Truth Frequency Radio

Oct 18, 2012

Raven Clabough
The New American
October 18, 2012

In recent weeks, the Internet has witnessed a dramatic increase in racially charged threats regarding a potential Obama loss. Despite the abundance of these threats and indications that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased a copious amount of riot gear in preparation of some unknown threat, police say that they are not anticipating civil unrest on Election Night.

The 2008 presidential election had police departments in a variety of big cities such as Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia taking special precautions in case of possible riots in response to the election results. The Hillcontends that police were preparing for what they believed were increased tensions following the 2000 disputed election results and the long lines at the polling places in poor urban areas in the 2004 presidential elections.

One month prior to the 2008 election, James Carville said that an Obama loss “would be very, very, very dramatic out there,” leading some to believe he was predicting riots.

This year, however, police departments are less concerned about the possibility of riots.

“We’re not anticipating civil unrest on Election Night,” said a spokesman for the Detroit police department who did not wish to give his name. “We’re going to collect the ballots like we usually do. If a situation arises and we need to respond, we’ll respond to the scene and assess.”

That is a very different mentality from what was seen in Detroit in 2008, when James Tate, second deputy chief of the Detroit police department, said that they had extra men assigned on Election Night, noting that Detroit citizens rioted following a Detroit Tigers World Series victory in 1984.

The Detroit police department is not the only one that seems to have taken a lax approach to upcoming Election Day. The Hillreports, “Spokesman for police departments in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Columbus, Miami, Houston and Los Angeles likewise said they were not aware of any special preparations for civil unrest.”

Full Article

Secret Service ‘Aware’ of Threats Against Romney
October 18, 2012

Twitchy reports that “Post-presidential debate, Obama supporters renew vows to murder Mitt Romney.” The threats are numerous–and explicit and graphic. Many call for Romney’s murder or assissination.

The Secret Service confirms it is “aware” of the threats against Romney, a spokesman for the federal agency confirms.

“The Secret Service is aware of this and will conduct appropriate follow up if necessary,” Brian Leary, a spokesman for the United States Secret Service, says in an email.

Here is a small sampling, compiled by Twitchy:

Read more

Open War Policy Revealed by Romney’s NeoCon Advisers

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

On October 1, 2012, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney outlined his own version of imperialist American foreign policy before the Virginia Military Institute. What Romney described was, in its goals, no different than that of any other President since JFK.

As was made clear in his speech, the presentation of the mutated Manifest Destiny to be ushered in by Romney would be significantly more open than the “leading from behind” destabilization and coalition-based Obama treachery, as the candidate has clearly stated this on more than one occasion.

Essentially, while Obama has continued and accelerated every disastrous policy of the Bush Administration, Romney has openly announced his intention to do the same. The only difference is that the Romney doctrine will supplant the deceitful, secretive, and treacherous nature of Obama’s foreign policy for a more ham-fisted and brazenly aggressive position.

However, while the latter option is reminiscent of George W. Bush’s Iraq adventure, the fact is Romney’s presentation of American imperialism will no doubt be more cleverly constructed using the threat against “American interests” and “our friends and allies” as justification.

In his speech, Romney stated,

If America does not lead, others will, others who do not share our interests and our values – and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. I am running for president because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America’s great influence – wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively – to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict and make the world better – not perfect, but better.

Romney’s plan thus echoes yet more of the “American Exceptionalism” that has been used as a cover for imperialist ventures for decades. It is, after all, an illusion that the majority of the American people have bought in to after years of movies, television, and related propaganda.

In this regard, Romney could scarcely be more clear (a rarity) as to what plans he holds for the United States military should he be elected. For instance, he stated, “It is the responsibility of our president to use America’s great power to shape history – not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.”

Aside from the obvious falsity of Romney’s political jockeying regarding “where we find ourselves in the Middle East,” the Republican candidate’s statement seems to offer a brief representation of yet more American Exceptionalism, an even more warped version of Manifest Destiny, and the Freemasonic doctrine of directing nature and controlling the Force of the people.

Of course, the United States is no passive player in the Middle East under Barack Obama. Indeed, even the casual observer should be aware that the United States, along with other Anglo-American NATO powers has directed and controlled the Arab Spring and destabilization of Middle Eastern countries.

