THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Thursday, November 17, 2011

WHEN THE LIES COME TUMBLIN', TUMBLIN' . . . DOWN!

.
Dear Loose Doggs & Doggettes of the ‘Loyal American Underground’ ~

Are some state leaders truly (finally!) waking up to the crimes of the “Undocumented Socialist Acting as President”? Let us hope and spread the news . . .

Below is just a few brief excerpts of an article appearing on the World Net Daily website. You can read it in its entirety by clicking HERE.

WOW! NEW HAMPSHIRE WAKES UP TO OBAMA'S ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD

Hearing Friday As State Lawmakers Also Probe President's Eligibility

Posted: November 16, 2011
8:43 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

A hearing, with the apparent support of two state lawmakers, is scheduled before the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz that alleges Barack Obama has used fraudulent documents and a fraudulent Social Security number.

The hearing is scheduled Friday at 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the New Hampshire Legislative Office Building, and Taitz is encouraging the public to be present.



[Lawyer Orly Taitz]
. . .
Further, "The most staggering evidence is Mr. Obama's lack of a valid Social Security number and his use of a fraudulently obtained Social Security number from the state of Connecticut, a state where he never resided, which was never assigned to Obama, according to E-Verify," the complaint states.

It alleges not only is the Obama birth documentation a modern printout, there are numerous experts who attest it is fraudulent.



~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

“TEST YOUR VOTER I.Q.” (Or, “YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE”)

.
 Following is a single-question “Pass” or “Fail” test.

When you enter your polling place, accept your ballot and step into your booth or up to your partitioned cubicle to record your 2012 Presidential Republican Primary vote, you are being asked to mark the box that indicates . . .

[ ] 1: The candidate that the mainstream media claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 2: The candidate that Fox News claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 3: The candidate that the NeoConservative voices on the talk radio station you listen to claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 4: The candidate that the Democrat or Libertarian party claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 5: The candidate your Mommy, Daddy, Husband, Wife, Boyfriend, or Girlfriend claims has the best chace of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 6: The candidate that the most recent polling figures claim has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 7: The candidate that YOU believe has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 8: None of the above.

----------------------------------------------

If you checked number eight you answered the question correctly. If you marked any box other than number eight you have failed this test.

When you vote in the 2012 Presidential Primary election, you are being asked one very simple question, and yet it’s amazing how election after election so many voters get confused and waste their vote.

The only question you are being asked to answer on your ballot is this:

“Which presidential candidate would YOU most like to see occupying the White House for the next four years?”

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. You’re not being asked to speculate on anything; you’re not being asked to display your political prognosticating skills or your psychic prowess; you’re not being asked to answer any question that you are not immediately fully equipped, prepared, and informed enough to answer.

You are being asked one simple question that you and you alone, in the entire world, are uniquely able to answer:

“Which presidential candidate would YOU most like to see occupying the White House for the next four years?”




“WASTING MY VOTE?”

In the 2008 presidential election, many registered Republicans voted for a candidate they didn’t really want – John McCain – but they voted for him because they had been convinced that he was the only Republican candidate who had a chance of beating the Democrat. And in the end, McCain lost by a very large electoral college margin to Barack Obama. My candidate – Ron Paul – didn’t beat Obama either. So, did I ultimately waste my vote more than the others wasted theirs?

My vote did not lead to victory but it did lead to peace of mind, knowing that when push came to shove, I gave my one vote to the candidate I believed was the best person for the job.

If you voted unenthusiastically for John McCain, with a “lesser of two evils” mind-set, then your vote was wasted even more than my vote was wasted because not only did your vote not lead to victory but it did not lead to peace of mind either.

We both lost, but I cast my vote “honestly” – with no intellectual compromising - for the one man I genuinely wanted to see in the White House. You compromised your vote and won neither the election or the good feeling that comes with knowing that you truthfully did the very best you could for your candidate.

One hundred out of one hundred times I’ll take a loss with no compromising of the integrity of my vote over a loss WITH compromised integrity.

Regardless of what the talking heads and the polls claim, if you think the best man for the job is Ron Paul, you should vote for Ron Paul. Period. If you think the best man for the job is a woman, then you should vote for Michele Bachmann, etc. Cast only honest votes, my friends.

