Category Archives: Afghanistan

The latest rationalization of the critical-thinking, conspiracy theorist

Okay, conspiracy theorists…you have been blown away with the Ron Paul turncoat….how are you going to think your way through this one?

I have come across a terrific, critical thinker but obvious Alex Jones, Ron Paul supporter. And, don’t get me wrong, I was one of those just a few days ago. I guess if Alex Jones can flip-flop, Ron Paul can join in too, and it seems anyone at will can change friends and affiliations to serve their purposes, who am I to be any different, eh?

We have to all assess the new conspiracy possibilities with an open mind and open heart, and look into the relationships that might give us a clue on what up with that, dog?

Who really is Ron Paul? He doesn’t seem on one hand to be the guy we thought he was, that is, unless we can rationalize the move to save our image of him as the conspiracy believer, playing the game as long as he could, to have some influence over the world, to tell us all what’s really going on.

But shhhhh, don’t bat an eye when Ron can’t admit that 911 was an inside job, even though the John Birch Society professes it, and he can stand up as a speaker once in a while to rousing applause. Play the game, won’t you?

Well, here is my good YouTube friend who is rationalizing now for himself. He is a great critical thinker. I would describe him as possibly where a typical Ron Paul supporter who wants to hold onto the ideal that the Pauls are good, Alex Jones is for real, and we are party to a group that will eventually wake everyone up. Our job has just begun, and the keyboard is looking to smoke over the next several weeks:

So welcome, from Lexington, Kentucky and the rest of the world, to the new game of Conspiracy theory, part two!

Advertisements

Why so much reflection on Ron Paul now?

The worst form of “ineptness” may be in deceiving those who look up to you

It is my belief that the support of Ron Paul by the Patriot Movement has been based largely on the assumption that Paul was really a truther after all.

After his comment in the early part of 2012 related to 911: “Bush knowing about this?”, I have to solemnly question where exactly he remains on the issue of 911 truth.

In the now, dare I say famous can of worms interview with Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley dropped an important bomb of infomation that would suggest Ron Paul may not be the man with the mission many of us thought he was.

Specific allegations from Tarpley were based on fact. Ron Paul supported the Afghan invasion because he truly believed bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on 911. He has not changed his point of view on that despite Alex Jones’ reasoning in the interview that Paul was aware of false flag attacks. Even in the GOP debates, with Paul in battle with Rick Santorum, the infamous booing of Paul  occurred  because of his mention of the US’s aggressive foreign military policy. What it really did was slap 911 truth in the face, and solidify the false belief that bin Laden was the culprit. In hindsight, it could have been brilliant political theater.

The reason a critical eye of Ron Paul must be had now is because of the supporters he has accumulated that would likely buy into everything he suggests. Dare we ask how many Paul supporters are on food stamps out of the 60% + that would be out of luck with the $ 1 Trillion slashing of the Federal budget?

In the GOP debate, we can think back on how much time was spent on national defense strategy. Odd when the economy was tanking, you would think it would be down on the list of priorities. Again, it solidified the argument that 911 was  instigated from cave dwellers in Afghanistan not because of a conspiracy. Have we all been duped into believing that Ron Paul secretly agrees with us, while over the years dodging the bullet, or in some cases coming out boldly to whole-heartedly spell it out? And if Ron Paul can be persuaded to vote for war because of bin Laden, would Rand be equally accomodating at the suggestion Iran held dangerous nukes?

If we look at Tarpley’s argument that Ron Paul was there to take votes away from Romney’s GOP competition, that should make us more careful not to assume Paul was there to support the Patriot movement unquestioningly. He has not given us assurance that he is indeed on our side. That is, that there is a global mission to a One World Government. Liberty and Freedom at home is not good enough, when you don’t admit the bigger picture. However, he has discussed his fear of a North American Union, but isolating that issue without admission of the bigger picture is in itself suspect.

