All B-Cruz: married into the TPP/NAU establishment

Not a US citizen? No problem, it doesn't matter anymore! ¿No un ciudadano estadounidense? ¡No hay problema, no importa más!

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.

---

Dr. Joel McDurmon

Mar 10, 2014

 

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 infowars.com 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 page listing 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. Breitbart.com 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 Infowar.com’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.

UPDATE: Paul fires back:

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

Cancer and other Cures Frustrated by Rockefellers and the FDA *vid*

For more on how these tax-exempt foundations have corrupted our country with money gifted from us go here.
For another youtube expose of the FDA, go here 

For the extensive video gallery of the Rockefellers and their co-conspirators go to bottom of this post.

 

Published on Mar 12, 2014

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: As Americans fret about the Obamacare website and wonder how the country became enslaved to the high.

The modern day mainstream medical industry has a dubious history, deeply rooted by a drive for profit through the subversion and suppression of non-profitabl.

Alex Jones Radio show 5th of January 2009 broadcast. Dr. Russell Blaylock talks to Alex about the Rockefellers and their eugenics programs and how it all cam.

Part of a Eustace Mullins interview by wa5dxp, May 22, 2005.

Global Sciences Congress, December 1, 1990, Tampa, Florida.

An exploration of the mission and history and an overview of some current research underway at The Rockefeller University Hospital. The Hospital, which is ce.

How ROCKEFELLER ruined our Medical industry, hiding a simple cure for ALL diseases, even terminal cancer, for nearly free and no danger -- contrary to Corbot.

J'ai créé cette vidéo à l'aide de l'application de montage de vidéos YouTube ( A senior UN counter-terrorism official is to as.

The good folks at Natural News put together this short - but extremely revealing - video about the origins of both the American Medical Association and the n.

The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund. An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to s.

J'ai créé cette vidéo à l'aide de l'application de montage de vidéos YouTube ( A senior UN counter-terrorism official is to as.

This is a video of the Rockefeller Estate. It is the home that John D. Rockefeller, the nations first billionaire, called Kykuit - dutch for lookout, because.

Rockefeller was used to tough situations from a young age. Watch his story in The Men Who Built America exclusively on HISTORY (Sky 529, Virgin Media 234, BT.

Rockefeller University cell biologist Ralph M. Steinman, who discovered the immune system's sentinel dendritic cells and demonstrated that science can fruitf.

David Rockefeller, youngest son of the late John D. Rockefeller Jr., discusses his new book, Memoirs, with UCSD history Professor Michael E. Parrish. Serie.

Quelle: The Rockefeller Medicine http.

Eustace Mullins in the Bobby Lee Show in 1992 on the Rockefeller Medical Monopoly and the matching cancer industry, the profits of cancer, death and vaccinat.

This is one of the Billionaires mentioned who decide who lives and who dies, pay attention to what he is saying and why.

Voices for National Service and ServiceNation, in partnership with AmeriCorps Alums, have launched the I Serve Because. Video Contest. This is why I serv.

7 minute vid starts out at President Garfield's monument and tomb. Then we parked and walked up to the Rockefeller family plot.

Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV gave an opening statement at the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on June 26, 201.

Les Rockefeller - 1l3.

 

This is the video gallery of subversive activities of the Rockefellers and their agents.

Inside “Gamechanger Salon,” The Left’s Action Network

By: Brian Sikma | August 04, 2014

Organizations

By: Nathan Schacht, Brian Sikma

An extensive membership list and a calendar of events offer insight into a leftwing network first revealed by Media Trackers last week. Gamechanger Salon is a members-only Google group run by Billy Wimsatt for forward thinking and top-level political activists on the Left. Members of the group include senior level political hands at NARAL, the SEIU, the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, among dozens of other groups.

Media Trackers first uncovered the network in records obtained through an open records request filed with a University of Wisconsin professor. The membership list released today is far more detailed than the list released last week, and the calendar offers insight into the group’s plans for coordinated action in the future.