In 2008, nearly every voter I personally spoke with said they wanted Ron Paul to win the election. But when it came time to actually cast their ballots, most of them voted for McCain because they had been convinced by the media that he was the only one who had a chance to win the general election.

But I can’t help thinking that if everyone who said they most wanted Ron Paul had simply voted for Ron Paul regardless of the unfounded “rumors” that he couldn’t win, Ron Paul might really be residing in the White House this very day.



“EXPOSING THE LOOP”

Here’s the Loop:

International Bankers and major Corporation Leaders have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in America – neither wants to upset the apple cart or kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs.

The controlling entities of most major corporations are in fact International Bankers and other very wealthy individuals.

Mainstream media organs are major corporations.

The controlling entities of most major corporations (i.e., including manstream media organs) are in fact International Bankers and other very wealthy individuals.

International Bankers and major Corporation Leaders have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in America – neither wants to upset the apple cart or kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs.

“YOU GET THE PICTURE?”

OK, you see what I did there? That little display of “here we go ‘round the mulberry bush” illustrates why the talking heads of the mainstream media (which absolutely includes so-called “conservative” talk radio and Fox News) attempt at every turn to sway your vote by repeatedly telling you in overt and subtle ways “who has a chance to win the upcoming election”.

If you watch or listen to political programs, you are being constantly conditioned to vote a certain way by dogmatists and propagandists representing International Bankers and Corporations. There are approved candidates and unapproved candidates, and it is the job of these media mercenaries to influence you to vote for the candidates that have been approved by the Bankers and/or Corporation Leaders.

The Bankers and/or Corporation Leaders want to make certain no person reaches the White House who might throw a monkey wrench into their money and power-making machines; they NEED you to vote into office a candidate who is secretly in bed with them, or whom they feel, at the very least, they can ultimately control.

A real “rogue” candidate (e.g., of the Ron Paul variety, not the Sarah Palin variety) is the last person the Bankers and major Corporation Leaders want to see reaching the White House.

Most political shows, debates, and polls are controlled and manipulated by these powerful people to influence the way you will vote. When it gets down to the point where you are voting for the lesser of two evils, they have already won and couldn’t care less which of them you vote for because they “own” both candidates.

But, if you could actually propel with your primary election vote a genuine Constitutional patriot/free market economist into the general election, you could, for the first time since Grover Cleveland was in the White House, experience real change – and I mean real “good” change!

Here is one fine example of how “they” – the plain and fancy “they” – have slipped it into the minds of voters that a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote:
.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54WFoV-veCM&feature=related

Please feel free to copy and paste this blog bit or a link to it all over the Internet, and Email it to your family and friends.

And please vote “RON PAUL” in 2012. 

Links:

Why I Would Never Vote For These 2012 Presidential Candidates…

You Just Don't Know How Much That Hurts Me!

Are You A Member Of The “Republocrat” Party?



~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

WHY I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR THESE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES . . .

.
Ron Paul’s speeches and voting record after about 21 years as a Congressman have been so consistent with what is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution that for someone to say they do not support Doctor Paul it is synonymous with saying, “I do not support the Constitution”.

Do you think that is hyperbole? If so, then I challenge you to tell me one political act or piece of legislation that you do or do not agree with, in which your position is in opposition to Congressman Paul’s view on the matter, and the Constitution explicitly supports your view rather than his. Go ahead. Just one.
~ Judge Yoey O’Dogherty
Superior Court Justice from the great State of Clarity

The August 22, 2011 edition of The New American magazine included a section titled “GOP Candidates’ Credentials” in which they examined each candidate’s political history and platform in some detail. [Also available online: GOP Presidential Candidates' Credentials]

I have said it loud and proud . . . I support RON PAUL For President In 2012! I voted for him in 2008 and will surely vote for him again in the upcoming Republican primary.

I have copied and pasted below (in italicized red text) some snippets of information found in the aforementioned ‘New American’ profiles which illustrate points of contention I have with all of the candidates not named “Ron Paul” in the GOP presidential race.

Although these are not necessarily the ONLY reasons I would not vote for these candidates, these facts alone make voting for them an impossibility for me. To read the entire profile for each candidate, rather than just these few excerpts, click on the article link at the bottom of this blog bit.

[Be Forewarned: Although the information below I take very seriously, I am going to have a bit o’ sport with the accompanying photos. Please understand that I don’t mean to insult anyone. That is to say, I don’t mean to insult anyone other than these candidates and the people who will foolishly vote for them.]