And, the cash infusion from Bilderberg at this stage is extremely suspect. The stretched argument that Paul cannot control who injects $2.7 million into his campaign is weak, and as Tarpley points out, it did not come from just any Bilderberger, it came from Thiel, who sits on the Bilderberg Steering Committee.

Ask some waitresses in Europe how generous a Bilderberger who just hit the winfall like Zuckerberg was, when he wouldn’t tip. $2.7 million must come with some strings attached for sure.  And rumor has it that the Bilderbergers weren’t too generous inside the Marriott in Chantilly either. So the big campaign infusion is very questionable. Ride off in the sunset, huh? Imagine how Alex Jones  would use that information against any other candidate that got the windfall from a Bilderberg steering committee member.

Friend or no friend, it’s time to separate the job from the bias and get down to work. We will see if the friendship of Tarpley and Jones can endure the truth that Tarpley dropped. And, if I might add, having analyzed the interview again, Tarpley is genuinely a friend to Jones, and his suggestion Alex should have run for President seemed rather heartfelt. Tough love if you will. I think Jones needs to do some soul searching on this one, and decide which friend is more honest and forthright – – the guy who eludes to be on his side, or the one who blasts reality square between the eyes.

And, are we left with a mystery to solve on where Ron Paul and now Rand Paul really stand? Is that grey area really good enough at this point in American history? At a crossroads doesn’t even begin to explain the magnitude where truth is needed, and clarity should be a given.

Ron Paul is at best a mysterious, mythical father figure that we “hope” sees it the way we would like him to see it, and we must somehow read between the lines, because, “shhhh, he can’t lead on that he is really one of us, and he can’t bring it up”.

That argument has now become dangerous for a myriad of reasons, most of which were uncovered eloquently by Webster Tarpley.

As Dan Rather would now reflect on his memoirs of past, and future moving forward, “follow the money”.

Money and promise of payoff are there. Ron Paul may have conveyed some interesting ideals over the years, but he is ready to retire and hand it over to Rand from here.

Some say that it is Rand that is to blame and will ruin what dad has accomplished. I prefer to think based on the support one has for the other, that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The mission at this point might be to accept the limitations of not taking it to where it needed to go a long time ago. To compromise oneself on exposing full truth is not good enough. Or, to deceive or have some faction of supporters wishing you were on their side may even be worse.

We are talking life and death here.

Tarpley mentioned something that should be important to us all. He suggested that Rand may be persuaded to allow a war with Iran. That would mean he would be a bigger ally to Romney, and might explain why a meeting took place between them. You would have to surmise that the “meeting” was the result of past “working together”, and to get to the point of deciding if he would be second in command must suggest they are pretty good bedfellows regardless of the outcome. Stop making excuses that I hear, like, “well, if Rand turns out not to be VP, then we can all go back to the Paul love-in, right?”

I don’t think so. For now, I will leave you with this. Despite the exposing of the shill who is Glenn Beck, we can safely say he did his political hit piece in 2007 for a time like this:

Might explain why a third party run is not in the picture. It would take votes away from Mitt Romney, and it would not allow a show of how many Patriots would support Ron Paul. A shame if it was all a smokescreen.

Olsen: “When did the Constitution become negotiable?”

What does Charlie Sheen and “Winning” have to do with Canadians wanting more hockey? Read on my friends…..Dos Equis or not!

Gotta love it, eh?

Canada, you are getting a taste now why hockey in Glendale has always been a political battle. And my theory is that there are investors in Abu Dhabi that have become a nightmare for the City of Glendale. Attached to them are the names that put the investors in touch, so to speak, with “the deal”, and they are all hoping the big penalty doesn’t come in to play. And no, it’s not even close to a game misconduct, far worse in fact. The game misconduct is in not providing the game of usury debt streams.

If it were not a political battle then, as argued before, this case would have been over a long time ago.

My daughter likes to blurt regularly, “Get over yourself”, whenever someone seems a little self righteous. And when I hear people tell us they have “told us” something many times before I agree with her. That’s what will make this situation and the far out angle we have taken come home to roost. So, excuse me for rubbing it in here shortly.

