they both compete in 2016 — and to be clear, neither has decided on a bid — they’ll be fighting for the roughly same slice of the Republican pie, and perhaps more importantly, many of the same donors.
But as Christie stumbled, Bush soared. The former governor was feted at a private dinner on Thursday to kick off the weekend. The dinner was held at Adelson’s private airplane hangar.
Bush delivered brief remarks at the dinner, and after one attendee urged him to run for president, the crowd of donors burst into applause, according to a report in the Washington Post.
That report described how many of the GOP’s top money men are giving Jeb Bush a fresh look in light of Christie’s recent struggles.
“He’s the most desired candidate out there,” Brian Ballard, a prominent bundler for both John McCain and Mitt Romney, told the Post. 
“Everybody that I know is excited about it.”
Finally, conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan notes:
Victor Chaltiel, a major donor and Adelson friend who sits on the board of Las Vegas Sands, tells us Sheldon “doesn’t want a crazy extremist to be the nominee.” Adds Shawn Steel, a big California GOP money man, Sheldon is a “very rational guy.”
Perhaps. But last fall at Yeshiva University, this “very rational guy” gave this response to a question from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on whether he supports U.S. negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program:
“No. What do you mean support negotiations? What are we going to negotiate about? What I would say is, ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ … You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’
“So, there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.
“And then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.
Those are the words of the guy who is likely to determine the Republican Presidential nominee.
It’s incredibly disturbing that what we may end up with is another Bush running for the White House in 2016. Meanwhile, we all know Hilary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Of the hundreds of millions of Americans, why must we stick to two families (let’s not forget how Jeb Bush presented the “Liberty Medal” to Hillary Clinton last summer).
Face it, America today is far more similar to feudalism than a democracy or a republic.
It’s well past time we rein in the oligarchs.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger


A Must Read: The Lord is in Control, So Don’t Worry (and above all, don’t DO anything)

 “The Neutralizers” subverting the Christian South: Evangelists Glenn Beck, John Hagee, Dave Barton

by Al Benson Jr.

There seems to be a mindset in the evangelical community today, (though it’s not really new, it’s been there for 150 years) which, to me, seems like the great neutralizer of the church. It seems to be most prevalent in those you could wish would be more active and concerned, but are not. They seem to be possessed of the concept that if God is in control of all things, which He is, then there are some areas where believers just don’t need to get involved.
Should you become involved in one of these “forbidden” areas they will question you about any comments you happen to make. The question they usually start out with is “Do you believe God is in control of all things?” If you answer “yes” to that they will bombard you, almost immediately with the next question which will be “Then what are you so upset about?” 

The result of this is, in many cases, to shut down your complaint so you will feel a bit foolish trying to carry it any further, especially if you are in a group setting, and at that point, you are supposed to quietly bow out and allow the discussion to return to such important topics as “personal holiness.” 

Why discuss politics, education, the state of the culture or anything along those lines when you can just ignore all that and dwell on personal holiness? This somehow becomes the end-all of all discussion. It all amounts to personal holiness (pietism) and nothing else. I can’t count the times I have had this done to me and I am sure most of the folks that have done it were not real happy with me, because I refused to play the game and shut up.

Let me state here, before someone jumps up screaming, that I am not opposed to personal holiness. The Scriptures enjoin us to seek to live holy lives, to treat others as we would be treated, and, realizing we simply cannot do that in our own strength, we must admit that we need a Savior  who has already done all this perfectly for us and now sits at the right hand of God, Jesus, the God-man.

Along with this, at least for those of us in Reformed circles, there should come a certain outlook, a certain worldview if you will. Part of that worldview is that God is very concerned with what goes on here on earth and He wants His people to be concerned about it also. We are not just supposed to “get saved so we can go to Heaven” and that’s all there is.  Since “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” I believe He wants us to be concerned about all areas of life–education, culture, art, music, –and the most dreaded of all for Christians–politics. God wants His people to be involved in what is happening in the world. He wants them to be concerned about it and He wants them to be knowledgeable about it. We are not just supposed to be so concerned with our own personal holiness that we let the world go to hell.

Many of our problems in this country today, along with our lack of repentance, are present just because Christians don’t want to be bothered. It’s really too much trouble to learn about a problem and why it exists, so why bother? If the Lord is in control, He’ll take care of it all, so I don’t need to do anything about it, or know anything about it. All I have to do is “trust God” and go on my merry way. Oh, there is one other thing I must do. Should someone come along that points out a particular problem, I need to try to keep their comments to a bare minimum so no one really gets shook up over this (especially me)!

