- We live in a fractured society pitting a few million
ideologically savvy people against a growing majority of ill-informed voters
whose ideas are manipulated by the media. Almost all voters are dissatisfied
with the status quo, but often for the wrong reasons. The majority keeps
being lured away from limited government by the promise of greater federal
health and education benefits as if that were the solution to galloping
inflation. In fact, it is the problem-not the solution.
- Predictably, they always vote for change, but change
never comes. This is because we are rarely presented with a candidate who
understands the totality of change necessary. When a candidate like Ron
Paul emerges, who really understands the problems and proposes the inevitable
tough solutions, he is labeled as a kook, or extremist,...but mostly ignored.
About 2-5% of the nation is able to see through it all, but as we found
out in the New Hampshire primary, it's not enough to overtake the momentum
of ignorance within the majority. The system is rigged for secrecy, and
takes advantage of the average American's dependence upon the half-truths
and distortions we are fed by the establishment media, public education
and conventional political theory. Thus, the typical voter holds an almost
infinite variety of ignorant and irrational ideas about both cause and
effect of our national crises and thus becomes easy prey to false solutions
and media manipulation. We saw all these things play out in New Hampshire
this week, including some last minute media manipulation and vote fraud--signs
that the Powers That Be (PTB) are having to scramble to control this race.
- If the establish media does its job right and if the
power brokers have selected an electable candidate (with name recognition,
charisma, and lack of principles sufficient to follow orders), the election
is usually a done deal by the time the early primaries are finished. The
anointed ones from each party are designated "front runners"
before the primaries and that is usually enough to sway the voters of the
first few primaries to ratify that view. Then the media declare the respective
winners as "unstoppable" --having a "mandate from the people."
- This kind of manipulation is possible because, in the
absence of accurate knowledge and solid reasoning, a significant amount
of swing voters tend to follow whoever is perceived to be winning (within
their general political proclivity--liberal or conservative). Only a small
percentage of dedicated liberals on the Left and constitutional conservatives
on the Right understand the actual criteria behind their choices and make
decisions based upon that analysis. Only this small percentage of Americans
are highly resistant to media bias. Mainstream, soft thinking liberals
and conservatives are easily swayed to some extent because they don't have
a good concept of the details either in perception or analysis which would
allow them to see contradictions in what is presented to them.
- The proof of this sloppy perception and contradictory
reasoning among voters was found in a detailed analysis of those who voted
for John McCain this week. Incredibly, John "the surge" McCain
got a large percentage of votes from those who oppose the war. McCain is
the biggest supporter of the war in Iraq. Even more amazing, he got a majority
of his votes from those who don't like Bush, even though McCain is a solid
supporter of President Bush. McCain even got thousands of votes from people
who were against illegal immigration and President Bush's amnesty proposals--which
McCain has always supported. What were these people thinking? He also got
a lot of votes from those who support abortion even though McCain claims
to be pro-life. Perhaps, in this case, they correctly noted his support
for life was only token support. In practice he always says he opposes
the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.
- If these voters had exercised even a pittance of rational
analysis, they would have selected Ron Paul, the only candidate who is
consistently pro-life, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-NWO, anti-North American
Union, and deficit spending and has the votes in Congress to prove that
it's not just rhetoric. Why then do they not vote for someone imminently
qualified that matches their major positions on the issues?
- I find it hard to believe they didn't know of Ron Paul,
even with the media blackout. Perhaps they were swayed by a combination
of propaganda that "Ron Paul can't win" (a kind of self-fulfilling
media prophecy, when Paul is denied coverage), and a flurry of reactionary
hate Romney sentiment--carefully portrayed as "got to vote for McCain."
Some of the independents voted for McCain because they still perceived
him as the competitor of Bush as in the 2004 primary (which McCain won)
which is bad thinking and equally bad perception. Even if they had only
followed the establishment news this past year they would have seen that
McCain was and still is in lock step with the Bush administration.
