Is Wikileaks an Extension of Russian Intelligence? Of Still Intact Communist Networks?

January 26, 2012 Leave a comment

According to Trevor Loudon, it may well be!


Is WikiLeaks biased against the West and the US in particular? This news item would tend to indicate so.

Julian Assange

According to Christian Science monitor Moscow correspondent Fred Weir, Kremlin funded media outlet Russia Today, is to hire WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. This despite the fact that Assange remains under house arrest in Britain, awaiting a Supreme Court decision on his extradition to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations.

According to Weir:

WikiLeaks founder and controversy magnet Julian Assange has been driven off the Internet, deprived of funding and placed under house arrest. Now he will get his chance to strike back, courtesy of the Kremlin.

Starting in March, Mr. Assange will host a 10-part series of interview programs with “key political players, thinkers and revolutionaries” on Russia Today (RT), a state-funded English-language satellite news network which claims to reach more than 85 million viewers in the US alone.

According to a statement on his website, the new Assange series will explore the “upheavals and revolutions” that are shaking the Middle East and expose how “the deterioration of the rule of law has demonstrated the bankruptcy of once leading political institutions and ideologies” in the West.

Assange said in a statement published on his website:

“Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it… Are we heading towards utopia, or dystopia and how we can set our paths? This is an exciting opportunity to discuss the vision of my guests in a new style of show that examines their philosophies and struggles in a deeper and clearer way than has been done before.”

According to Fred Weir the Kremlin should be very pleased with this coup:

The network says the series could reach as many as 600 million viewers worldwide.

The six-year-old Russia Today, which seems far better funded than most media these days, has battled accusations that it is a Kremlin vanity project since its inception.

The station tends to tiptoe gingerly around the controversies of Russian politics, but aggressively applies its own slogan – “Question More” – in its coverage of Western affairs and particularly the global role of the US.

In 2010 it opened a full-time US TV channel, RT America, which produces independent content on US politics and economics from what it calls an alternative – critics say anti-American – point of view.

Hiring Assange would seem a perfect fit for RT. Worries that WikiLeaks might dump a lot of embarrassing material about the Russian government into Internet never panned out.

However, the thousands of US diplomatic cables that it did release proved to be the gift-that-keeps-on-giving for critics and rivals of Washington, including the Kremlin.

We liked a lot of the WikiLeaks revelations. It was very much in sync with what Russia Today has been reporting about the Arab Spring, and about the duplicitous policies of the US and its allies all along,” says Peter Lavelle, a senior journalist with RT and host of its Cross Talk public affairs program.

I think the Russian government will be pleased [to see Assange working on RT]. It’s a soft power coup for Russia,” he adds.

Fred Weir

It is interesting that Fred Weir chose, (or was chosen), to break this story in the mainstream media. This is how he profiled himself in a March 2004 article in The Walrus:

I came to Moscow over twenty years ago as a correspondent for the Canadian Tribune, the now defunct weekly newspaper put out by Canada’s Communist Party. I was a third-generation red diaper baby from Toronto, and a long-time member of the party. My uncle, trained at the Lenin School in Moscow in the 1920s as an agent of the Communist International, spent many years in the USSR. I’d visited a few times, had studied Russian history up to the graduate level, but never wanted to live there until Gorbachev came to power in 1985…

I grabbed the Tribune job as soon as it was offered to me.

My own dispatches to the Tribune were mostly stories about how well Gorbachev’s plan was working out. I travelled in cramped, smoke-filled Aeroflot jets across the Soviet Union, from Leningrad to Vladivostok, and everywhere found people waking up to new possibilities…

Fred Weir is well connected to the new Russian communist/business elite:

Sometime in the spring of 1991… I was invited to a garden party at the country home of Andrei Brezhnev, nephew of former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, in Zhukovka, an elite dacha settlement outside Moscow. One of the guests, whom I’d known for years as a functionary of the Komsomol (the Young Communist League) rolled up in a shiny white Volvo and told me he was now president of an import-export firm. Another, whom I’d often dealt with as an official of the Tribune’s fraternal newspaper, the Soviet Communist Party organ Pravda, boasted that he’d just been hired at a private bank. A third, even more surprising because he was the son of renowned Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov, leaned over the table and handed me a card that announced him as an “international business consultant.”

In a “Statement by Konstantin Preobrazhensky, former Soviet KGB officer, on the impact and purpose of Russia Today television,” given to America’s Survival, Inc. organization, led by  journalist Cliff Kincaid, released April 1, 2011, the former KGB officer wrote the following about it.

