Fox Host Chris Wallace defends Obama to Mitt Romney, pointing out that he’s a bigger Neocon than Bush

3/8/10
By Andrew Steele
America 20xy

Posturing himself for another presidential run and promoting his new book “No Apology, the Case for American Greatness”,Mitt Romney got some push-back from Chris Wallace this weekend for asserting in his book that Obama is weak on foreign policy and an apologist to terrorists.

Said Chris Wallace to Romney’s criticism, “…is that fair to say about a president who has escalated the US involvement in Afghanistan, and who has launched more drone attacks in one year than President Bush did in eight?”

“Chris,” answered Romney, “I think the president made an enormous error in the beginning of his administration by going across the world, starting in Muslim lands and saying that America has been derisive, dismissive, arrogant, that we have not listened to the concerns of others, that America has dictated to other nations…simply saying words like that are, one: wrong, because America has freed other nations from dictators, not dictated to them, and it also adds fuel to the fire to those who are part of the ‘blame America’ crowd. I saw even Ahmadinejad is now saying 9/11 is a fabrication. These sorts of voices should not receive any kind of support from the words of the president of the United States. ”

According to Romney, Obama’s lip service to Muslim nations during that brief period at the start of his term when the world thought that the new president might actually make good on the “change” he promised, somehow emboldened the so called bad guys, chiefly Ahmadinejad, who’s government the Obama administration is now seeking to put harsh sanction on, like the ones that crippled the people of Iraq for a decade before the last invasion.

A casual viewer may think Romney’s argument is that the words of the president should match his actions, but then Romney went on to praise Obama for flip-flopping on other issues:

“But I can tell you I am glad that the president reversed course in Iraq…he didn’t pull our troops out like he said during the campaign, he likewise said he supported our surge efforts in Afghanistan having voted against the surge in Iraq, and I’m glad also that he supported the Patriot Act.”

The “Neocon” and “Cruise Missile Liberal” establishments both agree on the end goal of US empire and domination of the Middle East and Eurasia, while varying minutely on strategy. Neocon political figures are attempting to reassert the idea that the Democratic president is somehow a bleeding heart to America’s “enemies” even as he bombs them from the sky and kills civilians in the process, creating new enemies and perpetuating the wars even further. Wallace’s honesty, (though unintentional since he tried to frame the drone bombings and war escalation as positive hallmarks of the Obama administration) demonstrates that there really is no difference between the two ruling political factions of the United States. However, in order for those factions to maintain their dominance the show has to go on. The establishment’s hope is that as Americans grow more weary of the wars, they blame it on the president instead of the systematic domination of US foreign policy by the military industrial complex and turn to a candidate like Romney, who will take the glove off the iron fist and promise to make America more secure through even tougher rhetoric and greater escalation, claiming Obama’s “weakness” is why, after so many years, America is still fighting.

The sad song of war will then continue, the same notes repeated in melodies of gunfire and screams. “Change” will remain a sound-byte instead of a reality, and even more people will continue to die.

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

Food Security Threat: Goverment Set to Ban Public Fishing, Individual Food Production

By – Mac Slavo
March 10th, 2010

In yet another example of government overstepping its bounds, the Obama administration is preparing to ban fishing in coastal areas around the country, as well as the Great Lakes and other inland water resources:

This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is “fluid” and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn’t issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.

That’s a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.

“When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario,” said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.

“Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored.

“In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President’s concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority.”

Banning “recreational” fishing isn’t just an issue of economics, but is a threat to the personal liberty of each individual’s right to produce their own food. And banning fishing is just one of several policy changes the government is looking at.

In Federal Food Police Coming Soon To A Farm Near You, Tess Pennington points out the risks of letting the government oversee individual food production methods under HR Bill 875 and The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which specifically target agricultural goods, including crops and livestock on personal, non-commercial farms:

What is to stop the government from defining a small home garden as a food facility? Because of the vagueness of this bill, it is not only the micro farmers that are affected by this. Anyone who has a garden, or shares their produce with neighbors or even owns a local restaurant that supports local farmers and buys their produce could be affected.

We could all be affected and pay the price dearly for not speaking up. . Many say that this bill is unconstitutional in that state rights will be stripped away. If passed, the state cannot go in and take care of the problem. It is a federal issue, thus will have federal repercussions.