Wimsatt, the moderator of Gamechanger Salon according to a member policy manual, currently works as chief ideas officer at Gamechanger Labs, an incubator for leftwing political and social action with the motto, “R&D for the movement.” In 2008, Wimsatt worked for the Obama campaign and the Ohio Democratic Party, according to his LinkedIn profile. A former columnist he is the author of several books and contributed columns to the Huffington Post until 2012.

In 2010 he co-wrote a column about voter guides for the Huffington Post with the controversial Van Jones, who resigned from the Obama Administration in 2009 amid outrage over his advocacy for a convicted cop killer and signature on a petition saying the Bush Administration willfully allowed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to happen.

The detailed version of the membership list contains names and group affiliations for members, as well as brief biographies and contact information for some members.

A book club section of the list contains recommended reading material and occasional quick reviews of the books explaining why they are important for liberal activists and organizers. Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Church makes the list because, as Wimsatt notes in his review, “it’s a F#$@ING BRILLIANT and provocative book about the art and science of organizing that in part shows on many levels why right-wing evangelicals are organizing circles around us (even though much of what they’re selling is snake oil).”

Another book that Wimsatt recommends to the membership is Mockingjay, the third and final installment of The Hunger Games series. According to Wimsatt’s review, “Third Hunger Games Book. People say it’s great and complex parable of revolution – and it will help us get ready to leverage the next 2 movies better.”

Other portions of the extensive membership document recommend movies, songs, television shows, recommended websites and blogs, and goals for the online Gamechanger community. Two of the goals listed are “Recruit 200 key community-based organizers, especially women and people of color,” and “Recruit 100 key diverse bloggers, movement journalists, and pundits.” Another goal involves theorizing about a “TED-like conference for folks.”

To facilitate interaction among the groups represented in Gamechanger Salon, a calendar detailing upcoming events is maintained with ample notes about the importance and focus of each particular item.

For August, two training events and a festival are on the calendar. On September 23, liberal groups appear to be working on holding a day of action registering voters ahead of the mid-term election in November. A “Trick or Vote” event is scheduled as a national action step on October 31.

The full calendar that Media Trackers obtained from a non-password protected link (that has since been closed) and the full membership list are below.

Gamechanger Salon member list (Excel file): Gamechanger Salon
Gamechanger Salon calendar (PDF): Movement Calendar – Calendar 2014

Monica Lewinsky Book to Reveal Abortion During Clinton Affair

Did they kill a Wee Willie or a Wee Wilma?

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 9/21/12 11:11 AM

The new tell-all book that Monica Lewinsky is currently writing will reportedly share more details on the abortion she had of the baby she says she conceived during the time in which she had an affair with President Bill Clinton.

Rockefeller Council Subjects Chicago Black Community Slums to Eugenic Mind Control

Rockefeller Council Demographers Subjected American Slums To Eugenic Mind-Control Ops

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
June 30, 2012

Until recently unsuspected and undetected, a publication surfaces straight from the Rockefeller Archives which speaks of eugenic mind-operations on the black community of Chicago in the early 1960s.

Will Pro-Life North Carolina Rep. Renee Ellmers Vote Against the 20-Week Abortion Ban?

Rep. Ellmers a Christian? Not likely:
No, There is No "Christian Case" for Abortion  

"Conservative" Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina is facing criticism from pro-life advocates for taking her name off of a bill that will get a vote tomorrow in the House of Representatives to ban abortions after 20 weeks, a time when unborn babies feel intense pain in abortions. Rep. Ellmers' Freedom Index voting record.

In an extraordinary action, on Tuesday afternoon, Congresswoman Ellmers went to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and formally cancelled her co-sponsorship of the pro-life bill.