“Russia Today” was founded in 2005 especially for propaganda abroad. It has been aimed at ‘explaining Russia’s position on the main international issues and inform foreigners about Russian life’. According to, it has been financed totally by the Russian government. In 2005-2006, the government has delivered $30 million annually. i

The methods of propaganda are managed by Directorate “A” of Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. The specialty of Directorate “A” is deceiving world public opinion and manipulating it. It has got a lot of experience over decades of the Cold War.

“Russia Today” is only a part of the Russian industry misinformation and manipulation created recently in the USA by Putin’s KGB. It is including the utilization of some American think-tanks and political scientists, their direct work up by Putin  at annual meetings in Russia , putting Russian Americans under Kremlin’s control, etc. This industry aims at creating an inadequate, adorned image of Russia, provoking American to make wrong steps in their Russian politics.

Interestingly, Fred Weir is a contributing editor to Chicago based socialist journal In These Times, where he serves alongside Barbara Ehrenreich, a founder of Progressives for Obama and a member  of the US’ largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America. Ehrenreich’s daughter, Rosa Brooks (named after Marxist revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg), is a senior adviser to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy.

Barbara Eherenreich also serves as a trustee to the far left Washington DC “think tank” Institute for Policy Studies – once described by Brian Crozier, director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict, as the “perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB.”

In These Times, began life as an official project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Its current board of editors includes such leftist luminaries as David Axelrod‘s mentor Don Rose and long time Obama allies, former Weather Underground terrorist leaders, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Moscow’s communist networks spanned the globe and in most cases still exist.

Is WikiLeaks just another chapter in the long running East West propaganda war?

A war the West is losing, because it doesn’t even realize it is still being waged.

Categories: Uncategorized

The Establishment Strikes Back: Newt Wanted an Open Marriage

January 19, 2012 Leave a comment

Just days after Newt Gingrich fed South Carolina Republicans a ton of conservative red meat, and he began his climb back towards the top of the polls, his ex-wife, Marianne, is ready to sink him for good.

She will claim that Gingrich wanted an open marriage, casting all kinds of doubts about the former speaker’s character and morality  in the minds of conservative voters and the pro-family, religious social conservative base that will vote in the South Carolina Republican primary this coming Saturday.

This is what happens when you are NOT the ESTABLISHMENT’S (yes, there is one) preferred candidate. If you show any signs of beating the ESTABLISHMENT’S chosen one, the skeletons you have in your closet-whether they are relevant or not and no matter how long ago such skeletons occurred-will be brought forth in a way and in a context designed to maximize the injury they can do to you.

There is no point in denying this technique any longer and who is behind it. And it will serve no purpose to debate whether this is an “authentic” story about recently uncovered facts that are important to the primary selection process.

Newt’s former wife Marianne, has been the subject of  speculation about “Newt’s baggage” for years. As long ago as 1995, she boasted that she could derail Gingrich’s presidential candidacy with a “single interview.”

I guess this is what we all have been waiting for since 1995.

I wonder if the media will ever do any research on this:

I think we all know the answer to that question, right?

“Irrelevant, doesn’t matter, Sinclair has been discredited. Even if  there is some truth to what he says,  it happened so long ago…”

Categories: Uncategorized

More Evidence of Huntsman/Romney Axis

January 14, 2012 Leave a comment

(From Buzzfeed)

Campaign finance records filed by both Mitt Romney’s campaign committees and pro-Romney PACs show that the Huntsman family has been very generous in their donations to Romney over the years.

Jon Huntsman’s father, the patriarch of the family, has given the most to Romney. Huntsman Sr. donated $1,000 to Romney’s 1994 Senate campaign. He also donated over $60,000 to Romney’s Iowa PAC between 2004 and 2006. Huntsman donated an additional $60,000 dollars to the Romney Michigan PAC between 2004 and 2006 as well. Huntsman also donated $5,000 to Romney’s New Hampshire PAC in 2006, $7,000 to Romney’s South Carolina PAC between 2004 and 2006, and $2,300 to Romney for President in 2007.

Jon Huntsman’s brother David, donated $13,500 to both Romney’s Iowa and Michigan PACs in 2007. He also donated $4,200 to Romney for President.

Karen Huntsman, the mother of Jon Huntsman, donated $1,000 to Romney for Senate in 1994 as well as $2,300 to Romney for President in 2007.

Mark Huntsman, Jon’s brother, donated $1,000 to Romney for Senate in 1994.

Michelle Huntsman, Jon’s sister, donated $2,300 to Romney for President in 2007.

Paul Huntsman, another of Jon Huntsman’s siblings, donated $11,500 to Romney’s Iowa PAC in 2006. That year he also donated $5,000 to both Romney’s New Hampshire and Michigan PACs and $3,500 to Romney’s South Carolina PAC.

Oh yeah, and apparently, they are cousins.