The evangelical protests against any action at all run the gamut from “If God’s in control why worry about it” to “You’re not showing much love talking about all this stuff.” The idea being that if your were just a little more “loving” you would be content to give evil politicians or public school “change agents” a pass. The novel concept that Christians could also be “loving” by seeking to expose evil has never occurred to them, and probably won’t, as long as they can keep those who question what goes on quiet enough.

Many of these are the same folks that tell you that Romans 13 means that you must give unquestioning obedience to whatever government, at any level, wants to do. Government has the “authority” so you just cave in. After all, it’s what they do.The concept that governments are responsible to God, and that, under God, their authority is limited, is something that never seems to occur to them. It’s lots easier just to knuckle under than it is to find out what government has the legitimate authority to do or to require of you and what it does not. No one questions that where government performs its God-given functions it should be obeyed.  

Dave Barton at the RNC in Philadelphia, 2000

I am not preaching anarchy here. But what’s to be done when government starts usurping functions it has no right to? That’s another question–and one many in the evangelical community would prefer not to have to deal with–so just do whatever they tell you to do and shut up–after all, it is the government. I wonder how many Christians realize that in taking such an attitude what they are doing is reauthorizing the “divine right of kings” (or presidents) to do whatever they want.

This mindset, carried to its logical conclusion in this country, would leave us still as subjects of Great Britain and that Christian patriot, Patrick Henry, would never have gotten to say “give me liberty or give me death.” Or better yet, would Martin Luther have even dared to nail up his 95 theses on the door of the cathedral? After all, the Pope might not have liked it. Once you allow any government, church government or civil government unrestrained power they will do whatever they want, no matter how evil, until they are resisted.

Our current regime tells us we are being forced to buy “health care” and it has performed, along with the regimes before it, many unconstitutional actions.  The usual evangelical response to this is “God’s in control, so what are you upset about?”
The thought comes to mind that, possibly, God has allowed some of what has happened to occur in order to provoke a response from His people–repentance, yes, but also resistance to evil.  And the response for most of the church today is still “Hey, the Lord’s in control, just don’t worry about any of this (and certainly don’t ever try to DO anything about any of it).” And some tend to look down their noses at you for being such a cretin as to even dare to bring up some of these things. You’re just supposed to be silent, cave in to tyranny, all the time seeking more “personal holiness.”

Another thing we (are supposed to learn) in Reformed circles is that God works in history and that He is often please to use “means” (people) to do some of what He wants done. You can ask, what would have happened to the kids in public schools in West Virginia 40 years ago if their parents had not risen up and fought the corrupt school system and the rotten books it tried to foist on the kids? Would those kids have been better off if their Christian parents had just practiced “personal piety” and said nothing about the horrible textbooks? You know the answer to that one.

What if the Lord decides to use people to upset evil politicians, corrupt “educators” and others who do what they shouldn’t? Oh, I know, we don’t discuss all that. That’s not a debatable topic. That might require getting involved and learning something new, and we’re not sure we’re ready for that, so throttle the one who makes such an absurd suggestion and let’s all get back to personal pietism.

Now you might think I sound a little ticked at some of my fellow believers for their almost total lack of response in areas I feel they ought to be concerned about. You’d probably be somewhat correct in that assumption. I’ve been listening to evangelical responses in some areas for almost four decades, and most of it boils down to “Why are you telling us about the current Marxist in the White House when, in love, we should just be ignoring what he is doing to the country and loving him?” I often wonder if many evangelicals have ever (probably not) come up with the possible thought that “loving” whoever the current occupant of the Oval Office is might just entail exposing some of what he is doing and calling him to repentance for it. And this doesn’t just apply to whoever is currently the president, or the governor, or the head of the local school board.

After all, they don’t call Washington “Sodom on the Potomac” for nothing, and the same thing could probably be said for a number of state capitals.

As long as we continue to play the “just love ‘em and don’t get upset over anything” game, nothing will change.  The country will be judged and go down the tubes and the church will be judged also. What about the possibility that the Lord would like a response from His people to what is happening, and He’s not getting it?