MICHELE BACHMANN



[Michele Bachmann comes prepared to play
with the big boys!]

In January 2010, Michele Bachmann wrote an installment for the Townhall.com blog in which she argued against the effectiveness of “stimulus” money in turning around our economy. While I don’t have any issue with her stance on that subject, it’s her byline at Townhall.com that gives me the willies! Townhall is a NeoConservative media organ as evidenced by its constant praise and promotion from NeoCon guru Hugh Hewitt.

Like Sarah Palin, Bachmann is a genuine “social conservative” and I applaud her for that, but . . .

Her voting record on key issues scored in this magazine’s first “Freedom Index” for the new Congress shows her with a 90-percent ranking, having voted “right” on nine out of 10 issues, ranging from repealing ObamaCare to defunding Planned Parenthood to ending American military action in Libya.

The one exception was her vote to extend provisions of the PATRIOT Act that authorize federal authorities to listen to suspects’ telephone conversations without specifying what they’re looking for and to seize personal papers, records, and “any tangible thing” that may be relevant to an investigation. (Over her congressional career, her cumulative Freedom Index score is 81 percent.)

While she voted for the Libyan withdrawal, Bachmann has supported the ongoing war in Iraq, arguing in a debate over President Bush’s troop surge in 2007 that the “radical Islamists” can only defeat us “if they crumple the resolve of America to fight and to win this war.” In June of this year, Bachmann argued against the drawdown of the surge troops in Afghanistan, even though this year’s reduction would still leave more U.S. forces there than when Obama came into office.

Last November Bachmann spoke at a symposium hosted by Freedom Watch, a lobbying group that supported the Iraq War and now calls for “western intervention to remove this dangerous Islamic regime” in Iran. While Bachmann did not explicitly call for military action against Iran, she spoke of “the need to do more than the simple engagement strategy of talking.” In a guest blog on the Heritage Foundation website this year, Bachmann argued against any reductions in the overall defense budget.

HERMAN CAIN



[Herman "Munster" Cain]

Oops. Sorry. Wrong photo . . . although the mix-up was certainly understandable. Here’s the correct photo:



[Herman "Munster" Cain]

I’m not even going to address all these recent sexual harrassment allegations against Herman Munster because I don’t know what’s true and what’s not, and besides that, there are plenty enough political/economic reasons not to vote for Cain without even delving into questionable personal affairs.

Until recently, Herman Cain was a largely unknown businessman whose major claims to fame included a high-level appointment in the Federal Reserve System

On top of his advocacy on behalf of the Fed as an institution, Cain has also expressed opposition even to a congressional audit of the Fed that would allow Congress and the American people to find out what exactly is going on at the central bank. He suggested contacting one of the Fed’s “PR people” if Americans wanted answers. Making matters worse for supporters of the growing anti-Fed movement, Cain said an audit was “not necessary” and that calls for government oversight were simply the product of ignorance.

In recent years and months, a great deal of secret information about the Fed has become public. The institution was, for example, clandestinely bailing out foreign banks — including one owned by the Libyan dictatorship of Moammar Gadhafi — with trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, it was manipulating the markets for stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, and more.

In addition to central monetary planning, Cain has also been an ardent supporter of various bailouts, especially the so-called “banker bailout” of 2008, officially known as TARP. An opinion column he wrote during the height of the debate blasted “free market purists” for opposing the $700 billion program.

Cain has actually donated to a broad array of political campaigns. Democrat U.S. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Danny Tarkanian, Nevada Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle’s primary opponent, have both benefited from his largesse. So have many others.

NEWT GINGRICH



[Newt . . . after he "got better".]

Prior to the 1994 elections, Gingrich and his Republican associates unveiled a list of agenda items that they pledged to act upon, should they win majorities in the House and Senate. Called the “Contract With America,” the plan received an enormous amount of media coverage at the time.

Although widely credited with propelling the Republicans to their takeover of both houses of Congress in 1994 (the storied “Republican Revolution”), few of the agenda items in the contract were ever implemented, with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 probably being the most significant outcome. In the end, business as usual prevailed over electoral promises.

Lost in the hubbub of policy debate was the fairly obvious point that a “contract with America” — between the federal government and the American people — already existed in the form of the U.S. Constitution; were its limits on government power and spending observed faithfully, no further electoral gimmickry and grandstanding would be necessary.