"This means that Congresswoman Ellmers personally sought and received permission to remove her name from this vital pro-life bill – even though she voted for exactly the same legislation on June 18, 2013," the folks at North Carolina Right to Life responded. "The National Right to Life office in Washington says that withdrawal of cosponsorship on any kind of bill is very rare, and that such an action has occurred on pro-life legislation only a handful of times in the last three decades." The first indications of trouble with Ellmers,
who has been a reliable pro-life vote, came after a Politico article indicated that she was upset about language in the bill that required women who are raped and seeking abortions to report the rape to authorities to qualify for the abortion.

Led by Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, the lawmakers are protesting language that requires a rape victim to formally report her assault to police to qualify for an exemption from the legislation's abortion restrictions.
Ellmers raised the concerns during a closed-door meeting at the GOP retreat here, according to sources in the room. Her office did not have a comment on Friday on the discussions with Republican leaders.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Ban Abortions Because Babies Feel Intense Pain

According to National Journal, Ellmers also thinks the bill is wrongheaded because it will supposedly turn off young people, even though polls consistently show they are pro-life on abortion:

In a closed-door open-mic session of House Republicans, Rep. Renee Ellmers… [said] she believes the bill will cost the party support among millennials, according to several sources in the room.
"I have urged leadership to reconsider bringing it up next week.… We got into trouble last year, and I think we need to be careful again; we need to be smart about how we're moving forward," Ellmers said in an interview. "The first vote we take, or the second vote, or the fifth vote, shouldn't be on an issue where we know that millennials—social issues just aren't as important [to them]."

Pro-life advocates are not happy with Ellmers, as pro-life writer Jill Stanek responded "Lovely of Rep. Ellmers to hand the other side talking points on a silver platter."

Abortion advocates have seized on the dustup and said,"Forcing women to go on-the-record about such a traumatic experience as a prerequisite to getting help is unconscionable, and adds to the pain of women who are survivors of rape or incest."

Stanek responded to that, by saying, "Right, we certainly wouldn't want to encourage victims to report their rapes, so their perpetrators might be stopped from terrorizing them again, or other girls and women. And women would never lie about being raped. Ask Rolling Stone about that. Or Duke."

One pro-life writer at Red State is taking a pretty hard-line stance in reaction to Ellmers backing down from supporting the bill, though electing a pro-abortion member of Congress to her seat would be a step backwards.

Let us be clear about two things. First, this bill is supported by a large majority of the population including men, women, millenials, and independents. 

According to Q-Poll, women favor it 59-35, millennials support it 57-38 and independents support it 56-36. Even among Democrats it is basically a toss-up issue, with Democrats barely opposing it 47-46. So Ellmers has placed herself to the left of the average Democrat voter on this issue with her hysterical shrieking and her attempts to paint the passage of the bill as a doomsday scenario.

 Second, there is absolutely no scenario in which you can call yourself pro-life in any way and oppose this bill. If you have an abortion bill that is favored by half of Democrats and you oppose it, then you are pro-abortion, period. And not just a little bit pro-abortion, you're outside the mainstream pro-abortion. 

The public supports this bill 60%-33%. If you oppose it, you are a pro-abortion extremist. Ellmers is either lying to her constituents about being pro-life or she has become a poltroon on this issue now that the GOP has taken control of the house and she figures she can increase her district's share of the federal feeding trough.

 It is one thing for Democrats, who are in the pocket of the abortion lobby, to oppose this bill. That is what they are paid to do. But what Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)Heritage ActionScorecardRep. Renee Ellmers51%House Republican Average61%See Full Scorecard51% is doing here is worse because she is trying to poison the caucus of people who might potentially vote for the bill. It would be better to have a Democrat in this seat than a cancer in the Republican caucus.

If you are a constituent of hers, call her office at 202-225-4531 and voice your frustration with her craven lies. And come 2016, we need to replace Ellmers with a good Republican, or failing that, a Democrat.

What's a "good" Republican? Living examples, please.

View article...