However, because of the Obama Administration’s penchant for “leading from behind” and directing the overthrow of sovereign governments via intelligence networks, pawning, destabilization efforts, or coalition-based “kinetic military action,” the talking heads on the Conservative Right are able to play upon the wasteland of the average American mind and subsequently propagandize that the Obama/Brzezinski method exemplifies weakness. The Neo-Con method, being more upfront, aggressive, and direct – is unfortunately the only presentation simple enough to capture the average American attention span and is understood as strength.

Thus, the Romney campaign does not criticize the Obama Administration for waging wars against Islam, sovereign nations, state-owned banks, or secular governments – its criticisms are that it does not do so in a faster, more aggressive manner.

A perfect example of both the political posturing and of the identical nature of both candidates and their respective parties can easily be seen in terms of the Syrian destabilization, itself directed by the Anglo-American, NATO forces in order to weaken and provoke the Iranians and the Russians, implement a system of privatized central banks, exploit the people and resources of Syria, and ignite the subsequent third world war that must inevitably follow.

In this regard, Romney firmly stated in Virginia that he will arm al-Qaeda forces operating inside Syria and will help them “to obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.” Of course, Obama is already arming the Syrian terrorists, but the vast majority of Americans are completely oblivious to this fact (as they are to the fact that the “rebels” are actually fanatic terrorists) so the issue exists as a prime opportunity for political grandstanding.

Of course, no Romney foreign policy speech would be complete without some measure of beating the drums for war against Iran.

Needless to say, the Virginia Military Institute foreign policy speech was complete.

In regards to Iran, Romney stated, “we must make clear to Iran through actions – not just words – that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.” He also committed to tighten sanctions and “restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region.” Romney said he would allow no “daylight” between the United States and Israel.

Like the references to war with Iran, it appears that no Romney speech will be complete without reference to the relationship between Israel and the United States and how American foreign policy might be outsourced to the colonial state of Israel.

Full Article


Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein Arrested Trying to Gain Access to Presidential Debate

By Alex Thomas
October 16, 2012

In what can only be described as an absolute smack in the face of this once free country, Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein and her running mate have been arrested while attempting to gain access to tonight’s debate.

Stein was attempting to gain access and protesting not just her parties exclusion from the debates but the fact that NO third party, including Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, is being allowed inside the “corporate” debate.

“Green Party candidate Jill Stein and her running mate Cheri Honkala appeared to be arrested early Tuesday evening during a protest outside the main gates of Hofstra University, where President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney are scheduled to have their second presidential debate.

Stein and Honkala were protesting the exclusion of all but the two major political parties from participating in the debate,” reported Patrick Johnson.

According to the Long Island Report, just before her arrest Stein had this to say:

“If you have done the work to get on the ballot, if you are on the ballot and could actually win the electoral college by being on the ballot in enough states, then you deserve to be in the election and you deserve to be heard.”

“The American people deserve to hear choices which are not bought and paid for by multinational corporations and Wall Street. This is why we are not hearing the critical issues in this debate.”

We now find ourselves in a world literally ruled by banking interests and their corporate cronies in the controlled media who have done everything in their power to pretend that the American people have no other choice than to vote for Obama or Romney.

The fact that both Obama and Romney are literally exactly the same on ALL the core, freedom orientated issues, means little to the mockingbird media as they further attempt to manipulate the minds of the people.

The 2012 Presidential race between Mitt Romney (Republican Party), Barack Obama (Democratic Party), Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), Virgil Goode (Constitution Party), and Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) is quite a compelling race, to say the least.

However, only the Republican and Democratic candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, are being publicized by the main stream media.

The perpetuation of the false left/right paradigm has climbed to new levels of deception, to the point where people have no clue that there are other candidates running.

Therefore, since the majority of people think they have only two voting options this year, and since they think the two voting options they have differ policy wise, this article’s intent is to reveal that the Obama’s policies hardly differ from Romney’s.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney pride themselves on their campaign rhetoric of moving “forward” and being America’s “comeback team.”

This could not be any further from the truth.