Following the Republican takeover of the House, Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House in recognition of his leadership in bringing the Republicans back to power on Capitol Hill. He became Bill Clinton’s most vocal adversary, leading the effort to impeach Clinton on sundry charges of corruption and malfeasance.

Although the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the defining event of his presidency, it fell short of holding him accountable for crimes more significant than his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. Under Gingrich’s leadership, charges of giving military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions were dropped from the letters of impeachment, and Clinton was able to defend himself successfully against what were portrayed as minor charges arising from a personal sex scandal.

Gingrich, the “social conservative,” has been married three times, most recently to Callista Bisek, a former House of Representatives staffer with whom he carried on an extramarital affair during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

As a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) [see link at blog bit's end], the country’s premier organization promoting world government, it is not surprising that Gingrich has supported many pet programs of the CFR globalist elites, including expanded powers and more money for the UN and World Trade Organization, and more money for foreign aid.

He was for many years an alarmist on global warming and even starred in a TV commercial with Nancy Pelosi warning of the imminent dangers of climate change. He ardently supported mandatory cap-and-trade legislation and ethanol subsidies, but now that the alleged science behind global warming is being thoroughly exposed and discredited, he has flip-flopped on climate change and some energy issues.

Newt Gingrich’s guiding philosophy, like that of many “conservatives” of his political generation, is that big government is better tamed and reformed than abolished - that Leviathan, subject to virtuous leadership, can be turned to virtuous ends.

JON HUNTSMAN



[Huntsman’s hunt is petering out.]

During his time as Governor of Utah, Huntsman was also responsible for the state’s “Alliance for Prosperity” with the Mexican government. Among other schemes, the alliance sought to create pressure for “immigration reform” and “mobility of the work force.” Apparently then-Mexican President Vicente Fox, who met directly with Huntsman, was very pleased with the Governor and with Utah’s adoption of “driving-privilege” cards for illegal immigrants.

In addition to negotiating the unconstitutional interstate “climate” compact with foreign authorities, Huntsman has an impressive “globalist” record on other issues too. For example, he was a longtime member of the powerful world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations [see link at blog bit's end]. He even served as a founding director of the Pacific Council on International Policy, established in 1995 in partnership with the CFR.

Even worse for Huntsman’s candidacy is a leaked handwritten note he sent to Obama. “You are a remarkable leader,” Huntsman wrote in August of 2009, even underlining “remarkable” for added emphasis. “It has been a great honor getting to know you.” In another leaked letter, Huntsman praised former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary.

The “establishment” press has generally been kind to Huntsman. More than a few media outlets have even tried to distort the facts — for example, by ignoring Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson and claiming that Huntsman was the first or most well-known GOP contender to call for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. And while Huntsman has garnered public support from the likes of Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger, conservative pundits of all stripes have ridiculed and attacked his campaign. Some even suggested he was running in the wrong party.

RICK PERRY



[Rick "W" Perry having a "Bush-Brain" moment.]

I previously chronicled some of my issues with Rick Perry in a series of videos posted on ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’. It was titled ‘Just Say “NO” To Rick Perry!’ [You can visit it by clicking HERE.]

As if all that and his proposal to reward illegal immigrants with work visas weren’t enough, I have to agree with the person who posted a YouTube video of Rick Perry’s mental collapse at the November 9, 2011 GOP Debate under the title of “Watch Rick Perry's Campaign End Before Your Eyes”.

On NeoCon Hugh Hewitt’s deceptive talk radio program the following day, that non-Constitutionalist, warmongering phony was attempting to do damage control for his George W. Bush-alike hero Rick Perry, but I think it’s of no use. If there’s even half an ounce of brains left in the Republican wing of the United States of the Americonned electorate, then practically speaking Rick Perry’s presidential bid came to an end the other night.

Watch this brief video and see what happens when a phony “conservative” fake “Constitutionalist” tries to emulate Congressman Ron Paul and co-opt that man’s honest platform and sincere talking points. If Rick Perry truly meant what was coming out of his mouth - if his words really represented what was genuinely in his heart – then his mind wouldn’t have shut completely down like it did.

Sure, we’ve all had those “blank brain” moments, but do they happen when we’re speaking of something we are totally committed to and passionate about? NO!