Categories: Uncategorized

Mitt Romney: The Father of Gay Marriage?

January 13, 2012 Leave a comment

The answer is: That he has flip-flopped often and appears to have a consistently unprincipled position on a whole slew of issues. The reason for that is  because Romney is a liberal who runs as a Republican and has enough money to be viable, while attempting to deceive the conservative base.

After reading this article, you should be  convinced that Romney is a RINO patrician who believes conservatism is WRONG and that his conservative mask is only donned in order to change conservatism and make it more moderate.

There is also some required reading which should prove when faced with a constitutional crisis, Romney will go liberal (crisis management supposedly being one of his specialties). Amy Contrada’s book, The Mitt Romney Deception: His Stealth Promotion of Gay Rights and Gay Marriage in Massachusetts should prove where he really stands. It also tells a story the American people need to know!

The description available at Amazon:

Mitt Romney’s Deception reveals the former Massachusetts Governor’s promotion of “gay rights,” his unconstitutional implementation of “gay marriage,” and his support for sexual-radical programs in the Massachusetts schools. The outrages Romney failed to halt set horrible precedents for radical leftist victories nationwide. Contrary to his claim that he defended marriage, the Constitution, traditional values, and religious freedom, he actually undermined them.

You should also read 24 Reason Why Romney is the Father of Gay Marriage.

And don’t forget, Scott Brown, Romney’s man-at-large in the U.S. Senate, voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the U.S. military!

In the article below, I have highlighted the significant Romney remarks in red and my comments are in blue.

Romney: I’ll be better than Ted for gay rights
Thursday Aug 25, 1994

Mitt Romney’s campaign for the U.S. Senate hit a snag last month when four members of his Mormon congregation alleged in a Boston Globe article that Romney referred to lesbians and gay men as “perverse” in a November, 1993 speech.

Both in a the Boston Globe and in a subsequent interview with Bay Windows, Romney, who has served as a leader in the Mormon church, denied making the comments. He said he is planning a meeting with the gay community in upcoming weeks to talk about his stand on gay rights and other issues.

In an interview with Bay Windows Aug. 18 , Romney said one reason why he is a better candidate for Senate than opponent Sen. Edward Kennedy is because his voice would carry more weight on lesbian and gay issues than Kennedy’s.

BW: You’ve denied allegations that you called lesbians and gays “perverse.” Why do you think a member or members of your church would come forward and make those allegations if they’re not true?
MR: I think the reason they came forward was for political reasons. I gave the same remarks 10 times to 10 different congregations and no one came forward to me and expressed any concern. It was only when I became a political candidate that someone came forward. I think there’s no question that my political involvement led to the [allegations] being made at all.

I can’t speak to whether there was misunderstanding on the part of the listener or on the part of the speaker. I have spoken with individuals with that congregation and reviewed my notes of my remarks, there is no question but that I did not make the comments that are attributed to me.

BW: If not perverse, how do you feel about lesbians and gay men?
MR: I respect all people regardless of their differences. I actually made that very clear in my very first television advertising. I feel that as a society and for me as an individual, it’s incumbent on all of us to respect one another, regardless of our differences and beliefs, our differences in sexual orientation, in race and that America has always been a place, and should be a place, to welcome and tolerate people’s differences.

I personally feel and one of my core beliefs is that we should accept people of all backgrounds and recognize everyone as a brother and a sister because we are all part of the family of man.

My church becomes an issue for some, and I think that’s because of a lack of understanding on many people’s part about my church. I’m not here running in this campaign to be a spokesman for my church. I’m proud of my religious heritage and my faith has taught me a great deal and helped me as a developing person. I think that one can understand where I stand, in part by looking at my parent’s stands on the issues of their day.

My church was criticized in the ’60s and ’70s as not being fully accepting of black Americans, and yet my father [George Romney, former governor of Michigan] was widely recognized as a leader in the civil rights movement, particularly in the Republican party. He marched in civil rights demonstrations or parades, opposed the Goldwater platform in 1964 and refused to endorse Goldwater as a presidential candidate when my father was governor. So despite the misunderstanding about my church, my father’s personal views were manifest by his actions in the public and private arenas.

I’d say the same thing about my mother [Lenore Romney]. My mom was a U.S. Senate candidate in 1970, before Roe v. Wade. My church feels that abortion is not a good choice. However, my mother advocated for the legalization of abortion. So they, like I, can live by and have personal beliefs which celebrate the diversity of our society, and fight for the right of all people to live by their own beliefs and to make their own choices. Their example and my experience is one of showing respect and tolerance for all others.