Read the Full Report

So as the corporate media continues to pretend there are only two candidates and that they are somehow different, the FACT remains that there are multiple third party candidates who actually differ on issues that are important to maintaining a free society not utterly controlled by close knit banking interests.

Watch what democracy doesn’t look like below:

First takes on Obama-Romney debate give president the edge

DEBKAfile October 17, 2012, 6:10 AM (GMT+02:00)

In the high stakes debate between US President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney Tuesday night in New York, they both interrupted each other aggressively and exchanged personal jabs. Obama did not quite get the win he needed to reverse the momentum he lost to Romney in the first debate. Most US pundits agree that he fell short in responding to the charges of inadequate security and intelligence failure in the al Qaeda attack on the US consulate in Libya. However, Romney failed to drive this home for a knockout blow. Three weeks are left to the presidential election with the last presidential debate still to go.


Election Day Chaos? Obama Supporters Claim They Will Kill Romney If He Wins Election

By Alex Thomas

October 16, 2012

Supporters of President Obama have apparently taken to Twitter to threaten Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney with assassination if he happens to win the election.

This comes just days after numerous Obama supporters actually claimed they planned to riot and start a form of martial law if Obama loses.

“Despite the issue receiving national media attention, Obama supporters continue to threaten to riot if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election, raising the prospect of civil unrest if Obama fails to secure a second term.

The new threats continue to dominate Twitter and the vast majority make no reference to press coverage of the issue over the last week, illustrating the fact that they are a legitimate expression of how many Obama voters plan to respond if Romney comes out on top, and not merely a reaction to media hype,” reported Paul Joseph Watson.

A series of reports published on Twitchy first brought the literally dozens of threats made by real Twitter users to light, highlighting that the users appear to be actual Obama supporters.

The sheer amount of threats would literally take hours and dozens of pages to publish.

Below you can read a sampling of the threats: (list partial source Infowars and Twitchy)

If Romney be the man in the white house . I bout kill his bitch ass—
AtChoo (@BD_74G) October 15, 2012

Kick starter Campaign to assassinate Romney if he wins 2012. #fb
dick jones (@IanDickJokes) October 14, 2012

Paul Ryan isn’t all bad, but I swear to god I’m assassinating Romney if he gets elected/—If Romney becomes pres ill assassinate him myself!—Ohana (@Lilsprings) October 13, 2012

“If obama dont get re-elected & romney wins .. on life every white persons getting pistol whipped and im startin a riot.” (SOURCE)

“If Obama don’t win lets start a riot so Romney know what he’s getting himself into.” (SOURCE)

“You know you ain’t shit if you gotta “MAKE” Mafukas vote for ROMNEY ! …. Mannnn OBAMA better get back in office . Or BLACK FOLKS will riot.” (SOURCE)

“If Romney wins im goin on a rampage.” (SOURCE)

Romney was disrespecting my president???! *pulls out gat*

“If Mitt Romney wins the election I think its our duties as Black folks to riot and fuck shit up.” (SOURCE)

“If every action IS met with an equal and opposite reaction ..what should workers do to employers if Romney’s elected? #Riot in the streets!!” (SOURCE)

obama better win , or I’m gonna assassinate Romney—

I’ll assasinate Romney before I become I become a slave… Yea come arrest me i sed it lol fuck that white faggot—

“I Heard Mitt Romney , Tryna Take Away Food Stamps , If He Do .”IMA START A RIOT , IMA START A RIOT.” (SOURCE)

No this billboard did not just say “Save the American dream & Fire Obama!” Ill Lynch Romney myself if he wins!—

“If romney wins, imma start a mf’n riot! Rns.” (SOURCE)

As noted above, not only are the Obama supporters threatening to kill Romney, they are also apparently planning on starting mass riots throughout the country.

So far the sheer amount of tweets and the fact that the users have thousands of other tweets seems to indicate that these threats and plans are real although there is always the possibility of an RNC type set up.

Immediately and predictably, George Soros funded Think Progress went on the attack and actually claimed that those who were covering the tweets were making them up and were just white racists who hated Obama because he is black.

Think Progress actually went as far as to claimed that the Drudge Report and Infowars were race baiting in their coverage of the THOUSANDS of tweets threatening Romney or planing to riot.