SOURCE revisedhistory

US Officials Demanded a 30 Billion Dollars Bribe

Author: Gordon Duff

0980875A day after former Republican Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell and his wife were convicted of 20 counts of bribery and influence peddling, former Republican Tennessee governor Don Sundquist and South Dakota Senator Sheldon Songstad may face, not just the largest bribery charge in world history but indictment for conspiracy to murder as well.
What is amazing about this case is the amount of money involved, totaling $9.5 trillion US dollars, in fact the entire GNP of the United States for several years. Sundquist and Songstad, wanted $30 billion out of the proceeds to pay themselves along with congress, the US Treasury Department, 5 Supreme Court justices and two former US presidents.
Best of all, the whole thing is on tape, a “shakedown” attempt against Ambassador Lee Wanta, former White House intelligence chief under President Ronald Reagan and editor at Veterans Today.
Sundquist and Songstad left, on a recording at Wanta’s embassy, full details, not only of their ability to virtually buy the entire US government and deliver a multi-trillion dollar settlement authorized to Wanta by the US Supreme Court, but were recorded making arrangements for the murder of Wanta as well.
As American humorist, Jim W. Dean so often says, “You just can’t make things like this up.”
The recording was forwarded to the US Department of Justice yesterday and a copy presented to President Obama.
During the 1980s, Lee Wanta was brought into the White House as the first National Intelligence Coordinator. He was tasked by President Reagan and CIA Director William Colby to destabilize the Soviet Union through establishment, with funds from the US Treasury, of a worldwide currency trading scheme.
Wanta, with the help of Reagan, amassed a fortune of $27 trillion, funds earmarked by Reagan to pay America’s national debt, restore the nation’s infrastructure and fund a world free of debt based currencies.
However, after Reagan left office and George H.W. Bush assumed the Presidency, Wanta was kidnapped and imprisoned in Switzerland, transferred to an American prison where he was held without due process for years and the money disappeared, taken by the Bush family.
The rest is history, stolen elections, 9/11, war upon war, and a world that has descended into crashing debt with nearly every currency floating on “air,” derivatives and a sea of Rothschild debt.
Wanta’s story is soon to be featured in a Hollywood film currently under production.
The Fixers
Nobody has heard of Sheldon Songstad, who with former congressman and governor, Don Sundquist, admit demanding a $30 billion dollar bribe from Wanta in order to compel the Supreme Court to issue a pay order on Wanta’s personal funds, based on the case he won, $4.5 trillion plus interest, totaling $9.5 trillion.
This would make Lee Wanta personally the wealthiest nation on earth. While this case has dragged on through the courts, thoroughly and carefully documented, Wanta friends and advisors, many former intelligence officers, including the author, have worked to keep him secure.
The recording of Songstad and Sundquist, 6.01 minutes, was aired on radio yesterday with commentary by Lee Wanta, on the Veterans Today Radio Network to over two million listeners.
The audience heard Sundquist describe how they would settle for as little as $5 billion, as a “retirement nest egg” and how, if Wanta fails to pay, they would arrange for his murder.
Current US Senator Bob Corker, Republican from Tennessee had been on a conference call earlier that included Sheldon Songstad, telling Wanta that his funds would be paid.
In fact, a majority of members of congress including almost all Republicans and many Democrats were to receive shares of the Wanta “payoff.” What had angered so many of them and had precipitated the death threat is Wanta’s statement to all of them that he would file Federal Income Tax Form 1099’s to accompany all payments. This would identify, as required by law, where money went and what services were paid for.
Were Wanta murdered to stop that process, it would require control of not only the Department of Internal Revenue but Treasury as well, to suppress the existence of these documents that would eventually lead to the imprisonment of almost the entire US government.
Beyond Idiocy
As the radio audience listened on, the two Republican Party political “fixers” made several things very clear. The US government was entirely “up for sale” and that they had the connections to arrange for the purchase.
What was amazing is that these two, after phoning Wanta and getting the recording notice on the line, assumed their conference call was private, paying no attention to the fact that the recording continued on while they confessed to what legal experts have identified as dozens of crimes and laid out a trail of bribery and corruption that crosses nearly every level of government, every court and over a hundred of Americas’ highest elected officials.
Shadow Government
This conspiracy involves, at its heart, politicians who have long advocated cuts in public health and education, in veterans benefits, lowering of wages, infringement of individual rights while supporting America’s wars.
These are also politicians at the heart of the Israel lobby in Washington.
According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Governor Sundquist is a close friend of Israel:
“- 1996: Gov. Don Sundquist signed the Tennessee-Israel Cooperation Agreement to promote cooperation between the two countries in trade, arts, culture, education, tourism and university/industry alliances.”
What is made clear is that the United States is far more a criminal organization than a nation. Those who don’t understand how America can say one thing and, with amazing consistency, do something else, often something totally bereft of moral responsibility, I think we may well have made the reasons abundantly clear.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.