Slowly but surely, the federal government is moving towards eliminating the ability of individual Americans to produce their own food – a direct attack on our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

For an administration with so much focus on “sustainability” it is ironic that they are attacking the very core of the sustainability movement – the individual. As more restrictions on the public are cemented through use of Congressional mandates and Presidential Executive Orders, the rights of individuals to take their well being into their own hands is further impeded.

Of course, under recent administrations, government is the answer for everything. The rugged individual or neo-survivalist is now becoming the fringe extremist. Why would someone need to produce their own food when they could drive down to the local Walmart or Super Target and pickup up all the genetically modified food they need, manufactured under pristine conditions in one of several centralized processing plants?

All of these proposed changes aimed at our ability to produce our own food seem to fall, in part, under the United Nations’ Agenda 21 initiatives which are touted as “sustainability development” programs. It seems, however, that the UN’s ideas for sustainable living focus more on collectivists ideologies than they do on the individual.
Rather than teaching individuals to become self sustaining, the goal of the UN’s Agenda 21 initiative is for the government to provide sustainability to the population. And according to Michael Shaw, president of Freedom Advocates, Agenda 21 can be summarized by three points and are supported by the documents prepared by the United Nations.
The goals of the UN include the abolition of rural and suburban private property, global citizenship education, and population control. It sounds scary, perhaps even unbelievable. But don’t take our word for it, read the Agenda 21 Core Publications at the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development.

Based on this evidence, it is important to note that it is not only Barrack Obama that is pushing for restrictions on your ability to fish, or grow food, or manage your own livestock for personal use. This is a global effort with the dictates coming from the United Nations, and it has been happening for several decades.

Terrorism against our food supply and unsanitary conditions during food production are only minor issues to our food security when compared to what may be the greatest threat facing sustainable living – our very own government.

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

Soros man – Scott McClellan tears Karl Rove a new one: WAR, Treason, Reality

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

London Guardian – “Debra Medina – The New Star of America’s Right”

Debra Medina, Debra Medina, new star of America’s right, is firing up the race for Texas governor
, is firing up the race for Texas governor

Debra Medina of the Tea Party movement is making a Sarah Palin-like impact with policies stressing property rights and gun ownership

Reprinted by
Paul Harris in Lytle, Texas
The Observer, Sunday 28 February 2010

Lytle is a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it kind of town, one of hundreds that dot the vast flat ranchlands of southern Texas. A smear of houses by the main highway between San Antonio and Laredo. Population: 2,383. The first streets only got paved here in the years after the second world war. A sewage system took a little longer, not being built until the 1960s. In short, Lytle, Texas, has never been big enough to have much impact on the politics of the Lone Star state. And few Texas politicians have ever paid much attention to it.

Until Debra Medina, that is. When Medina breezed into Lytle’s community hall the locals found themselves confronted with a Texan version of Sarah Palin. She wore a sharp scarlet skirt suit, librarian-style glasses and a puffed-up hairdo. More than 60 Lytle residents had gathered to meet her, a hefty turnout on a weekday at 11am for a Republican primary election in the race to be Texas governor. Medina has become a political phenomenon in Texas. Emerging as a genuine star of the rightwing populist Tea Party movement, she delivers a fiery message of slashing taxes and the abolition of almost all forms of federal government, and issues dire warnings that President Obama is taking America down a slippery slope to Soviet-style communism.

It’s working. Previously unheard of by the vast majority of Texans, Medina has set the race for governor on fire, upsetting the primary contest between the incumbent, Rick Perry, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Those gathered to see Medina in Lytle loved her. Young and old, men and women, Latino and white, listened with rapt attention as she outlined her agenda and asked them to back her in this week’s first round of voting. If she can beat Hutchison into second place, she can secure a runoff against Perry. That would raise the possibility – distant but real – of a Tea Party activist capturing the government of the second biggest state in America. The Tea Party movement would have gone from being a bunch of ragtag protesters to heading one of the largest single economies in the world. “If we can change politics as usual in Texas, then we can change politics as usual across America. This is not just about Texas, but about changing the whole country,” Medina told the Observer before addressing her supporters in Lytle.