Rather than it being racist to cover the tweets, it is actually extremely important especially when you consider that the Department of Homeland Security has publicly planned for massive civil unrest in America.

With the purchase, among numerous other martial law buildup tactics, of at least 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition in the last few years, elements of homeland security are preparing and, from all indications, actually want martial law in America.

An assassination attempt on Obama and or riots in the streets would give DHS a legitimate opportunity to use and implement this openly planned, full scale police state takeover.

It is very possible that those power structure elements who would welcome a police state takeover are actually behind the tweets but more than likely they simply welcome this racial fighting between Americans as they implement even more police state measures in the background.

Regardless of the origin of the Tweets, the fact remains that this is absolutely something that the puppet masters welcome just as we inch ever so closer to a planetary dictatorship so often dreamed of by the globalist elite.

This is classic divide and conquer.

The Single Headed Beast of America’s Politics

Photo source: Alec Scheer
October 15, 2012

Contributed by

Edited by Ian Crossland.

Editor’s note: I have not listed every single policy Romney, Obama, Biden, and Ryan differ on because the article would be unbelievably long.

I decided to try and make it compact and as short as possible.

The 2012 Presidential race between Mitt Romney (Republican Party), Barack Obama (Democratic Party), Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), Virgil Goode (Constitution Party), and Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) is quite a compelling race, to say the least.

However, only the Republican and Democratic candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, are being publicized by the main stream media.

The perpetuation of the false left/right paradigm has climbed to new levels of deception, to the point where people have no clue that there are other candidates running.

Therefore, since the majority of people think they have only two voting options this year, and since they think the two voting options they have differ policy wise, this article’s intent is to reveal that the Obama’s policies hardly differ from Romney’s.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney pride themselves on their campaign rhetoric of moving “forward” and being America’s “comeback team.”

This could not be any further from the truth.

In the four years of Obama’s presidency we have seen a lot of change, but not for the better of this nation or its people.

He said he would protect whistleblowers that expose government atrocities, but his administration has launched an agonizing assault against Julian Assange.

Another example of this failed promise to protect whistle blowers would be the Bradley Manning case.

Bradley Manning is a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst who was a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize and was arrested in Iraq for handing over classified information to WikiLeaks.

He has been detained unconstitutionally for a lengthy amount of time. The Obama administration has violated nearly every right he has, as a detainee, to obtain legal justice.

President Obama has also signed off on a plethora of unconstitutional legislation, executive orders, and presidential directives.

The following is a list of just some of the many jaw dropping bills and executive orders he has signed:

  • TARP
  • H.R. 347
  • NDAA
  • Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness
  • Affordable Care Act

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), in a nutshell, bailed out the banks on Wall Street, as well as numerous foreign banks, to prevent a catastrophic collapse.

This banking cartel (Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines a cartel as: a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices), however, has caused nothing but economic problems, coupled with the fact that they have been using the TARP bailout funds for their own astronomical bonuses.

House Resolution (H.R.) 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” is known by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as the “criminalizing protest” bill. H.R. 347 makes it illegal to protest on federal buildings and/or grounds even though your tax money funds these operations and the resolution, itself, is unconstitutional.

On top of this, the federal employees who occupy these buildings or grounds are public servants and are supposed to represent you, thus we have a right to protest our grievances on the buildings/grounds we pay for.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows for the indefinite detention of any American citizen based on the premise of “suspected terrorism.”

It suspends your right to the Writ of Habeas Corpus and due process. It is interesting to note that Obama stated he would not use the NDAA against American’s, but his actions say otherwise.

United States District Court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled Section 1021 of the Act unconstitutional.

Obama then appealed Forrest’s court decision a few days later revealing his desire to indefinitely detain any citizen without probable cause.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order, to summarize, federalized everything.

The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) socialized medicine, forcing you to buy from insurance companies, whether you want to or not.

Obama has also waged numerous unconstitutional wars and has placed troops in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Let’s now shift to Romney and compare a few of his policies with Obama’s. Romney openly stated early on in the debate season that he supports the NDAA.

He openly supports war and he is on the same page with Obama in regard to socialized medicine.