And it’s almost hysterically funny when Rick W. Perry looks over to Doctor Ron Paul beside him and Perry’s body language just pleads – BEGS! – Ron Paul to save him. This is an absolutely “must-see” video! Anybody who would vote to put Rick W. Perry in charge of this nation after this display of falsehood and ineptitude should be put away in the Cuckoo County booby hatch for their own protection.

Watch Rick Perry's Campaign End Before Your Eyes

Link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/12/rick-perry-s-debate-performance-anxiety-why-he-chokes.html

MITT ROMNEY



[Miracle Mitt – Let’s give him "the third degree!"]

Mitt Romney’s candidacy is something of a miracle. “Miracle Mitt” continues to claim — falsely — that he didn’t seek to raise taxes as Governor of Massachusetts. And he appears to be getting away with it, as enough Republican voters remain ignorant of his record for Mitt to retain his “frontrunner” status in the 2012 Republican presidential primary race.

The Cato Institute reported of Romney’s 2003 proposals as Massachusetts Governor:

He scared some conservatives when he said that he was opposed to tax increases but he couldn’t rule them out. His first budget, presented under the cloud of a $2 billion deficit, balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix.

However, the “fees” were really taxes — i.e., they had nothing to do with actual costs incurred by government services they provided. Romney’s claim of not raising taxes is based upon a simple deception: He called his tax increases “fees.” During the 2008 presidential campaign, NBC’s Meet the Press host, the late Tim Russert, exploded Romney’s claim that he hadn’t proposed tax increases as Governor:

Mr. Russert: The AP says it this way: “When Romney wanted to balance the Massachusetts budget, the blind, mentally retarded and gun owners were asked to help pay. In all, then-Gov. Romney proposed creating 33 new fees,” [and] “increasing 57 others.” The head of the Bay State Council of the Blind said that your name was “Fee-Fee”; that you just raised fee after fee after fee. That’s a tax.... A fee’s not a tax?

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

Mr. Russert: Governor, that’s, that’s gimmick.

Gov. 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.

Romney argued with Russert: “But a fee is different than a tax in that it’s for a particular service.”

Of course, Romney increased fees upon gun owners (gun permits) and for people who needed duplicate licenses. Neither of these is a “service” that the government provides; they are simply licenses needed to comply with government-established mandates.

The independent FactCheck.org noted that “the Massachusetts Department of Administration and Finance says that fee increases during Romney’s tenure added up to $260 million per year, with another $174 million raised from closing some corporate tax ‘loopholes.’ The independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation puts the revenue total of fee hikes and tax loophole-closings at between $740 and $750 million a year.”

The RomneyCare championed by the Massachusetts Governor in 2006 is nearly identical to national legislation enacted in 2010, mandating all of the major provisions that are present in ObamaCare:

• Mandating individual healthcare (and a fine for not purchasing insurance);

• Mandating employer healthcare for employees (and a fine for non-compliance);

• Banning insurers from exempting “pre-existing conditions” from policies;

• Mandating that young adults may stay on their parents’ plan until age 26;

• Creating government regulated “insurance exchanges”; and

• Instituting heavy subsidies for the poor to purchase insurance.

Yet the costs of Massachusetts’ RomneyCare are out of control. An April 2011 Blue Cross/Blue Shield Foundation Report on Massachusetts healthcare reform says that Massachusetts has the highest healthcare costs in the nation, and those costs are expected to nearly double by 2020.

Romney supported the TARP bank bailout in 2008, a bailout that sparked the Tea Party movement’s ire at the use of taxpayers’ money to bail out a few super-rich banks that lost risky gambles on a real estate market bubble. Romney continues to say that the TARP bailout was a good deal today, but has tried to modify his stance by saying that Obama implemented the law poorly. In essence, Romney has defended the principle of corporatism — bailout of super-rich banks with the tips of waitresses and cab drivers — while condemning those who managed the corporatism.

On the political Left, former Democratic National Committee staffer Matt Ortega has put up the particularly clever website MultipleChoiceMitt.com, which quotes Romney on both sides of more than a dozen issues.

Front and center in “Multiple Choice Mitt” is Romney’s rhetoric on the abortion issue. During his 2002 run for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s position on abortion was identical to Ted Kennedy and the rest of the liberal Democrats in the state: “Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose,” Romney said during the 2002 gubernatorial debates with Democratic candidate Shannon O’Brien. Since going on the campaign trail for President in 2008, Romney has claimed a conversion to the pro-life side of the issue.