No, There is No “Christian Case” for Abortion

Keli Goff 's essay at the Daily Beast was headlined "A Christian Case for Abortion Rights?" Does that not sound like the vegetarian's case for meat, Barack Obama's case for decisive leadership, or the devout atheist—contrary at its core? This oldie but badie argument merits a rebuttal, not because it is so original but because it is like the 700th iteration of a Xerox. So what IS the Christian case for abortion rights, you ask? It's really more like how Goff has concluded that a pro-life position, for Christians, at least, is problematic because of "four primary complications." These are so old, you have to wipe cobwebs off of them. First, Goff tells us, "the unresolved debate within Christianity regarding the extent to which our modern-day actions should be governed by Old Testament law." So, by Goff's logic, if the Old Testament talks "about sacrificing bulls and turtledoves," which "are no longer held to ironclad interpretation and practice by 21st-century Christians and clergy," therefore the application of Old Testament scripture such as Exodus 21:22 to abortion is no longer "ironclad" either. I assume we are supposed to take this seriously. I won't and I assume no one else who can count to 66 will either. Since this is a brief post we'll not talk about the many, many passages which emphasize how God is in communion with us before we are born and the continuity between life before and after birth. To take one example, in the Psalms. As Peter Saunders has observed, "The baby in the womb is the Psalmist, the same person, not a different person and not a non-person." What else? "The next complication is the lack of scientific and religious clarity over how to define when life begins." There is no lack of scientific clarity over when life begins. Life begins at conception. Period. Whether you protect that life—whether that life has "meaning" or "significance"—is a separate question. Religious "clarity"? How about "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful…My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place…your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." The Bible is also crystal clear that there are no separate categories of human beings. We are all—each one of us—unique and of infinite value because we are made in God's image. "The third issue for debate among devout Christians regarding abortion rights, and one of the most important," Goff writes, "is determining whether something that one may believe morally to be wrong or even a sin should be legislated." What is that supposed to mean? Whether you believe it is "morally" wrong to knock your fiancé out cold and someone else says it's just wrong (or a "private matter") is not the issue. The law is intended to protect the weak from the strong, to say some behavior is out of bounds and will be punished, and that you can't get away with something by pretending someone—aka the law–is foisting their "morality" on you. Goff's concluding point—reduced to its essence—is that even if someone (presumably a Christian) concludes that something (in this case having an abortion) is a sin, who gets to decide whether having an abortion is the more "humane" choice? As we have discussed countless times, there are difficult cases. No pro-lifer denies that. How would or could we when so many of us have experienced the hardest of the hard cases in our own lives? Two things we've learned. First, if you go all the way back to the abortion "reform" movement of the 1960s, a narrow band of proposed "exceptions" had, by 1973, swallowed the rule. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton essentially gave us abortion on demand throughout pregnancy.  These decisions' progeny, so to speak, is softness on infanticide and assisted suicide. Second, with the rarest of situations—ectopic pregnancies and a threat to the life of the mother—the hard cases are manageable cases where the choice can and should be for life. Does that require courage and resolution and character? Absolutely. But is not the life of a wholly dependent, helpless baby worth that? Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com If you are Goff and talking about Christianity and abortion with much about the Bible, the answer is that that baby is most assuredly worth that to the Author of Life, as He has made clear in His word, the Bible. LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared at National Right to Life News Today.

View article...

Under the Boehner Bonnet: Republican House Speaker Boehner fails to protect unborn

Get honest with yourselves my friends...what always has been, always will be...

House Speaker 'had four opportunities this year to defund Planned Parenthood'

Posted: November 18, 2011
12:20 am Eastern

By Michael F. Haverluck
© 2011 WND

House Speaker John Boehner

A candidate who is challenging House Speaker John Boehner for his Ohio congressional district seat says the Republican has another opportunity this week to do a great deal to protect the lives of the unborn, but probably won't.

Pro-life candidate David Lewis said the current resolution continuing the federal government's funding of abortion expires at the end of the week, and Boehner could vote to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion industry player.