In one of January’s presidential debates Romney was asked by the moderator “Governor Romney, would you have, as president, signed the National Defense Act,” followed with a reply from Romney saying, “Yes, I would’ve. ”

He then went on to insinuate that it is an appropriate bill to detain people who are a “threat” to this country and are affiliated with al Qaeda.

Romney would have to indefinitely detain himself, on the basis of his new proposal, which calls for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming the rebels.

What do the Syrian rebels have to do with al Qaeda? A lot; CBS News reported that rebels ally with al Qaeda group to take Syrian Base.” The Daily Mail also reported that fighters linked to al Qaeda join rebels in bid to take over Syrian air defense base in Aleppo.”

To reiterate, Romney would have to indefinitely detain himself based on his open comments on arming the Syrian rebels who are associated with al Qaeda.

Romney also supports defense spending and war, as stated in the previous paragraph. Accordingly, his press release illustrates this and other actions made by Romney.

In an interview with The American Legion, Romney stated “I will not cut the military budget. I will instead expand our essential weapons programs and our (number of) active-duty personnel. I do these things not so that we have to fight wars, but so that we can prevent wars.”

Romney was the creator of Romney Care in Massachusetts during his tenure as governor. Romney Care is nearly a carbon copy of “Obama Care” in the sense that it is socialized medicine.

Oh, and one last thing before we move on; Romney has flip flopped on the TARP bailout issue, but in a Republican primary debate, October 2011, he seems to support it.

There you have it; within the latter paragraphs I have shown you how these two candidates do not differ on much. They do not differ on health care, war, defense, bailouts, and civil liberty policies, as well as an array of other issues not discussed in this article.

We must now take a basic look at Romney’s and Obama’s vice presidential picks to see if they have any differences.

Full Article

Political Partisan Psychological Disorders

By Sartre
October 15, 2012

Before one can understand the nature of partisan or party politics, a correct comprehension of The Choice of Ideology is essential.

“Contemporary Political Ideologies is a text book that has been around for a long time.

Many of the usual suspects are covered:

Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Conservatism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Marxism, Fascism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Feminism and Environmentalism.

Since written, additional offshoots have come to include: Neoconservatism, the Paleo versions of Conservatism and Libertarianism and what we will call “Inherit Populism”.

These broad based viewpoints have distinctions, sometimes subtle, often dramatic. The reason why partisan politics is a blood sport is that it is waged to achieve a false party line.

BREAKING ALL THE RULES advocates a paleo-conservative philosophy based upon traditional values and moral principles.

Consistent with the historic legacy of the founding of this Nation is a lament that most inhabitants are oblivious to our ingenious heritage and purpose of the American Revolution.

The article, Ideology Matters, But What Is It?, clearly repudiates the destructive ideologies that result in the suicidal course this country has taken, especially in the last century.

“The test for valid support is simple. The legacy of the New Deal to the Good Society has constructed a total reputation of American ideals. To deny this reality, is to associate yourself with the cause of depravity.

There is no room to compromise on this axiom. The lines are clear, distinct and irrefutable. Career operatives rationalize their support for destructive policies as the price for civility. The notion that getting along with the opposition that is bent upon the destruction of the Nation is psychotic.

When polls are cited that the public wants less ranker, leadership sinks into the cauldron of deceit and treachery of our heritage. Those of us who advocate a State responsive and accountable to the citizen, are left with few champions to carry the banner of limited government.”

Rejecting an artificial left/right template for a deeper analysis of the publicly accepted nomenclature of liberal vs. conservative is a constructive leap to appreciate the differences that are so prevalent among different factions within society.

How individuals assess politics often rests upon their own personality and outlook.

From a report in Clinician’s Digest, the following insights are useful.

“Personality differences are a leading candidate in the race toward understanding the rift between political liberals and conservatives.

Using data compiled from nearly 20,000 respondents, Columbia University researcher Dana Carney and colleagues found that two common personality traits reliably differentiated individuals with liberal or conservative identifications. Liberals reported greater openness, whereas conservatives reported higher conscientiousness.

This means that liberals (at least in their own estimation) saw themselves as more creative, flexible, tolerant of ambiguity, and open to new ideas and experiences.