If indeed this was a pure battle of what makes the most economic hockey sense from a pure profit angle, Jim Balsillie would be putting the finishing touches on the new state of the art arena. The only issue would probably have been what to name the arena. Do we change it from Copps to RIM, or something else? What a dilemma that would be. The problem du jour would be a whole lot different than where we are today. Canadians you could simply keep focused on what you always wanted to focus on coming to makeiteighteh.com – – talk on the Coyotes and giving you the trash on the corruption. You could come looking for any dirt that would suggest Hamilton, or Winnipeg, or Quebec might get hockey back.

And worst of all, you might still be thinking if we don’t piss off Gary Bettman, we may actually get him to see Canada as a deserving place to put more hockey. Be good fellow Canucks, Gary seems to be happy about Canada today! Don’t rock the boat. Phewie! Wake up! It’s time to tip the boat over because it has a leak caused by years of corruption. The same corruption that has taken over the U.S. government and is trashing that Constitution!

When Gary Bettman asked who the Goldwater Institute answers to, he might as well have said, “Didn’t they get the memo on the new economy?” Who do they answer to indeed! Wow! Some entity not in on the taxpayer wealth stripping party! Absurd!

I am going to insert a very loaded interview between Brahm Resnik who is a broadcaster in Phoenix, but first and foremost a Canadian. He is interviewing Darcy Olsen of the Goldwater Institute that has the Constitution of the United States of America on her side. And, in a country where the current White House Administration views the Constitution as a thorn in the side of the real agenda, she is a refreshing change of pace from Corruption Incorporated. You know Brahm as the man with the twitter account who, like a gracious Canadian, answers everybody!

He even answered a good friend of mine that wrote an article for this site way back when that showed some detail about the Jobing.com bond issue – – a bubble within a bubble. Eloquently put I would say. Unfortunately Resnik  at the outset commented to him that there didn’t seem to be a point. I wonder if he would care to reread it now and see if that opinion has changed, In fact why don’t you all read it again and see the points made that are suddenly becoming significant. The bubble within a bubble – – the economic sell out of Glendale.

What are the new sky is falling numbers out of Glendale’s City Hall – – $500 million and complete collapse? Why? Really? Forty home dates of hockey is going to impact a City putting in a Casino and can increase concerts? Something is not right. Where’s the real deal Glendale? Who is holding your City hostage? Why is Gary Bettman really bending over backward to spare an embarrassment that will make Jerry Moyes’ pale in comparison?

In this interview, I love the fact that Olsen points out to Resnik that although hockey is important to many, there is the case against pulling the plug on Grandma that they are involved with that is challenging the U.S. Healthcare reform. Sorry Canada, that is a little more important!  Here’s where I insert my own shameless plug, proving I am a hypocrite when I say that I hate self-promotion.

And where did my article end up? Infowars.com and the leader of the battle against the attack on that nasty Constitution.

That’s right, you may have heard of Alex Jones, if at no other time than on the View with Barbara Walters, as she was ready to blow a gasket. You see, Jones wanted to cram in as much stuff on the bad things that have been done to Americans and the Constitution that he took every opportunity to tell us all about “building 7″ in New York on 9/11, the killing of innocent Iraqis during the war on the weapons of mass destruction, and on and on. Whoopie Goldberg looked like she was taking downers for a change, trying to get Jones to slow down. It was a crazy few minutes, but a victory and a way to further the Charlie Sheen cause .

Is it any wonder Sheen is basking in the glory of destroying the New World Order and is as popular as ever for the campaign of “Winning”? The next time you watch Saturday Night Live try to separate the attack from the humor and you will see something far from funny. The system controlled by mainstream media is scared, and they are threatened.