RICK SANTORUM



[Rick Sanatorium, attempting to "get better"
. . . like Newt did.]

A strong supporter of the Iraq War — which was initiated without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war against a country that had never attacked the United States…

Santorum had this to say, in the same Townhall.com manifesto: “We need to embrace the challenge to dedicate a larger percentage of our GDP to foreign aid,…

Rick Santorum announced his candidacy for the presidency on June 6, 2011. Measured by a “conservative” yardstick, Santorum’s voting record in the Senate frequently belied any conservative rhetoric. In the second half of 2005 alone, for example, Santorum voted for $31.8 billion in foreign aid appropriations, for $7.7 billion for the EPA, and for $100.7 billion for the Agriculture Department and the FDA,…

And now you know why ONLY Ron Paul deserves my vote in 2012 !


[Ron Paul gets behind one of his sincere slogans.]

Links:

RON PAUL’s ‘New American’ Magazine Credentials Profile

The New American Magazine: “GOP Presidential Candidates' Credentials”

What Is The 'Council On Foreign Relations' (CFR)?

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

Friday, November 11, 2011

YOU JUST DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT HURTS ME!

.
Are you against raising taxes?

Are you against bank and big business bailouts?

Are you against excessive government spending?

Are you against our foreign wars that kill our soldiers needlessly?

Are you against someone placing their hand on the Holy Bible, swearing before God and country to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and then turning right around and ignoring most of what the U.S. Constitution clearly says?

If you’re AGAINST ALL OF THOSE THINGS, then I have surprising news for you:

You are FOR . . . RON PAUL ! 

Whether you realize it or not, the presidential candidate for you in 2012 is DOCTOR PAUL! He has the right prescription for this country's ailment.



People!, People!, People! You’re being given one last chance to put a genuine Constitutionalist patriot and free-market economics expert into the White House. Are you going to blow it yet again? (You just don’t know how much that hurts me!)

I have shouted my fingers hoarse trying to explain what the NeoConservatives stand for (big government, foreign intervention and imperialism), explaining that the Republican and the Democrat parties are really only ONE two-sided political party. (Congressman Ron Paul is the only non-NeoConservative rogue Republican in the 2012 race.)

I have not only said this but I have SHOWN it on this blog time and time again. I have strained my eyes far into the night providing evidence and book recommendations proving that our biggest enemy is a group of moneyed Insiders that for all intents and purposes controls the president, the Congress, and the judicial system and which is ultimately responsible for every major problem we face in America today. God knows I’m tired of banging my fingers raw on this keyboard trying to reach We The People but getting through to nearly no one.

You're not really going to do it, are you? You’re not going to choose six of one or half a dozen of the other by reelecting Barack “USAP” Obama or by replacing him with yet another Illuminati puppet and, once again, let slip the dogs of war, oppression, terrorism, tyranny, and economic devastation. Please tell me you're not!

Will the Americonned People screw up their last chance to right the sinking ship? Will the Fig-Bottom Americans fig it up again?!



Look, don’t hurt me anymore. Please!

Please watch the following 6 videos – excepting the last one, they're all extremely short (you can see the total running time in the bottom left corner of each video). I’m not saying you’ll necessarily agree with Ron Paul on every single point (I myself disagree with him perhaps 5%-7% of the time), but one thing you can be sure of: Ron Paul’s plan of action is consistent with the U.S. Constitution ALL OF THE TIME.

No, he’s not the most polished speaker. But who do you want in the White House, the slickest orator or the most honest candidate?

VERY, VERY SHORT VIDEOS:

Yes, this first video I posted on 'Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends' once before, but it is so damned good I can’t resist leading off with it again.

No More Liars: Ron Paul for President 2012



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWe-RFxVfXU

Dr. Ron Paul: Protect Life, Protect Liberty



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyC6ieSFOFM

From Prophet to President - Ron Paul 2012



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RkASRPRZjE&feature=channel_video_title

Ron Paul Ad - Consistent



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RaYbToq7Q

"Banned" Commercial: Ron Paul 2012 (Unofficial)
A Beijing, China, economics class in 2030



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2rMnov4Ae8

"2012: One on One" series of interviews:
Ron Paul 2011-11-06 Sunday (Fox News Sunday)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R_9rb-6tdY

Links:

10 REASONS RON PAUL CAN WIN IN 2012

RON PAUL OFFICIAL 2012 CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

Friday, November 4, 2011

WTF HAPPENED ON 9/11? (ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTARIES ON THE TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT YOU NEED TO SEE)

.