Across the political personality divide, conservatives self-identified as more persistent, orderly, moralistic, and methodical.

Evidence suggests that these personality differences between liberals and conservatives begin to emerge at an early age.

A 20-year longitudinal study by Jack and Jeanne Block showed that those who grew up to be liberals were originally assessed by their preschool teachers as more emotionally expressive, gregarious, and impulsive when compared to those who became conservatives, who were considered more inhibited, uncertain, and controlled.

Liberals may show greater tolerance for diversity and creativity, but they may also be more impulsive, indecisive, and irresponsible. On the flip side, conservatives may be organized, stable, and thrifty, but also have stronger just-world beliefs (leading to a greater tolerance for inequality), and stronger fears of mortality and ambiguity.

Even recent neuroscience work published in Current Biology from University College London identifies fundamental differences in the partisan brain.

Brain scans revealed a larger amygdala in self-identified conservatives and a larger anterior cingulate cortex in liberals, leading the researchers to conclude that conservatives may be more acute at detecting threats around them, whereas liberals may be more adept at handling conflicting information and uncertainty.”

Partisan party proponents, both Democrats and Republicans are practicing Statists. Mutual lust to control the levers of government closes ranks, when an external threat comes from dissenting citizens.

This background brings us to examine the essay, Speaking Out Against Government is a Mental Disorder, by Susanne Posel.

“According to the psychiatric manual, the DSM-IV-TR, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a mental disease wherein free thinkers, non-conformists, civil disobedience supporters, those who question authority and are perceived as being hostile toward the government are labeled mentally ill. Psychiatrists refer to this mental defect as “Mentality III”.

This mental disorder is defined as: “a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.”

Full Article

Celebrities blast Romney on women’s health


President Obama’s support from Hollywood’s a-list has already helped swell his campaign coffers, but thanks to a new ad from progressive organization, that support will soon be flooding the airwaves.

In the ad, a trio of actresses who have endorsed Mr. Obama’s bid for reelection and all spoke at this summer’s Democratic convention – Eva Longoria, Scarlett Johansson, and Kerry Washington – assail GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s record on women’s health care issues and reproductive rights, warning viewers, “If you think this election won’t affect you and your life, think again.”

With recent polls showing Obama’s support among women receding from previous highs, the ad’s message could pack a timely punch.

The script touches on every major women’s health flashpoint, from contraception and abortion to Planned Parenthood funding, rape redefinition, and compulsory ultrasound legislation.

“Mitt Romney is for ending funding to Planned Parenthood,” warns Longoria, an outspoken Obama supporter who delivered a primetime speech at the Democratic convention in Charlotte.

“He said he’d overturn Roe v. Wade,” reminds Washington.

The reminder comes on the heels of Romney’s comment to the Des Moines Register that abortion legislation is not “part of my agenda,” a comment that elicited incredulous cries of “flip-flop” from Democrats and compelled Romney’s campaign to reassure pro-life voters that Romney will indeed carry their water.

Johansson, yoking the GOP ticket to congressional Republicans, reminds viewers of House Republicans’ attempt to restrict abortion funding to instances involving “forcible rape,” explaining, “We have Republicans trying to redefine rape.”

“Trying to force women to undergo invasive ultrasounds,” chimes in Longoria, referring to legislation pushed by GOP-led legislatures in several states that would require women to submit to an ultrasound procedure before terminating a pregnancy.

As for how viewers can stymie the GOP agenda on women’s health, the stars’ message is crystal clear: “Vote for Barack Obama,” says Johansson.

The ad, described by MoveOn as a “six figure buy”, will air in Colorado and Virginia, two states where the impact of the female vote is expected to be particularly pivotal.

Full Article

Don’t Vote For EvilPaul Craig Roberts, Contributor

Activist Post

Back during the George W. Bush neocon regime, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in his UN speech summed up George W. Bush for the world. I am quoting Chavez from memory, not verbatim. “Yesterday standing at this same podium was Satan himself, speaking as if he owned the world. You can still smell the sulfur.”

Chavez is one of the American right-wing’s favorite bogymen, because Chavez helps the people instead of bleeding them for the rich, which is Washington’s way.