You must excuse Charlie for looking disturbed and overcoming substance abuse. Anyone who has come from that place and is still effective at bringing attention to the issues of the day is brilliant. It is an interesting dilemma – – do you look at Charlie the man and say he is at this time a little off, or do you look at the bigger picture and agenda, and realize he truly is winning? And by winning, again, we mean drawing attention to supporting the Constitution, peoples’ rights, and freedom. Or, did you miss the whole point? He may come across as the madman across the water, but the point is the people across the water want to hear him.

When Whoopie Goldberg said she wanted to figure out what was happening with Charlie, they should have let Alex Jones have an hour to explain that Sheen’s problems happened when he wanted 20 minutes with the President. In fairness, if the system wanted to vilify you, you’d go a little nuts too!

So hockey, right?

Point is, hockey and politics, and the U.S. Constitution is all in focus. The Coyotes in Phoenix and the other NHL teams are all affected by corruption and taxpayer abuse by a sports league that is no different than the rest. John McCain has come forward to support the Coyotes because of political issues. We have seen a lot on this site, and we have shown a glimmer of those over time to you here. We have seen the politics, the ties to land developers, and we have seen the game within the game.

When we realize that the game of hockey has been held hostage to land developers and financiers, we will look at the next bubble within a bubble coming to Edmonton right now, and see it for what it really is. Edmonton is being held hostage by the “convenient excuse” that the taxpayers should own the arena, just like in Glendale. The real reason is because the taxes are guaranteed to those behind the financing, and they can score many times the value of the arena in interest payments over time.

Glendale saying that their economy will collapse makes no sense to anyone on the surface. It’s what you cannot see that is the issue. Will we let it become the issue in Edmonton too? Are they the replacement cash cow?

Will we, as Canadians think we are living in a protective bubble, where Stephen Harper is not part of the Club? We have looked at him too here on this site.

It’s time to realize hockey is politically driven. It’s time to join the party and start winning too.

When Resnik asked Olsen if Canadians were making contributions to the Goldwater Institute’s battle against the case for keeping the team in Glendale, it made me laugh.

It made Olsen laugh too.

As an issue for a Canadian like Resnik who really knows better because of his political analysis agenda, it shows that there has always been a more important mission. It has been a mission of human rights and freedoms. It’s all about a bigger issue of righteousness! It’s about people having rights. Like Jerry Moyes! Remember him? The man served proxies instead of compassion?

When are we going to understand there are bigger issues than hockey? And you can’t just throw money at that! In short, any Canadians who think throwing money at the Goldwater Institute will motivate them more to take on the NHL had better “get over themselves”!

It’s about WINNING!…. DUH! Winning the big picture not the little hockey picture!

While Darcy Olsen does it the politically correct way,  Charlie Sheen lets it all hang out – –  what’s the difference?  He is in essence saying the heck with all things politically correct because politics is corrupt people!  They built him up and gave him power and now he is turning the machine against themselves- – a stroke of brilliance!

Who does he need to answer to? Nobody! Who does Goldwater need to answer to — normal everyday people fed up with the system of taxpayer abuse. So, Mr. Bettman, I hope that clarifies things a little bit. After all, you did want to know who Goldwater is accountable to.

It’s all about loving the preserving of human rights! It’s about upholding the Constitution that represents those rights. And in Canada, we need to pay careful attention too.

A man’s actions define him. Sheen is overcoming all odds to show just how intelligent he is. Playing the nutbar to bring attention to himself to further the bigger issues.

If Lindsay Lohan’s drinking can bring her fame and attention, Sheen is getting more than 20 minutes with the world. Why bother trying to influence the President when you are more popular than Obama? Refreshing and fresh! Free and carefree! Liberated and fanciful!

So thank you Charlie Sheen for taking your popularity to a meaningful level, despite what they are trying to do to you! Oh, and Darcy and the Goldwater Institute: Many thanks as well. When Darcy says, “when has the Constitution been negotiable?”, I suppose she is saying it shouldn’t be in hockey, and it should not be abused by a dictatorship style either, when she refers to the healthcare reform in America. The little engine that could in a pile of corruption and bullying. Nice try Brahm! Nobody it would seem is going to derail this little choo choo. Whoohoo!