BW: When we spoke last month, you talked about the concept of free agency in the Mormon Church, which is letting people live how they choose. But what about going forward and advocating on behalf of people instead of merely accepting them? Would you be willing to advocate for rights of lesbians and gay men?
MR: The answer is yes. When I speak of free agency, I don’t just mean that each person can do what they want to do, I mean that our society should allow people the freedom to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs. People of integrity don’t force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have. That’s the great thing about this country: it was founded to allow people to follow beliefs of their own conscience. I will work and have worked to fight discrimination and to assure to each American equal opportunity. You’ll see that, for instance, in my relations in the workplace.

I’ve been an executive of Bain & Co. For a number of years, I was chief executive at Bain & Co. It’s an environment that fosters openness and fights discrimination. I believe it is a good place for gay and lesbian individuals to work. I know of nothing in our workplace that doesn’t encourage promotion and compensation based on performance, without regard to personal differences, such as sexual orientation. I believe that my record, my life, is a clear indication of my support and insistence on anti-discrimination and on efforts to assure equal rights for all.

BW: Does Bain & Co. have a non-discrimination policy that mentions sexual orientation or offer domestic partner benefits?
MR: I would have to look and see what Bain & Co. does. My guess would be yes, but I’m sure exactly what it has for anti-discrimination policies and in all of my years at Bain & Co. I have never heard any person complain about any discrimination based on sexual orientation. I have a number of friends at Bain & Co. who are openly gay and we’ve had a number of tragedies with young men who have contracted AIDS. Some of whom have passed on, and the outpouring of concern and affection for them and for others in similar conditions have existed throughout the company and it has been part of my life’s experience.

BW: Who do you align yourself with in the Republican party? What other members of the party have similar politics to yours?
MR: Well, probably more like Bill Weld. It’s hard for me to align them person by person, but I think Bill Weld comes as close as anyone. I also align in many respects with [state Treasurer] Joe Malone. It depends, of course, on the issue, and I don’t know the stands of each person. But I think Bill Weld’s fiscal conservatism, his focus on creating jobs and employment and his efforts to fight discrimination and assure civil rights for all is a model that I identify with and aspire to.

BW: How do you feel about conservative Republicans like Pat Robertson or Jesse Helms?
MR: Any party ends up being a large tent and I don’t want to toss people out of the party, but I do not favor people using the party as a platform for the views of different special interest groups.

I remember in my earliest political experience my father fighting to keep the John Birch Society from playing too strong a role in the Republican party. He walked out of the Republican National Convention in 1964, when Barry Goldwater said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Because he saw that as a tacit approval of the effort the John Birch Society was making to influence the Republican party. I think that extremists who would force their views on the party and try to shape the party are making a mistake.

(In other words, conservatives suck)

I welcome people of all views in the party, but I don’t want them to try to change our party from being a large tent, inclusive party, to being one that is exclusive.

BW: Speaking of Helms, I wanted to ask you how you would have voted on an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would ban federal funds from public schools which are “encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.”
MR: I would have opposed that amendment. I don’t think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be. I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party. (I think that it can clearly be proven that the gay community is proselytizing its lifestyle, or that at least, some elements believe it is doing so.)

BW: Do you support the federal lesbian and gay civil rights bill that would ban anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit?
MR: This is Barney Frank’s legislation?

BW: This is not just employment, but also housing, public accommodations and credit.
MR: I am not fully aware of that bill, so I would need to study that more fully. I am aware of the legislation that Barney Frank proposed [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and do support that and would vote in favor of that. (Although it has never passed, despite being introduced in every congress since 1974, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has recently been update to include transgender people as well. Has anyone asked Romney if he supports the updated act.)

I also, philosophically, support efforts to ban discrimination in housing. The particulars of the bill you’re speaking about I have not studied, so I shouldn’t state a position. Philosophically, I support efforts to remove discrimination from the workplace, from housing, from education and so forth.

BW: Congressman Martin Meehan introduced a bill earlier this year that would form a federal panel to study and find ways to reduce lesbian and gay youth suicides. Do you support that legislation?
MR: I support efforts both to understand and reduce gay and lesbian suicide. I applaud Gov. Weld’s leadership in that regard in Massachusetts, as well. (“Anti-bullying” campaign)

Do you support legislation that would extend benefits to domestic partners of federal employees, like health insurance coverage, visitation rights and recognition to gay and lesbian families?

I think what Bill Weld has done here in that regard is the right step and moves in the right direction. [Weld granted sick leave and bereavement time to management-level state employees].

I think when people have a commitment to one another, either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, that they should have the benefit of visitation rights and leave privileges and things of that nature. The question for me in regards to the health care benefits would be to determine what the cost is, what the implications are, where one would draw the boundaries, how one would define commitment. And those are areas I haven’t studied so I won’t take a position on that. I do support generally the proposition that people in homosexual relationships should not be discriminated against in terms of employment benefits.