While Washington has driven all but the one percent into the ground, Chavez cut poverty in half, doubled university enrollment, and provided health care and old age pensions to millions of Venezuelans for the first time. Little wonder he was elected to a fourth term as president despite the many millions of dollars Washington poured into the election campaign of Chavez’s opponent.

While Washington and the EU preach neoliberalism – the supremacy of capital over labor – South American politicians who reject Washington’s way are being elected and reelected in Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Bolivia.

It was the Ecuadoran government, not Washington, that had the moral integrity to grant political asylum to WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. The only time Washington grants asylum is when it can be used to embarrass an opponent.

In contrast to the leadership that is emerging in South America, as more governments there reject the traditional hegemony of Washington, the US political elite, whether Republican or Democrat, are aligned with the rich against the American people.

The Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has promised to cut taxes on the rich, taxes which are already rock bottom, to block any regulation of the gangsters in the financial arena, and to privatize Social Security and Medicare.

Privatizing Social Security and Medicare means to divert the people’s tax dollars to the profits of private corporations. In Republican hands, privatization means only one thing: to cut the people’s benefits and to use the people’s tax dollars to increase the profits in the private sector. Romney’s policy is just another policy that sacrifices the people to the one percent.

Unfortunately, the Democrats, if a lesser evil, are still an evil. There is no reason to vote for the reelection of a president who codified into law the Bush regime’s destruction of the US Constitution, who went one step further and asserted the power to murder US citizens without due process of law, and who has done nothing to stop the exploitation of the American people by the one percent.

As Gerald Celente says in the Autumn Issue of the Trends Journal, when confronted with the choice between two evils, you don’t vote for the lesser evil. You boycott the election and do not vote. “Lesser or greater, evil is evil.”

If Americans had any sense, no one would vote in the November election. Whoever wins the November election, it will be a defeat for the American people.

An Obama or Romney win stands in stark contrast with Chavez’s win. Here is how Lula da Silva, the popular former president of Brazil summed it up: “Chavez’s victory is a victory for all the peoples of Latin America. It is another blow against imperialism.” Washington, making full use of the almighty dollar, was unable to buy the Venezuelan election.

How will a Romney or Obama win be summed up? The answer will be in terms of which candidate is best for Israel’s interest; which is best for Wall Street’s interest, which is best for agribusiness; which is most likely to attack Iran; which is most likely to subject economic and war protesters to indefinite detention as domestic extremists.

The only people who will benefit from the election of either Romney or Obama are those associated with the private oligarchies that rule America.

This article first appeared at Paul Craig Roberts’ new website Institute For Political Economy. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Donations to Paul Craig Roberts are much appreciated.

TSA Welcome Romney Supporters at Iowa Campaign Stop

By Julio N. Rausseo
October 11, 2012

While making a campaign stop in Van Meter, Iowa, Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney apparently needed an additional layer of security to feel safe when speaking to Iowa farmers.

Accompanying Romney were members of the Transportation Security Administration.

You read that correctly, members of the TSA were present, supposedly making sure citizens were safe and secure while attending Romney’s Campaign event.

However, this is not the the first time that TSA has brought their traveling peep show to a Romney sponsored event.

Back in late August, Reporter Javier Manjarres spotted TSA agents checking the bags of Romney supporters during Paul Ryan’s first campaign stop in The Villages, Florida.

Manjarres spoke about this issue during an August appearance on Through the Mirror.

Independent Reporter and founder of The Redhead Writes tweeted TSA’s appearance while covering Romney’s Iowa pit stop.

JNReports contacted this reporter via a series of tweets to confirm this encounter.

She confirmed that TSA agents were searching through bags, examining peoples electronics, and that bomb sniffing dogs were present.

However, she added that there was no airport style pat downs nor unwanted touching by agents.

The reporter also mentioned that when she asked where these TSA agents where they were form, they admitted D.C.

The big question is, why?

Why are we seeing TSA agents at political events in the first place?

Why would Romney and his campaign support the agents coming to his event in Iowa? Was Romney that concernered about the 1,067 residents that call Van Meter home?

Will Americans continue to allow TSA to go anywhere it pleases without speaking out against it, or are Americans already accustomed to their presence?