UN Guidelines: Recruiting Religious Leaders as “Agents of Change” for One World Religion

Posted by Charleston Voice, 05.23.12

Be sure to visit our blog on Abortion & Warren Buffett's Role as Sponsor

 

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
May 23, 2012

In its 2009 Guideluines for Engaging Faith-based Organizations (FBO’s) As Agents of Change, the UNFPA put out specific tricks to reach congregations unwilling to go along with the UN’s population control programs:

“UNFPA has found that leaders of faith ‐ and interfaith ‐ based organizations are open to discussing reproductive health, if issues are addressed with care and sensitivity.”

These “agents of change” should also be recruited to protect and promote the overall agenda “through countering misinformation campaigns and building social support within the governments for the ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development).”

WHY WARREN BUFFETT IS ANTI-CATHOLIC

The cultural American Left has endeared themselves to this wanton 'benefactor' killer by feeding his IRS chartered US taxpayer-subsidies with millions of our earnings. Warren in all probability will go down as THE greatest mass murderer in Guinness history, comfortably exceeding Stalin and Hitler. He is a worldwide funder of this holocaust. Just in the United States we have 53 Million Abortions Since Roe in 1973. How many of those were due to Buffett's millions?

---

January 25, 2012 by admin  

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an aspect of Warren Buffett’s finances not ordinarily discussed:

Warren Buffett’s comment that the rich should pay higher taxes, now enshrined by President Barack Obama as the “Buffett Rule,” is drawing much applause. What is not being discussed is the billionaire’s support for anti-Catholicism. First some background information.

The Real Mitt Romney as He Still is

Published by Charleston Voice, 4.12.2012

Mitt Romney on the Issues

Mitt Romney and his offshore bank accounts

Romney’s Advisors Are Leftist Elites

Written by Bob Adelmann
Monday, 10 October 2011 15:02

Late last week GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney released the names of his foreign policy and national security advisors just in time for his Friday address on America’s foreign policy. He effused over his selection:

I am deeply honored to have the counsel of this extraordinary group of diplomats, experts and statesmen. Their remarkable experience, wisdom and depth of knowledge will be critical to ensuring that the 21st Century is another American Century.

His campaign continues to be plagued with an increasing chorus of doubters about his conservative posture. His claim to have balanced the budget of Massachusetts without raising taxes was found to be false. In a widely-seen interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press in 2008, Russert nailed Romney:

Russert: The head of the Bay State Council of the Blind said that your name was “Fee-Fee”; that you raised fee after fee after fee. That’s a tax … a fee’s not a tax?

Romney: A fee — well, a fee — if it were a tax, it’d be called — it’d be called a tax. But…

Russert: Governor, that’s…that’s a gimmick

Romney: No, it’s, it’s reality. It is. But — and I have no ... I’m not trying to hide from the fact we raised fees. We raised fees $240 million.

It turned out that the amount raised by “fees” was closer to $750 million, but Romney claimed that didn't count, because they weren’t taxes.

Romney also has lost credibility over the issue of federal government involvement in education. An excerpt from the Orlando, Florida, debate on September 22 is as follows:

Romney: "Let me tell you what I think I would do. One, education has to be held at the local and state level, not at the federal level. We need to get the federal government out of education…"

Bret Baier (moderator): I want to give you more time…

Romney: I think the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is doing a good thing by saying, you know what, we should insist that teachers get evaluated and that schools have the opportunity to see which teachers are exceeding [sic] and which ones are failing and that teachers that are not successful are removed from the classroom … [Emphasis added.]

One moment he’s against federal involvement in education, the next he’s supporting federal involvement in education. Matt Ortega, a former staff member of the Democrat National Committee, has put up a website MultipleChoiceMitt.com which quotes Romney on both sides of more than a dozen issues.

The heaviest burden Romney must bear is his support of RomneyCare and his failed and failing attempts to differentiate it from ObamaCare. As noted by Thomas Eddlem in The New American, RomneyCare “is nearly identical to national legislation enacted in 2010, mandating all of the major provisions that are present in ObamaCare” including individual fines for not purchasing health coverage starting at $1,212 a year and increasing to $3,500 a year as the law is phased in.