She is not alone in that ambition. Across America other extreme candidates have emerged on the Republican right to challenge familiar party figures with a fiery mix of Tea Party-inspired populism. In Arizona, Senator John McCain is facing a tough re-election fight against a former congressman, JD Hayworth, who has expressed public doubts as to whether Obama was born a legitimate American citizen. In Florida the moderate Republican governor, Charlie Crist, is lagging badly in his own primary election to rightwing challenger Marco Rubio, who has the backing of local Tea Party groups.

On the right of US politics, this is big stuff. Instead of forcing mainstream Republicans to woo them for their votes, the rightwingers are now bidding for power. It is an attempt at revolution that could have huge meaning for America and the world, especially given the disastrous showing of Democrats in recent polls and elections. Medina knows this. After her speech she ended with a plea to her audience. “We can win this race,” she said, then held up her hand and squeezed two fingers together. “It is this close.”

Later that night, at a firemen’s association hall in the much larger city of San Antonio, Medina’s face stared down from a huge screen as she delivered a long policy monologue. To her audience she was the very antithesis of establishment power: a heroic revolutionary, out to destroy government and bring power to the people. “She is not a career politician. Everything she is saying will make Texas better than what it is,” said Sergeant Shawn Mendoza, 30, a veteran of three tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. A few minutes later the flesh-and-blood version of Medina entered the hall. She got a standing ovation before she had said a word.

She began her stump speech again, still wearing the outfit she had in Lytle. But when it comes to speeches Medina is no Sarah Palin. She has no need to write on her hand to remember her talking points. Instead her speech was a complex walk through her extreme anti-government philosophy, citing sources as varied as the Austrian school of economics, St Augustine and modern French philosophers. She said she wanted to get rid of property taxes and allow Texans to do whatever they wanted with anything they owned, whether that was dig for oil or build an extension. There was, she said, no constitutional basis for a federal Department of Education or an Environmental Protection Agency or the Federal Reserve. Texas should assert its rights almost as a nation-state, controlling over its own National Guard units. The disdain for government was visceral. The American way, she said, was simple. “There are two rights essential to freedom: private property and gun ownership.”

Such thoughts find fertile ground in Texas. This state has always had a swaggering, independent streak and a dislike for too many laws. Medina was born on a farm near the small town of Beeville in south Texas. She speaks with a homely Texas accent and worked as a nurse before entering politics at county level in the 1990s. Her bid for governor was largely ignored by the media as she crisscrossed the state for 13 months, visiting small town after small town. Gradually she crept up in the polls and forced her way into the televised debates, where she performed strongly. Campaign money began to pour in. One poll puts her as high as 24%, just behind Hutchison and within reach of catching her and forcing Perry into a runoff.

Medina believes she is not really in third place, citing the fact that the polls only telephone previous Republican primary voters, whereas she is bringing in thousands of new supporters. “I feel fantastic. I think we can win this,” she said in Lytle.

Only once has Medina slipped up – in an interview she gave to the conservative radio host Glenn Beck. On his show Medina was asked if she thought the US government might have had a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. She replied: “I don’t.” She then went on to expand disastrously upon that answer. “I don’t have all the evidence there… I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that,” she said.

Those comments provided ample ammunition for her political rivals. Her march forward in the polls was halted and some of her advances chipped away. The only time Medina appeared unnerved in Lytle or San Antonio was when a woman in the audience mentioned the Beck interview and asked her if she was a “Truther”, in reference to the conspiracy theory that the government planted bombs to blow up the World Trade Centre. Medina looked flustered and started to answer before saying suddenly: “No! No!” and moving on to a new question.

But such areas are the home ground of the Tea Party movement. At almost any Tea Party event it is easy to meet Truthers or Birthers or those who believe Obama is a closet Stalinist or a Nazi or a Muslim fundamentalist or indeed all three together, no matter how blindingly contradictory such beliefs are. In San Antonio one member of the audience wore an Oath Keepers T-shirt. Oath Keepers are a group of veterans, soldiers or police officers who fear their own government is about to attack the American people or round up conservatives into concentration camps. The oath they have sworn to keep is to refuse to obey such orders. That sort of thing remains a fundamental problem for the politicians from the Tea Party seeking high office.