BW: Would you support legalized marriage for gay men and lesbians?
MR: I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it’s a state issue as you know – the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples and lesbian couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.

BW: Would you want more studies done on the issue?
MR: That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of other states, s well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action.

BW: On a personal level, how do you feel about the issue?
MR: I think I’ll leave my comments with the ones I’ve made.

BW: Are you in favor of lifting the military ban against gay men and lesbians and do you agree with President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” policy?
MR: I think the position which President Clinton reached with the concurrence of [Gen.] Colin Powell was a fair compromise and a good step and I support that. I would be surprised if it stops there. I believe that there will be change over time as the military establishment and the rank-and-file become more comfortable with the realities of sexual orientation in the military. I will support progress being made in that area as time progresses and the military and society becomes more accepting. (Guess he was successful at that.)

BW: It’s another state issue, but do you support legislation to repeal the archaic sex laws?
MR: I’m not sure which ones each of those are, but I don’t think it makes sense to have laws on the books that are not enforced and that only hang over people as possible threats, and so again it’s a state-by-state decision and I wouldn’t want to impose on a federal level what each state does on their laws, but I think it’s a mistake for us to leave laws that are not enforced.

BW: Do you favor a non-discriminatory clause to protect lesbians and gay men in any federal health care reform?
MR: Part of that gets to the question which health care proposal I favor, and I’m not sure exactly how that issue would fit into those proposals or those plans I favor. The answer is: I’m in favor of avoiding discrimination in a health care provision, but I’m not sure exactly how that clause would work. I would like all Americans to be covered by health care and to have universal coverage. I think we can reach universal coverage, not with employer mandates, but by providing incentives to small businesses and individuals to purchase insurance or to obtain coverage, or by providing access to make that more affordable. (No mandates, but exchanges and government-run  care, fine.)

I’m also in favor of changing our health insurance regulations such that insurance cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. So the proposal that I favor would provide insurance to men or women regardless of their sexual orientation. I’m not in favor of a one-size-fits-all federal insurance plan where politicians decide what is in everybody’s health insurance plan. I would far rather let Americans take advantage of many options, and take advantage of the plan that is most attractive to them. (This is exactly the language Obama used. How long has the establishment been focus-grouping this language on health care?)

BW: Do you support condom distribution in federal prisons?
MR: I would support the conclusion of medical professionals and social workers in prisons as to what they thought was helpful to prevent the spread of the disease. If that was something they though was appropriate, then I would support it. I don’t see any reason why that would be an inappropriate thing.

BW: It’s another state issue, but what about condom distribution in schools?
MR: Here again, you’ll hear me saying the same thing on a number of issues, there are choices I think should be made at the state and local level that I don’t like the federal government getting into. I like important moral decisions being made closest to where people live, at the state and local level. So if the community feels that condom distribution is a helpful thing, then that community should be able to do that. And if another community feels that’s something they don’t support, then they should have the right to do that, as well.

You will find in me a continuing philosophical commitment to allow people to make their own choices and to allow the people in the country to decide what’s best for them, instead of letting politicians decide what should be done for the country.

BW: Should people who are HIV-positive be allowed to immigrate to the U.S.?
MR: I have to admit I have not spoken to immigration officers about the extent or the costs of that policy, so I hesitate to speculate. I think it is a legitimate right of the government to say, ’We don’t want to take on massive medical costs which we as a society would have to bear.” On the other hand, I think it would be wrong to deny people who are HIV-positive access to the United States if there were no substantial costs to us. I would feel the same way, by the way, if someone came to the door who had cancer and was indigent and said, “I want to come to the United States.”

I’d say, “Gee, can you care for yourself?” – because it’s a concern that our government would have that someone would come and cost our system a lot of money. If somebody has the ability to care for themselves then I see no reason to have restrictions on HIV or cancer or any other kind of patient.

BW: Do you support increased funds for breast cancer research and education?
MR: I do support increasing funding for the discovery of the cause of and the prevention of deadly diseases, and would like to see us spending more in the area of breast cancer, cervical cancer, AIDS, cancer and heart disease. I am not yet an expert on how much funding each disease has received, but I think we have to look at the degree of risk to our society at large and then spend what is consistent with that risk, such that breast cancer, which afflicts a very large number of women, deserves greater interest and research and spending.

My priority on a spending basis is to make sure we don’t spend more than we take in as revenue, and I have major areas where I would like to make cuts in federal spending. I think we will continue to need to increase our funding for medical research and prevention of deadly disease.

BW: Why should the gay community support your campaign when Ted Kennedy has been a strong supporter of civil rights issues and the gay community?
MR: Well, I think you’re partially right in characterizing Ted Kennedy as supportive of the gay community, and I respect the work and the efforts he’s made on behalf of the gay community and for civil rights more generally, and I would continue that fight.