Critics note that the latest announcement by Romney of his advisors should finally put to rest any idea that he represents conservative or Tea Party values. He named the following people to his board of advisors:

General Michael Hayden — former director of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. He was director of NSA during its warrantless surveillance efforts to spy on American citizens. [CFR]*

Michael Chertoff — former head of the Homeland Security Department who now runs a security consulting agency that employs Michael Hayden.

Cofer Black — former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center during George W. Bush’s first term. He now chairs an intelligence gathering agency Total Intelligence Solutions, a subsidiary of Blackwater Worldwide.

Paula Dobriansky — former Under Secretary in the State Department, and graduate of Harvard University where she serves as a Senior Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government. [CFR]*

Robert Joseph — former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and now a senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy.

Christopher Burnham — former Under Secretary-General of the United Nations under Kofi Annan and then Under Secretary of State under Condoleezza Rice. He holds degrees from Harvard University and Georgetown University. [CFR]*

Eliot Cohen — holds two degrees from Harvard and served as Counselor to the State Department under Condoleezza Rice. [CFR]*

Kim Holmes — holds two degrees from Georgetown University and served as Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, responsible for directing the activities of 400 diplomats working closely with the United Nations. [CFR]*

Mitchell Reiss — served as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department under Colin Powell. He received degrees from Williams College, Tufts University, Columbia University, and Oxford University. He worked at the National Security Council under the direction of Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell. He served on the National Security Council, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Ford Foundation. [CFR]*

Eric Edelman — has degrees from Cornell University and Yale University. Former Under Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush.

Dov Zakheim — foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush under Condoleezza Rice and consultant to the Secretary of Defense. Received degrees from Columbia University and Oxford University. [CFR]*

Richard Williamson — received degrees from Princeton University and the University of Virginia, and served as ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush. [CFR]*

Kerry Healey — a graduate of Harvard, and Romney’s Lieutenant Governor for four years. She is married to Sean Healey, a multimillionaire. [CFR]*

John Lehman — served as Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan and was a member of the 9/11 Commission. Known for his quote: “Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.” [CFR]*

Dan Senor — holds a master’s degree from Harvard, and is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He accompanied George W. Bush to Jerusalem to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel.

Robert Kagan — holds a PhD from Yale University where he was inducted into the secretive Skull and Bones group. He worked at the State Department as a speechwriter for George Shultz and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (see footnote below). He was named by the CFR’s Foreign Policy journal as one of the world’s “Top 100 Public Intellectuals.” [CFR]*

Walid Phares — born in Beirut, he has testified before committees of the State, Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments, the European Parliament, and the United Nations Security Council.

Norm Coleman — Minnesota Senator from 2003 to 2009, he lost his seat to Al Franken in a contested election. He was a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL), but switched to the Republican Party in 1996. He is a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. 

Jim Talent — may be the only Romney advisor with any kind of conservative credentials, serving as a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. 

Nile Gardiner — a British conservative commentator who works at the Heritage Foundation. He was a former aide to British PM Margaret Thatcher. He is a graduate of  Yale University, and was an adviser to Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Analysts note that it should be more than abundantly clear that Romney has little or no interest in deviating in the slightest from the foreign policy trajectory the country is currently on. If he does waver, he’ll have plenty of pressure from the elitists surrounding him to stay the path to building the U.S. empire abroad with America's blood and treasure. In his article entitled, “Obama Will Win If Republicans Pick Establishment Candidate,” author Gerald Celente said the Republican establishment is following “a suicidal strategy that’s stranger than fiction. It’s as though the Republican campaign has been devised by insidious Democratic infiltrators.” [It has been. They're referred to as Neocons, see: Graphic Chart History of 20th Century Communism in America .... Edit. CV]

*Member of the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations

Source: TNA