And with Charlie Sheen’s popularity hitting an all-time high, there is something about him that attracts people. Perhaps it is the underlying truth! Maybe he should have this to say, being “the most popular man in the world”,

” Stay thirsty for the truth my friends!”

Rumsfeld on War: They were wrong on Iraq

Do ya think, Don?

Donald Rumsfeld wrote a book. They all do, don’t they?

He said they were wrong on the intelligence that drove them into Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction. According to CNN that cost 4500 troops their lives. And, wasn’t it 100,000 plus innocent Iraqi citizens that died?

I remember the “intel”, as we reported that it was applied rather thick. Rumsfeld seemed too confident then, to be so willy nilly, and wishy-washy now on the subject.

Let’s bring you back, to the elaborate caves that Rumsfeld said were  in Afghanistan where Bin Laden was hiding. Did they find these? No, they were a fictoid. But Rumsfeld jumped right in to justify not one, but many. Able to avoid radar; big enough to run tanks through; with electricity, ventilation systems, computers, etc. Where was this intel obtained that sounded so convincing?

Let’s not forget the  need for bunker busting bombs, according to George Bush Jr.

Sure, really George?

On 9/11, wasn’t your dad dining with some of the Bin Laden family for breakfast, or lunch? I can imagine the dinner conversation – “Oh sorry, just to go off topic, we are looking for your son, do you mind telling us where the most wanted is right now – we need to pick him up”. Right.

Read more, click here

Maybe Anwar Al -Awlaki now occupies these mystery caves. Sure fits the M.O. doesn’t he? Got the Pentagon dinner one night, on the most wanted list soon after. Hint to those in the Middle East: Don’t take dinner invitations – you are really paying for it.

I can imagine that dinner conversation: “Anwar, we are looking for a new patsy. So, here is what we’ll do. You’re it! Okay? That’s as good as it gets. We will make it worth your while – we will never catch you. Set you up in new digs, the whole nine yards, what do you say Anwar?”

“The American public? Don’t worry, they buy everything the controlled media tells ’em, not an issue. If we say the sky is green, they believe it. If we say the cold as heck weather is global warming, for crying out loud, they believe it. If we can pull of that scam, don’t you think we can pull this off too?”

“We got Donny Rumsfeld, guilty as sin writing a book. Because once the book is published, Don feels better, the people feel better, and if it is in a book, gotta be true! Know what  I mean? Heck, we can even show the stupidity of the thing in shows like the Family Guy. People just laugh. But, they still believe it, the chumps!”




The hard-hitting Diane Sawyer (lovely lady) hit Rumsfeld with the tough question. The cat that swallowed the canary look on Rumsfeld’s face tells us everything I think we need to know.

Can we take the “wisdom” of Rumsfeld at least in one way. He said the things we know today are different. Applying that, was 9/11 not what we were told too? We have the evidence today to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that “doubt” exists.

What drove the military into Iraq, at the root was a lie. It’s time to get to the bottom of it.

Bilderberg’s John Keane & Jessica Mathews: The Waging of Peace

At 84, it seemed odd that Queen Elizabeth II made a special trip to New York to pay respect to the 9/11 victims, and in addressing the  U.N. assembly claimed, “the waging of peace is the hardest form of leadership of all.” We don’t usually hear the term, “waging of” followed by anything other than “war”. So, in this case, it was indeed an odd twist.

But, the comment is actually in keeping with the intent of the globalist leaders that, according to Queen Elizabeth II, must wage peace  to address the issues of “terrorism” and “climate change”. The Bilderberg Group must have been comforted to get the support of the Queen of England. And, it would seem, the Bilderberg influence has shaped U.S. military efforts over the past while as well. The “waging of peace” has support by those responsible to sell the concept to the American people and the world.