QUESTION #1: Why did ‘World Trade Center’ Towers #1 and #2 collapse into their own footprints on September 11, 2001?

What’s that? Speak up, please – I didn’t hear you.

Oh.

Something about burning airline fuel and melted steel beams, eh? You say you don’t really understand the whole thing but it’s something to that effect, huh?

OK.

QUESTION #2: What caused 'World Trade Center' Tower #7 - which was NEVER hit by an airplane – to collapse hours later in an identical manner to Towers #1 and #2? . . . And have you ever – EVER!in your entire life, seen another building anywhere collapse in like manner which was not the result of a 'controlled demolition' project?



If you are going to maintain a large national security state, there must be a threat to justify its continued existence. ... For the security state to continue, there must sometimes be large terrorist acts in the U.S. The last thing the national security state wants is peace and no enemies.
~ Gurudas (real name: Ronald Lee Garman)
(from the book 'Treason: The New World Order' - 1996)

Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place. ... They revolted against much more mild oppression.
~ Congressman Ron Paul
(commenting on HR-3162, The USA/PATRIOT Act)

It is my hope that all the unconscious lemmings will join us rebellious loose dogs of the Loyal American Underground (LAU) in shining the light of truth on the most significant treasonous act in America thus far into the 21st Century.

But before an unwitting lemming can become a 'loose dog rebel' and spread the truth, he or she must learn the truth.

There is much more to know about the September 11th terrorist attacks than what is covered in just these two documentaries below, but these are the two best films I’ve found on the subject so far, and they form a fine foundation from which to begin your earnest quest for truth and understanding (translation: see... be shocked and... inspired to... read).

I do not claim that these two documentaries alone will prove anything to you other than this . . .

UNCLE SAM'S "OFFICIAL" 9/11 STORY IS SO FULL OF HOLES IT'S USEFUL ONLY AS A COLANDER.

Too many vital questions pertaining to 9/11 remain unsatisfactorily answered . . . if answered at all.

The foremost issue of our time is to restore Constitutional government.
. . .
The response of the Washington crowd is to call protesters racists and paranoid, passing more laws to take away more rights. Criticism of the government is called criticism of the nation.
~ Gurudas
(from the book 'Treason: The New World Order' - 1996)

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
~ Edward Abbey

To view these documentaries full-screen at YouTube, click on the URL links (in blue) that I have included below each video here . . .

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup - (Part 1)



Click this URL link to see the movie full-screen at YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGLp5TAVpQ

I'm so pissed off at the American people; I'm so pissed off at this government because of this cover-up!
~ Bob McIlvaine
(from the movie "9/11: Press For Truth")

9-11 PRESS FOR TRUTH



Click this URL link to see the movie full-screen at YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COsKfM_LDUc

Counterfeit philosophies have polluted all of your thoughts
Karl Marx has got ya by the throat
And Henry Kissinger’s got you tied up in knots.
. . .
Adulterers in churches and pornography in the schools
You got gangsters in power and lawbreakers making rules
When you gonna wake up?
~ Bob Dylan
(from his song "When You Gonna Wake Up?")

Loose Change 9/11 An American Coup (2009) Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiORwAlT-KI

9/11 was (at minimum) predominantly an inside job! Rogue elements within the United States government were principally responsible for what happened. Let’s not be fooled further; let’s not be fooled again!

A new... a “real”... an objective investigation into 9/11 needs to be conducted. And this time, an investigation that is NOT Elite-orchestrated for maximum cover-up.

Be a part of the Loyal American Underground (LAU) by learning the truth and telling the world!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
A Loose Dog of the 'Loyal American Underground'

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

B.O.’s B.C. B.S. (Or, ARIZONA SHOWS THE WAY . . . AGAIN)

.
Well, hot dog and cold, hard facts! Arizona’s Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has already done more with this 'Barack “USAP” Obama Fake Birth Certificate Issue' than I expected him to. I figured he’d just make a little noise over it for awhile to get some ink and then he’d drop it in someone else’s lap.