Calvin Jillson, a political scientist at Dallas’s Southern Methodist University, believes the Tea Party can be understood as the latest in a long line of explosions of political rage in America. They include the Populist party that won elections in several states during the 1890s recession and the millions who voted for Ross Perot’s presidential candidacy in the 1980s. “These things happen but they burn out like a prairie fire. We are in the middle of it right now but when the economy picks up it will fade away,” Jillson said.

Yet the crowd in Lytle could not see any sign of economic recovery. Their rage did not feel like it would fade away. “I’m so mad, it’s like chewing nails,” said Lytle businesswoman Priscilla Squires, 60. She saw this week’s primary as the start of fundamental change in America, while the experts say Medina’s Tea Party will crash against the barricades of the ballot box. They are probably right. Yet Texas has always been a little different. “I don’t think a Medina win is likely,” said Jillson “But nothing is impossible. This is Texas after all.”

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe To Ask for DOJ Investigation

February 23, 2010 – by Charlie Martin

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate Files has led to a re-examination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Based on this Minority Staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia Attorneys General.

Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate Files and the subsequent revelations:

1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:

1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in Congressional Proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.

For more of PJM’s most recent Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin’s “Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here“.

Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center. Find him at http://chasrmartin.com, and on his blog at http://explorations.chasrmartin.com.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/?singlepage=true

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

Hate to say I told ya so – Scott Brown votes with Dems on Jobs “stimulus” Bill

Conservatives Turn On Scott Brown Over Jobs Bill Vote: ‘Low Life Scum Hypocrite!’

Not long ago, Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was elected to the United States Senate and a nation rejoiced, because he was going to drive down to Washington D.C. and become the President of Filibusters. But a funny thing happened yesterday, when Brown decided not to cast the 41st vote, and instead to vote as if he’d like to one day get re-elected to office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

“It’s a small step, but it’s still a step,” Brown told reporters after casting a procedural vote in favor of the Democratic jobs bill, bucking his party leaders and the strategy of opposition they have carried out since President Obama took office.

For Senate Democrats, it was much bigger step. Four Republicans followed Brown’s lead, giving the jobs legislation 62 votes, two more than needed to cut off a GOP filibuster.

That was enough to earn Brown the Drudge banner, complete with the demon-red tint of betrayal! And, subsequently, Scott Brown’s honeymoon came to an end like all political honeymoons: amid hotheaded recriminations on Twitter. Ken Layne at Wonkette documented the carnage.

Over at Scott Brown’s Facebook page, the mood is much the same, probably because David Broder hasn’t written a column yet telling America that the jobs in this jobs bill are so much more awesome than the jobs that came before them because they are “bipartisan.” Some of Brown’s fans are giving him some support, but the lion’s share of comments read like “LYING LOW LIFE SCUM HYPOCRITE!” and “What a bummer dude. We didn’t need another Olympia Snowe,” and “BROWN, YOU JUST REMEMBER YOU DOUCHEBAG…WE ARE WATCHING YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU FAILED AT THE FIRST CHANCE…YOU SCUM SUCKING ASS!!! GUESS MY 10-15 HOUR WORK DAYS WILL HELP PAY FOR THIS TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!”

Brown was joined in his vote by fellow Republican Senators Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson — the Coke Classic of being the 41st vote — voted against cloture.

RELATED:
Scott Brown Votes For Jobs Bill, Wingnuts Go Nuts On Twitter [Wonkette]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
Jobs Bill VOTE: GOP Filibuster Fails As Scott Brown And Others Break With Party

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/23/conservatives-turn-on-sco_n_473192.html

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

CPAC Surprise! Ron Paul Wins 2010 CPAC Straw Poll

Texas Representative Ron Paul won the 2010 CPAC straw poll tonight, beating out both Mitt Romney & Sarah Palin, and raking in 31% of the vote. Paul, a Libertarian who is perhaps best known for his aggressive stance against the Federal Reserve, has a dedicated group of followers which have again affirmed their influence within the Republican party.