There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.

I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts. ( Here it is, the battle cry of the RINO!)

You get this mentality, right? To people like Romney, there is no good reason to actually be a conservative other than on fiscal issues. Even then, to the RINO-minded refusing to raise taxes moderately in order to increase revenue in  some  particular circumstances, can also be considered to be too rigid, doctrinaire and ideological.

The project of the RINO is essentially a subversive one. I wonder though, if this is even so necessary any more. It’s so 1990s.

What is Romney’s position on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell anyway?

He has taken the ” I don’t think we’re ready approach” and the “I don’t think it should have been done while we are engaged in military action” approach to gays in the military throughout the debates.

But it’s done. Obama did it.

Why doesn’t Romney just announce that it’s done and over with and he will do nothing to reinstate DADT?

 Apparently the military is ready. Romney and the RINOs no longer have to wait. Why obfuscate? Announce that you have done the job of clouding the issue and neutering conservative resistance yet again to an important social issue. 

Take some credit.

These asshole globalists should test the waters and see if conservative America retains  any political clout at all on social issues  They should come clean and tell conservative America what they really think of them. The demographics are changing, the dreams of  global governance and communitarianism are within reach. Just a little more now…and they will be securely among friends.

Categories: Uncategorized

Investigate! Investigate! Investigate!

January 12, 2012 Leave a comment

I try to avoid speculation without evidence, but I never really understood the campaign intentions of John Huntsman. I speculated that he was gearing up to run for President in 2016 if Romney did not win this time. 2012 is his test run, just like 2008 was Romney’s.

In my gut, though, I always felt that Huntsman was a stalking horse for…someone.

Maybe the following story gives us some clues:

Huntsman, Bain Capital dealing Huntsman offering $600 million equity stake to venture firm

Published: Saturday, Feb. 24, 2001 12:00 a.m. MST

By Max Knudson
Deseret News business editor

Huntsman Corp. Friday announced a deal in which venture capital firm Bain Capital Inc. will invest more than $600 million in Huntsman.

Huntsman will use more than half of that to buy the remaining 30 percent it doesn’t own in London-based Imperial Chemicals Industries. Huntsman bought a majority interest in ICI in June 1999, a $2.8 billion acquisition that made Huntsman the third-largest chemical company in the United States.

Salt Lake-based Huntsman essentially doubled its size with that mega-deal. The company formed a new partnership with ICI, with Huntsman owning 70 percent and ICI 30 percent. Under the new arrangement, Huntsman will own all of ICI, but Bain Capital, based in Boston, will now own a minority equity stake in Huntsman Corp.

Bain Capital is the firm Salt Lake Organizing Committee president Mitt Romney founded and worked at before accepting the SLOC post early in 1999. SLOC spokeswoman Caroline Shaw said Friday that Romney is on leave of absence from his position as Bain Capital’s chief executive officer.

“He had nothing to do with this specific transaction,” Shaw said. “His efforts are currently completely committed to the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.”

Huntsman spokesman Don H. Olsen agreed that “this transaction had nothing to do with (Romney).”

In a prepared statement, Jon M. Huntsman, chairman and founder, said the new capital from Bain will allow his privately held company to continue the 30 percent average annual growth it has enjoyed over the past 15 years.

“Together (Huntsman and Bain) see significant potential for consolidation . . . in the global chemical industry and look forward with great anticipation to future investment opportunities. We are confident that Huntsman and Bain Capital will have a long and mutually beneficial relationship.”

Of the $600 million capital Huntsman will receive from Bain, $390 million of it will be used to buy the remaining 30 percent of ICI.

Huntsman doesn’t often offer equity stakes in his company, but Olsen said it’s not unprecedented.

“We are a private company, and we raise capital in the way we feel is the most efficient way to do it,” he said, noting that years ago Great Lakes Chemical had a minority stake in the company.

Huntsman has occasionally sold company assets to raise money for his charitable work, such as the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, but Olsen said the company remains committed to the aggressive growth it has pursued in the past, usually by acquisitions of such companies as ICI.


Notice how Huntsman strives to keep Romney’s name out of the deal. This reminds of the way Romney has kept his support of Scott Brown pretty quiet.  

Also, Huntsman and Romney are friends. John Sr. supported Romney’s campaign in 2008 and he has known him since he was a boy.

Any doubts about the ties, here is the video:

So, what is it that we have going on here? A Mormon conspiracy to take over the Republican candidacy for President for the next decade?

Also, how does Newt and his backer Sheldon Adelson come into play here? It reminds me of the casino war story line from the HBO show “Big Love” and it gets my spidey-sense tingling.

