Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

On the 2012 presidential election night broadcast of Infowars, Alex Jones interviewed Paul Craig Roberts.

Starting at 2:20, Paul Craig Roberts started to make a serious point about Romney’s overt Zionist grovelling:

Paul Craig Roberts: If you look at the two of them, the only other difference is that Romney has already been to Israel, crawling on his belly, grovelling. And supposedly we’re a super power, but here is a man who wants to be president, and he’s crawling on his belly in the ground, kissing Netanyahu’s feet. Well at least Obama had more dignity than to do that.

Alex Jones: He only bows to the Saudi king. Perhaps Romney should publicly kiss Netanyahu’s butt, and then, and then, then he can be elected. Maybe that’s the new swearing in — it’s not a Bible — but Netanyahu bends over, and then, I’m sorry, you shouldn’t have got me going there.

Alex, you’re not even trying to hide your Zionist sympathies these days in diverting attention away from Roberts’ serious point by making a joke. In case you think this was just an innocent joke, here is the picture on the Infowars site the day after, with Obama dressed like Hitler, which resonates very well with his Zionist promoters.

For more, see my articles:

1) Still don’t think Alex Jones is gatekeeping for the Zionists?

2) Still don’t think Zionists run America?

Read Full Post »

Alex JonesOn the June 8, 2012 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex Jones said (at 14:15):

I’m not gonna sit by and be told I’ve got to worship Mitt Romney. It ain’t happening. And it’s not that I love Obama. It’s just that this trick has worn out here.

Yet, during Occupy Bilderberg 2012, when Alex Jones interviewed regular guest and fellow GCN talk show host, Webster Tarpley, he asked him, in response to hearing enough of his criticism of Ron Paul (at 9:37):

So Obama’s gonna save us?

Just a week later, Alex Jones admitted to using an establishment trick, when he tried to pigeonhole Tarpley as a supporter of the other party’s establishment-approved candidate.

His question was all the more ridiculous, since he knew very well that Tarpley had written the book, “Obama: The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate,” and was not even remotely a supporter of Obama.

As I mentioned in my article, Alex Jones engaged in childish behaviour for the next 10 minutes because he didn’t like what Tarpley was saying, and a week later, indirectly admitted to using an establishment trick on Tarpley.

Read Full Post »

English: Alex Jones outside Bilderberg meeting...Those who have made good faith criticisms of Alex Jones in the same way that Alex Jones himself makes good faith criticisms of those more popular than himself — like Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh — are accused of being jealous of his success and of dividing the movement.

As I pointed out in a previous article, by that logic, Alex Jones’ criticism of Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh is motivated by his jealousy of their success because they are more popular than he is.

It shows how phony that retort has always been, and how it betrays an uncritical devotion to a personality as opposed to an uncompromising search for truth.

Now that Alex Jones has rightly come out and criticized Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney as a “betrayal,” and asked Ron Paul to account for his presidential campaign decisions, those Alex Jones supporters who criticize others for questioning the statements and actions of prominent figures in the liberty community as “dividing the movement” are mostly silent about Alex Jones having done that, as one will see from perusing the comments at Infowars.com.

Here were Alex Jones’ strong words for Ron Paul:

1:11: “taking wind out of your own sails — and out of our sails

1:24: “What did you expect to happen from this? Well, you’re very politically smart — you knew it would blow up in your face, and I have to tell you — I am not going to go down on the Ron Paul ship. If you don’t come out and explain yourself to your constituents and supporters, this is going to spread like a cancer…

6:11: “I’m ashamed that I didn’t listen to the voices warning me in the last six months, and pointing out this trail of many betrayals that we’ve been witnessing leading up to this larger betrayal.

6:50: “And to watch you mortally wounding the movement you helped build is very, very sad.

The Alex Jones double standard-bearers are those who took exception with those making legitimate criticisms of Rand and Ron Paul prior to Alex Jones taking them to task. It was “dividing the movement” to ask, as I did, whether Ron Paul will throw 9/11 Truth under the bus again, like he did in 2012, with negative comments on my post on RonPaulForums.com like, “truthers is why we lost last time also. go the f***[edited] away.”

As Alex Jones himself said, he should’ve heeded the words of those warning him since the end of 2011 that things weren’t right with the campaign.

I was aware of this before Rand’s endorsement, and wrote the May 16, 2012 article, Dr. Stan Monteith: “I’m sure that they’ve infiltrated and neutralized Ron Paul’s political candidacy,” and the May 31 article, Was Ron Paul’s 2012 Republican presidential nomination campaign sabotaged from within?

And there was my 2009 prediction that Rand Paul wouldn’t be a constitutional candidate, despite Infowars.com automatically flagging my comment for moderation on an article claiming he was a constitutional candidate at the time.

Now let’s see if any prominent alternative media personality criticizes Alex Jones the way he criticized Ron Paul and isn’t raked over the coals by the Alex Jones double standard-bearers.

Read Full Post »

Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY).

Senator Rand Paul’s June 7, 2012 endorsement of Mitt Romney for President in 2012 came as no surprise to me, as I predicted as far back as 2009 that he wouldn’t be a constitutional candidate for the U.S. Senate, and my unpopular prediction was further vindicated with this endorsement, so why are so many others surprised by his decision?

On December 31, 2010, I wrote the article, The U.S. Senate regularly violates the law, about my shocking discovery that U.S. Senators were regularly conducting business and passing legislation without the constitutionally mandated quorum of a majority of Senators in order to conduct business.

In it, I responded with a January 9, 2011 comment about my assessment of Senator Rand Paul:

If Rand doesn’t know about that requirement and his duty regarding it, then he’s already no constitutional candidate in my books.

I stopped regarding him as a constitutional candidate once he came out with this November 2009 press release:

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

If you read his words carefully, there is the possibility that it was a clever attempt to fool “law and order” conservatives into voting for him, so long as he has accepted being a one-term Senator in actually standing for the Constitution in this matter.

However, I suspect he meant it the way I first read it, whereby he regards the Constitution and Bill of Rights irrelevant to foreign “terrorists,” despite the Constitution being a contract between the people and their government, which defined the government’s powers and limits, including its dealings with foreigners.

Read Full Post »

Fail

On the eve of the January 10, 2012 New Hampshire Republican primary, former Bush chief strategist, Matthew Dowd, made an outrageously bogus “prediction” on the Charlie Rose Show. At 4:01, he declared:

I think Huntsman may finish second.

Even Charlie Rose, holder of the Triple Crown of membership in subversive globalist institutions (Bilderberg, Trilateral and Bohemian Grove), expressed shock at Dowd’s “prediction.”

I think Dowd understands human nature very well, and that regardless of what small impact he can have, he knows that people want to vote for a winner, and in casting an anti-Romney vote, the goal of the establishment is to have anyone but Ron Paul fit that bill.

Huntsman ended up coming in behind Ron Paul, as even Charlie Rose dared not imagine otherwise, and, Matthew Dowd — you are the presumptive nominee for the most bogus political prediction of 2012 award.

Read Full Post »

hatrickpenry

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

Recovering Austrians

Supporting recovering Austrian Economics addicts and their families

Real Currencies

Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 527 other followers