What this means for a 2012 bid for presidency is uncertain, however; Paul’s supporters were a vocal and visible group when he ran for President in 2008, but in the end, Paul walked away with only a small percentage of the actual votes. According the Huffington Post, Paul was the most anticipated speaker at the three-day convention, and his followers flooded the auditorium to hear him speak; yet when the results of the straw poll were announced, the crowd booed loudly.

Perhaps this shows just how much Paul’s old-school approach to Republicanism fractures the GOP. Ron Paul is an unorthodox figure in the political scene; his libertarian manifesto, The Revolution, is a New York Times bestseller; he rallies against neoconservatives and liberals alike while preaching states rights, free-market economics, and small government.

Mitt Romney, largely considered a contender for the 2012 presidency, took home 22% of the 2010 straw poll votes, after having won the previous three polls. Sarah Palin garnered just 7% of the vote. You can check out the full results below:

2010 CPAC Straw Poll Results
Ron Paul 31%
Mitt Romney 22%
Sarah Palin 7%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Mike Pence 5%
Newt Gingrich 4%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Mitch Daniels 2%
John Thune 2%
Rick Santorum 2%
Haley Barbour 1%

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978058882&grpId=3659174697241980

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

Planes diverted over USA as several incidents occur on same day

Flight Diverted to Salt Lake After Bomb Threat
Passengers still on board as FBI searches plane

AP) – Airport officials say an airliner en route to San Francisco has been diverted to Salt Lake City following a bomb threat. The plane is already on the ground, being searched by FBI and airport police. Its 193 passengers and six crew members remain on board. United Flight 741, which originated in Denver, was diverted as a precaution, says a United spokesman.

http://www.newser.com/story/81262/flight-diverted-to-salt-lake-after-bomb-threat.html

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The FBI is investigating a bomb threat that caused a United Airlines plane bound for San Francisco to land in Salt Lake City today as a precaution. A spokeswoman at Salt Lake City International Airport says Flight 741 was diverted after a flight attendant found a threatening note. An airport official says 193 passengers and six crew were on the flight, which originated in Denver.

http://www.9and10news.com/Category/Story/?id=207138&cID=3

Update: Palo Alto Plane Crash Kills Tesla Workers; Causes Widespread Power Outage

Palo Alto, CA, United States (AHN) – The three passengers of a Cessna who died on Wednesday after their plane crashed into homes in East Palo Alto were employees of Tesla Motors. The crash also left homes and businesses in the northwestern city of California without power.

In a statement, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the victims were employees of his company. “We are withholding their identities as we work with the relevant authorities to notify the families. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. Tesla is a small, tightly-knit company, and this is a tragic day for us,” he added.

Tesla the only automaker currently selling highway-capable electric cars.

The twin-engine aircraft had just left Palo Alto airport and was headed to Hawthorne Municipal Airport when it hit power lines and crashed into several homes. Fog has been attributed as a possible reason for the accident.

The city of Palo Alto said all of its 28,000 utility customers lost power. The outage caused Stanford Hospital and the Veterans’ Administration Hospital to divert their emergency patients to El Camino Hospital, Valley Medical and Kaiser Santa Clara. The disruption also reportedly affected Facebook, which is headquartered in Palo Alto.

The city activated its emergency operations center and PG&E worked to restore its affected transmission tower in East Palo Alto. City utilities crews completely restored power early in the evening.

Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017856018?Update:%20Palo%20Alto%20Plane%20Crash%20Kills%20Tesla%20Workers;%20Causes%20Widespread%20Power%20Outage#ixzz0fv50Z1SU

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

RISE UP! Students Arrested, and Failed for booing Israeli Ambassador of the Stage in CA

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

Governments ADMIT they have carried out False Flag Terror

Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror – governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed – has been used throughout history.

This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.

For example:

* The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950’s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president

* Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

* The well-respected former Indonesian president admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings

* The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this)(Italy joined NATO in 1949, years before the bombings occurred)

* As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960’s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings*

There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See this, this and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.

You can’t call it a conspiracy theory when the government itself admits it.

And this is not just ancient history:

* Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Adviser – Zbigniew Brzezinski – told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation

* A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, would not put it past the government to “play fast and loose” with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

* Note: While the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan.

For Hyper links, and comments go to original source:

Book Mark it-> del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList

Next Page »