- Lastly, many surely reacted positively to the swarm of
newspaper endorsements for McCain that came out of nowhere in a strangely
unanimous boost for McCain, and no one else--even as his campaign was moribund
and dying. This was bandwagon politics creating an artificial surge, and
it worked. The miraculous "comeback" of John McCain was pure
manipulation. Naturally, funding to his campaign by major corporations
has also "miraculously" come back out of nowhere to give McCain
new millions to spend for promotion.
- The establishment push for Huckabee in Iowa was done
strictly to defeat Romney--not because they like this evangelical populist
(even though he did do everything his liberal advisors induced him to do
as governor of Arkansas). Huckabee is not electable nationwide and will
soon be discarded by the promoters.
- What is also hypocritical (but not unexpected), is that
the media has NOT picked up on the "Swift Boat" type of attacks
on McCain that are swarming the internet. The media is obviously protecting
McCain's phony "war hero" reputation from the attacks of his
fellow veterans and POWs who charge McCain with collaborating with the
enemy in prison and refusing to support the breaking of our own government's
veil of secrecy surrounding America's abandonment of the POW/MIAs in Southeast
Asia after the Vietnam War. In the 2004 election, Vietnam Swift Boat veterans
attacked John Kerry's claims to heroism in that war, with devastating effect--thanks
to the Media making it a huge issue. In contrary manner, they are choosing
not to give a voice to McCain's detractors. The media promoted the attack
on Kerry in 2004 because the establishment had ordained Bush to win and
needed to undermine the appeal of Kerry.
- While McCain is being positioned as the new front runner,
don't count Rudy Giuliani out just yet. This former Time "Man of the
Year" (for being complicit in the 9/11 cover-up) is still the one
they want--despite the growing public knowledge about his links to corruption.
McCain is being pushed forward (for now) as insurance in case Giuliani
is not able to pull out a major victory in Florida and/or Super Tuesday.
If Giuliani fails to win in those primaries, he will not survive the cut.
They want McCain to inherit front runner status rather than Romney.
- For some reason the establishment is dead set against
Romney, even though Romney has surrounded himself with conventional Republican
political hacks and even one very bad globalist "security" advisor
(Coffer Black of Blackwater fame). But he isn't the only one. Here is the
listing of all the globalist advisors controlling each of the mainstream
candidates' campaigns, courtesy of the Washington Post. Negative commentary
added is mine.
- John McCain: Henry Kissinger; Richard Armitage, former
deputy secretary of state, covert CIA drug pipeline manager and Bush family
ally; Robert McFarlane, Reagan/Bush national security adviser, Iran-Contra
scandal; William Kristol, arch neocon editor of The Weekly Standard; Alexander
Haig, Reagan/Bush secretary of state; George Shultz, Reagan/Bush secretary
of state, Hoover Institution, Bechtel exec., "kingmaker" responsible
for the vetting of George W. Bush prior to recommending him to the establishment
for president; Brent Scowcroft, Kissinger associate and national security
advisor to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush; James Woolsey, former
CIA director; Lawrence Eagleburger, Sec. of State under Bush 41; William
Ball, diplomat and Reagan administration Sec. of Navy; Colin Powell, Sec
of State under Bush and Army officer who helped cover up the Mai Lai massacre
- Barack Obama: Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security
advisor and handler of Pres. Carter; Anthony Lake, Clinton administration
national security adviser and president's handler; Sarah Sewall, Clinton
administration deputy secretary of defense, counter-insurgency czar; Richard
Clarke, Clinton and Bush administration counter-terrorism expert; Susan
Rice, Clinton administration Africa specialist and NSC member of globalist
Brookings Institution; Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer, NSC Near East
and Asian affairs at Brookings.
- Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton; Madeline Albright, Clinton
administration secretary of state responsible for the globalist intervention
in the Balkans; Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security adviser and handler;
Richard Holbrooke, UN ambassador; Gen. Wesley Clark, handled the attack
on Serbia/Kosovo; Leslie Gelb, arch globalist on the Council on Foreign
Relations, former State and Defense Department official; Martin Indyk,
Clinton administration Israel ambassador, Brookings Inst.; Strobe Talbott,
second Clinton handler, and Deputy Sec. of State, creator of Caspian oil
group, Brookings Inst.; Jeffrey Smith, former CIA general counsel.