We could look at the “waging of peace” as the military strategy for Iraq. The trickle in strategy of U.S. troops would suggest a war of occupation not with intent of “victory”.

The Bilderbergers, looking for world domination,  would have no reason to win and leave the Middle East – not if they were intending on controlling the world. They would need to spin the occupation as a war of peace; the selling feature would have to be to sell the need to  build the democratic infrastructure of government, and eventually do the same for Afghanistan.  In 2007 and beyond, The Bilderberg Group would need a marketing plan to sell the occupation war. They would require a team of marketers with credibility, stature and title.

They had their team – Retired General John (Jack) Keane and Jessica T. Mathews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Both long-term Bilderberg attendees – especially at critical times leading in to 2007. Both attending the 2006 Bilderberg meeting in Ottawa, and the 2007 meeting in Turkey. And yes, of course they were attendees in Spain this year.

In January 2007, John Keane and Fred Kagan (no relation to Elena Kagan) wrote “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq” which supported the implementation of 30,000 more troops into Iraq, because , “Kagan emphasized that it was critical to reduce the levels of violence before attempting any political solution”. The trickle in strategy was underway, and the strategy to occupy was being sold to the U.S. citizens.

2008 was the election year in the U.S., and with November fast approaching, Obama was poised to suggest a troop withdrawal as a selling feature of his candidacy. As we all know, whether a Democrat or Republican, the voters of America were getting a Bilderberg rep, whose job it would be to continue the agenda of world domination, occupation and control.

In June 2008, an article came out by the Independent in the UK entitled, “Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under U.S. control”. Secret or not, it would affect Obama’s promise to the people who promised the troops could start to withdraw. Bilderberg had their way again.

In the video below, Jessica Mathews, in the Iraq Debate in 2007, sells the war to suggest it necessary as a means of peace – a ” political ” battle.

According to Mathews, there was only a “political solution”, suggesting there was no sense to  pull out or to push to “win” the war by deploying the number of troops that later would be  proven the argument as well for Afghanistan.

Recently, General McChrystal sought  the means to “win” by a surgence of troops (80,000).  Obama, the puppet of the Bilderbergers had to counter-argue and replaced McChrystal with Petraeus, citing, among other things that they had to make ” …. sure we’re doing a good job in building capacity on the civilian side.”

McChrystal, frustrated with the lack of military force  in Afghanistan, was critical of  Richard C. Holbrooke, a Bilderberger on the inside, holding title of Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Did he realize the Bilderberg Group never intended on leaving the region or winning?  And, wasn’t it fitting that John Keane’s good friend taking over the Afghan mission, Gen. Petraeus, said he is in it to win it. Good luck general!

In the Iraq War debate in Senate, Republican  John Warner,” one of the Republican Party’s most respected voices on military affairs” could not hold his disgust, as can be seen in this video:

David Frost, looking much older than in his historic interviews with President Nixon during the Watergate Scandal, allowed John Keane to summarize for us the sales points of the wars that were sold as political structure building in countries far removed from the United States. Ironic, isn’t it, that the Bilderberg Group is currently destroying the free world, and Keane explains how America is “freeing” the Middle East?

Are we to believe that the enemies were CIA groomed operatives by the names of Bin Laden and Hussein? Or would the Bilderberg Group have used the “boogie men” to create the reason to occupy the Middle East, to surround Iran, and effect their plan for world government and world domination? And as importantly, were Bilderberg members Jessica Mathews and  John Keane the sales agents to sell the continuation of the wars in the region?

Selling the fight and the "war on terror"

 

We are now going to take a “hockey break” to bring you a related issue. During the course of the case for the Phoenix Coyotes, we learned that politics has likely played an indirect role at the very least in the bankruptcy of the Coyotes. We, in our investigation have learned that there could be hidden agendas with much graver consequences that transcend sport.

For this Sunday, we take you to something of world interest and concern – what is the American Government up to and why?

For the updated full story  including video please go here