I find it quite interesting as well that Glenn Beck, also a Mormon, has been attacking Gingrich quite ferociously lately. Yet Beck was honored for his recent trip to Israel, dubbed “The Return to Courage”, by none other that Newt backer Sheldon Adelson! In fact, Adelson presented Beck with the first “Defender of Israel” award which is given out by Adelson’s Zionist Organization of America.

Of Beck, Adelson said upon presenting the award:

“He is a man of courage and determination, who is devoting his life to battle evil. I have never met a Christian-Zionist like Beck. There is no greater supporter of Israel in the media.”

So, what is going on here? Romney/Huntsman are closer than we think, may be friends, but act like enemies.
Gingrich/Beck/Adelson are closer than we think, but Beck has been attacking Gingrich almost exclusively. You’d think, given his investment, that Adelson would at least call Beck and ask him to lay off Gingrich a little.

I am taking information and speculation so please comment and leave an e-mail address if you have further info.

Categories: Uncategorized

Here’s Why If Barack Obama Was a Republican He Would Be Finished

January 12, 2012 Leave a comment

In the video below, Obama calls George W. Bush out as un-American and unpatriotic because the national debt rose under his watch from %4 trillion to $9 trillion.

Obviously, this was the kind of language (throwing the “unamerican” charge back in their faces) that had liberals frothing at the mouth over Obama in 2007 and 2008.


We should also remember that it was these deficit figures, which increased so much under Bush, that brought the Democrats to power in the 2006 mid-term elections as well.





Five years after the 2006 election and three years into Obama’s presidency, have they lived up to their promises?

When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.

At the end of January 1993, the month that President George H. W. Bush left office, the total national debt was $4.1672 trillion, according to the Treasury. Thus, the total national debt accumulated by the first 41 presidents combined was about $44.8 billion less than the approximately $4.212 trillion in new debt added during Obama’s term.

During Obama’s three years in office the debt increased at an average pace of $4.27 billion per day. Were that rate to continue until Obama’s term ends on Jan. 20, 2013, the debt would then stand at about $16.86534 trillion—an increase of more than $6.2 trillion for Obama’s four years.

In short, they all lied. If the media did not cover up for them, they would be out of office for a generation.

Oh yeah, as an interesting footnote, in the third video above, Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania claims he supports a balanced budget amendment. Yet, he voted against the one passed by the House in December.

Categories: Uncategorized

Sheldon Adelson: Newt’s Backer

January 12, 2012 Leave a comment

I have been reading about Newt’s largest supporter, Sheldon Adelson. Of course, there are a number of  left-wing websites that emphasize his “right-wing agenda for the Middle East” and his interests in China.

The article below is republished from the July 2008 New Yorker. It is as objective and comprehensive a report as I could find. Unfortunately, Adelson is not anything like Soros for the GOP, even though he is a big donor to conservative causes. I don’t think Freedom’s Watch is around anymore.

I have also included an interesting video below of Adelson being interviewed upon his opening the Marina Bay Sands Casino Resort in Singapore.

There is also an interesting video of Adelson speaking at Israel’s Media Watch, a group he has funded in the past.



From The New Yorker

Last October, Sheldon Adelson, the gaming multibillionaire, accompanied a group of Republican donors to the White House to meet with George W. Bush. They wanted to talk to the President about Israel. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was organizing a major conference in the United States, in an effort to re-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and her initiative had provoked consternation among many rightward-leaning American Jews and their Christian evangelical allies. Most had seen Bush as a reliable friend of Israel, and one who had not pressured Israel to pursue the peace process. Adelson, who is seventy-four, owns two of Las Vegas’s giant casino resorts, the Venetian and the Palazzo, and is the third-richest person in the United States, according to Forbes. He is fiercely opposed to a two-state solution; and he had contributed so generously to Bush’s reëlection campaign that he qualified as a Bush Pioneer. A short, rotund man, with sparse reddish hair and a pale countenance that colors when he is angered, Adelson protested to Bush that Rice was thinking of her legacy, not the President’s, and that she would ruin him if she continued to pursue this disastrous course. Then, as Adelson later told an acquaintance, Bush put one arm around his shoulder and another around that of his wife, Miriam, who was born in Israel, and said to her, “You tell your Prime Minister that I need to know what’s right for your people—because at the end of the day it’s going to be my policy, not Condi’s. But I can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.” (The White House denies this account.)