- Rudy Giuliani: Kim Holmes, former George W. Bush assistant
secretary of state; Louis Freeh, former FBI director; Stephen Yates, former
deputy assistant to Dick Cheney; Norman Podhoretz, neocon leader at Hudson
Institute; Kenneth Weinstein, also of Hudson Inst.; various other neocon
advisors from the globalist Hoover Institution and other neo-con institutions
too numerous to list.
- Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has not been forthcoming about
his advisors, but what the Post reveals is quite enough: Ed Rollins, Republican
political operative sent in to salvage Huckabee's campaign just prior to
the national media boost; Frank Gaffney, neocon at CFR and Center for Security
- John Edwards: Barry Blechman, Jimmy Carter assistant
director of US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, founder and chairman
of the Henry L. Stimson Center; Irving Blickstein, former assistant deputy
chief of Naval operations, RAND Corporation (reportedly a CIA front);
- Mitt Romney: Coffer Black, former CIA and George W. Bush
state department counter-terrorism officer, vice president of Blackwater
USA; Alberto Cardenas, lobbyist and former chairman of Florida Republican
party; Roger Noriega, George W. Bush assistant secretary for Western hemisphere
affairs; Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R, Mich.), ranking member, House Intelligence
- You can tell by the depth of globalist advisors who is
really in the establishment camp. Huckabee, Edwards and Romney have the
fewest. McCain, Clinton and Giuliani have the most and the worst. Obama
has the holdovers from the Carter administration-another indication that
he may not be the globalists' intended winner.
- Because of his mainstream advisors, Romney's positions
are in general alignment with the Bush administration, so why isn't he
acceptable to the establishment. Certainly, they don't care about his religion.
Because Romney is not an insider like Giuliani and McCain, they fear that
they would have another Reagan on their hands if he got the nomination--someone
they would have to manipulate to work around his basic conservative values,
as they did Reagan. Lest any of you still harbor the misconception that
Reagan was a strong ideological conservative, let me set the record straight.
Reagan did have basic conservative ideals, but he had a bad habit of compromising
those ideals in order to get legislation passed in a Democratic controlled
Congress. His record as Governor of California was one of many unwise compromises,
which carried forward into his presidency. Still he wasn't a conspiring
globalist and so they had to work hard to control him. He was much more
compliant after the assassination attempt by CIA patsy John Hinkley Jr.
- Even though, like Reagon, Romney isn't a knowing conspirator,
he is trying so hard to gain the acceptance of the establishment, that
his policies end up supporting globalist goals. That's what happens to
good men who choose to remain ignorant of conspiracy theories and facts.
Romney is, however, much sharper intellectually than Reagan (who could
rarely recognize when a speech given to a religious conservative audience
on one night was in contradiction to another speech he would give the next
day to a liberal audience). Romney is an "in charge" professional
who can write his own speeches and is capable of taking a 180 degree turn
if he sees something wrong. That's what they fear, and it is obvious by
the barrage of negative press and opinion Romney is getting from the pundits
that the word is out to "kill Romney's bid." That's not easy
to do, however, given Romney's wealth and ability to fund his own campaign.
- I think the establishment strategy is to hit Romney hard
enough with bad press in the early primaries to get him to quit the race
before the convention. For example, the media keeps taking shots at Romney
claiming, "people don't trust him." Well, a lot of people don't
trust McCain or Giuliani either, but the media doesn't make an issue of
that. It is obvious they are only targeting Romney, trying to counter his
natural likeability. That's also why the media keeps bringing up the anti-Mormon
bias of the evangelical Christians, a sad commentary on our nation's state
of intolerance for other denominations' sincerely held beliefs.
- World Affairs Brief, January 11, 2008.
- Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.
- Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution
- Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com