Then again, maybe Joe sees this as his official entrance into politics – a desire on his part that has been rumored for some time. Sorry to sound so cynical, but I’ve been living in Airheadzona now for 17 years going on 6 lifetimes, and I don’t have much respect for Sheriff Joe or anyone else “serving the public” in this desert wasteland hell hole.

Anyway, read and applaud . . .

SHERIFF JOE'S POSSE DELIVERS PROMISED OBAMA SURPRISE

Panel Probing Eligibility For 2012 Ballot Wants To See Original Birth Certificate

Posted: October 31, 2011
8:38 pm Eastern
© 2011 World Net Daily

Arizona's maverick Sheriff Joe Arpaio promised surprises in his jurisdiction's investigation of Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot and his Cold Case Posse is delivering – raising questions that touch on the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate issued last April and the possibility Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security Number.

Sources close to the investigation say the posse has decided it needs to see original birth records before it can conclude whether Obama should be eligible for the presidential ballot in 2012, not an electronic file or scanned copies.

The sources say the panel needs to examine the microfilm documenting Obama's birth, as well as the ink-and-paper original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health is holding in its vault.

The PDF file and various scanned copies of the birth certificate that the White House released April 27 are simply not good enough, the posse has determined.

Earlier this month, WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi spent 18 hours over a two-day period in Arizona briefing the Cold Case Posse on a wide range of evidence regarding Obama's eligibility.

"The posse wants to see the entire microfilm roll containing Obama's birth certificate, not just a microfilm copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate in isolation," Corsi explained. "An individual microfilm copy could be forged, but forging the entire microfilm reel on which Obama's birth certificate is in sequence would be almost impossible."

Also, Corsi said, the posse wants the ink-and-paper original 1961 Obama birth records still held in vault by the Hawaii Department of Health to be released publicly and subjected to independent court-authorized forensic examination.

Corsi affirmed that the posse's conclusion it needs to see the Obama birth certificate microfilm is part of the "shock" that Arpaio warned would be forthcoming, when he spoke last week to the Surprise Tea Party group meeting in Surprise, Ariz.

The focus on the microfilm records of Obama's birth arose after Arpaio's investigators realized the birth certificates of twins born the day after Obama, the Nordykes, had been released as white-on-black copies of microfilm to the family by the Hawaii Department of Health in 1966.

WND reported in July 2009 that Mrs. Eleanor Nordyke made public the copies in an article by the Honolulu Advertiser.

WND also has reported that the Obama birth certificate's number appears to be out of sequence with the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins.

The Nordyke twins were born Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama, and their birth certificates were registered Aug. 11, 1961, three days later than Obama. Yet their birth certificates have lower numbers.



Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)

Susan Nordyke, the twin born first, has certificate number 10637, and her sister Gretchen has certificate number 10638. Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961, and registered Aug. 8, 1961, has certificate number 10641.

"In 1961, Barack Obama was not a celebrity," Corsi commented. "If the Nordyke twins birth certificates were reduced to microfilm or microfiche by 1966, the date Mrs. Nordyke got the copies she made public, then Obama's birth certificate should have been reduced to microfilm or microfiche at the same time."

Corsi also indicated that the Arizona posse has interviewed court-certified forensic examiners who have advised that they can only issue an expert opinion on whether Obama's birth certificate is a forgery if they can examine the original ink-and-paper records.

Corsi told WND the Arpaio investigation is far-reaching in scope.

In addition to examining whether or not the long-form birth certificate is a forgery, the Cold Case Posse is examining evidence that Obama may have a fraudulent Social Security Number. The posse also is looking at records pertaining to Obama's birth narrative that suggest Barack Obama Sr. may not be the biological father.

"In total, the Cold Case Posse has assembled some 2,000 pages of evidence in the case," Corsi explained, "and is now preparing to conduct interviews to examine a wide range of questions, including that Obama may not be qualified to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution because he was a dual citizen at birth, given that his father was listed as a citizen of Kenya when the future president was born."

Corsi said the Cold Case Posse is currently in the process of briefing various Arizona state officials about the progress of the investigation.

"Sheriff Arpaio said this would be a thorough and diligent investigation," Corsi said, "and that is exactly what the investigation has become. Sheriff Arpaio once again has proven to be a man of his word."

Well, I would hardly go so far as calling Joe a man of his word, nevertheless, he does seem to be sincere in pursuing this treasonous issue and my Stetson’s off to him for that . . . for now.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.