Perhaps this exchange contributed to a growing resolve on Adelson’s part to try to force the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, out of office. Adelson and Olmert had been friendly since the nineteen-nineties, when Olmert was a member of the hard-line Likud Party. Olmert became Prime Minister in January, 2006, following Ariel Sharon’s stroke. He, like Sharon, came to recognize the inexorability of Jewish-Arab demographic trends. Olmert declared that a two-state solution was the only way of preserving Israel as a democratic state with a Jewish majority, and he said that he was ready to negotiate with the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. Adelson saw Olmert’s actions as a betrayal of principle. He had long wanted to see the Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu returned as Prime Minister, but a revived peace process gave that goal new urgency.

Adelson opposed both Olmert and the peace conference, which was held in Annapolis in late November. The Zionist Organization of America, to which Adelson is a major contributor, ran a full-page ad in the Times, headlined, “SECRETARY RICE: DON’T PROMOTE A STATE FOR PALESTINIANS WHILE THEIR 10 COMMANDMENTS PROMOTE TERRORISM AND ISRAEL’S DESTRUCTION.” The “10 Commandments” referred to the constitution of Fatah, Abbas’s party. “Osama Bin-Laden and Hamas would be proud of Abbas’ Fatah Constitution,” the ad stated. Two weeks before the start of the conference, a Washington, D.C., think tank that shares office space and several board members with the Republican Jewish Coalition—another organization to which Adelson makes significant contributions—circulated an article on its Listserve which asserted, “Olmert is now chasing peace with the Palestinians at all costs, in a desperate attempt to secure his place in world history.”

In an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news service, Adelson was even more disparaging about Olmert’s motivation. Olmert has faced several corruption investigations, all focussed on the period before he became Prime Minister; Adelson suggested that Olmert was trying to divert public attention from them, and was making concessions to the Palestinians in order “to stay out of jail.” (The most recent investigation of Olmert, which became public in early May, seems to have increased Adelson’s chances of achieving his objective. Olmert has admitted accepting donations, mostly in cash, from an American businessman for his election campaigns since the nineteen-nineties, but he insisted that he did not take any money for his personal use, and denied allegations that he had accepted bribes. He has said that he will resign if he is indicted.)

In early November, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, who is widely respected in Washington, was scheduled to appear with Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, at the opening of the Saban Forum, an event in Jerusalem organized by the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Adelson phoned the event’s chair, Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman, and asked him to contribute to a campaign that he was organizing against the Olmert government; Saban declined. Adelson then asked if he would sign an ad; again, Saban refused. Whereupon, Adelson accused him of funding anti-Israel research at the Saban Center. Saban was surprised, but suggested that when the center’s director, Martin Indyk, was next in Las Vegas he and Adelson could talk. Not long afterward, Indyk met with Adelson at his office at the Venetian, on the Las Vegas Strip. According to a person familiar with what happened at the meeting, Adelson berated Indyk for hosting “terrorists” like Fayyad, who he said was a founder of Fatah. Indyk is said to have replied that Fayyad was never involved in terrorism and was not a member of Fatah, and that Adelson’s problem was really with Olmert, because he dealt with Fayyad. Adelson stood his ground, and declared that the Olmert government was an illegitimate government and should be thrown out. (Indyk declined to comment on what he said was a private conversation. Saban confirmed his exchange with Adelson.)

Historically, most mainstream American Jewish organizations don’t publicly oppose the government of Israel, but in the weeks before and after the Annapolis conference a number of groups were strongly critical. Among them was One Jerusalem, founded in 2000 to protest any peace accord that would include Israeli concessions on Jerusalem. One Jerusalem has received contributions from Adelson. A week before the Annapolis conference, One Jerusalem’s chairman, Natan Sharansky—the former Russian dissident, who has moved to the right on the political spectrum since immigrating to Israel—announced a major campaign against any division of Jerusalem, and against the peace initiative. One Jerusalem referred to Annapolis as “the Munich Conference of the 21st century.” After Olmert asserted Israel’s right as a sovereign state to make decisions regarding its national security, One Jerusalem posted an article on its Web site, headlined, “OLMERT TO WORLD JEWRY: SHUT UP.” Later, as Olmert’s negotiations with Abbas continued, another piece announced, “OLMERT DECLARES WAR ON ISRAEL.”

Adelson has long preferred a low profile in many of his political activities. But one of his maneuvers did appear in the press. He has been a generous donor to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the dominant lobby of American Jewry regarding U.S. policy toward Israel. Since the nineties, Adelson has helped underwrite many congressional trips to Israel, sponsored by an AIPAC educational affiliate. (Adelson pays only for Republican members.) Last year, he contributed funds for a lavish new office building in Washington, D.C., for the organization. In November, shortly before the summit, he learned that AIPAC was supporting a congressional letter, signed by more than a hundred and thirty members of the House of Representatives, that urged the Bush Administration to increase economic aid to the Palestinians, an initiative that the government of Israel also supported. Adelson was furious. Read more…

Categories: Uncategorized