Photos from @redheadwrites1:


Caught On Tape: Obama Campaign Staffers Say It’s “Okay” to Vote Twice

By Mac Slavo
Oct 11, 2012

Controversial investigative journalist James O’Keefe (of ACORN hidden video fame) is at it again, and this time he’s caught some volunteers and employees of the Democratic National Committee assisting would-be voters with registering and voting in multiple states.

When undercover reporters visited various locations across the country they received the same response from Obama campaign staffers – that it’s basically okay to vote multiple times if you happen to be registered in two or more states.

In Houston, Texas, for example, the Project Veritas reporter made her intentions known, and rather than being rebuffed for her planned illegal activity, she was provided assistance with obtaining the proper forms to be registered in two states and was told to say “I don’t know” if the double-voting ever became an issue.

Similar situations unfolded at other DNC funded community organizations.

In a country where advanced technology is being used to track the most minute activities of its citizens, it is shocking to see just how easily the process of electing the leader of the free world can be compromised.

Obama campaign staffer and DNC Regional Field Director Stephanie Caballero facilitates voter fraud on hidden video:

Reporter: Yea I don’t want to get in any trouble but like I said if no one’s gonna know

Reporter: I don’t have a problem with it.
Reporter: Yea, so anyway – But –
Obama Campaign: Oh my God this is so funny. It’s cool though!

Reporter: But I was gonna see as far as all the registering for Florida –
Obama Campaign: Mhm
Reporter: Where do I get the forms to do that?
Reporter: Or not registering but voting in Florida for the absentee –
Obama Campaign: So what you’ll have to do is you’re going to call in to Florida.
Reporter: Okay.
Obama Campaign: And call – Let me see.
Obama Campaign: Are you going to do what I think you are going to do?
Reporter: Well I mean if no one’s gonna know –
Obama Campaign: Laughter
Obama Campaign: You’re so hilarious!

Obama Campaign: Come up with like – If anyone checks say “I don’t know”.

How many times will you be voting this election season?



More Al Qaeda pre-US election attacks forecast: Americans quietly lifted out

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report October 2, 2012, 11:00 AM (GMT+02:00)

Ayman Zuwahiri threatens anti-US terror offensive
Ayman Zuwahiri threatens anti-US terror offensive

Just five weeks before America’s presidential election, US intelligence reports signs that al Qaeda leader Ayman Zuwahiri is preparing a string of terrorist attacks as the sequel to the murders of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US officials in Benghazi on Sept. 11, according to evidence collected across Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

His twin goals are to influence the poll’s results and to build up his reputation as a master of spectacular terrorist operations. Eager to impress Al Qaeda’s franchise chiefs, Zuwahiri is reported to be celebrating his “Benghazi feat” – his first as Al Qaeda leader – and boasting of the harm to the Obama campaign caused by his administration’s stammering denials that it was an act of terror. The new terrorist chief claims his tactics had an instant, devastating impact on Washington and they were therefore superior to those of his predecessor, Osama bin Laden.

The Al Qaeda leader is now seen – not only by US intelligence experts, but by most experts in the West, the Middle East and Israel – to be impatient to capitalize on this success and so dramatically expose to the Muslim world America’s perceived weakness and his own worth as commander of the jihadist movement.
His planning for a new offensive has taken advantage of the Arab Spring upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa and turned them around to strike at the heart of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy objectives. The Arab revolutions have let Islamist extremist and fundamentalist Salafi groups off the leash in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, while Lebanon Jordan, Iraq and Syria teeter on the brink of chaos. The extremists now enjoy free rein to organize for political action while also gaining access to vast stocks of modern arms.
In the view of Western counterterrorism experts, Salafi groups have long maintained clandestine relations with al Qaeda, especially Ayman Zuwahiri, who joined al Qaeda in the first place as head of the violent Egyptian Islamic Jihad and stayed in close touch with its secret cells.

Al Qaeda planning also took advantage of the US counterterrorism focus in the last couple of years on the Arabian Peninsula franchise (AQAP) based in Yemen. Less US attention was devoted to the Islamist extremism simmering in North African and other Middle East arenas. It was there that Zuwahiri went to work to fashion new terrorist networks alongside Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) from the Salafi groups now rampant across a broad geographical area encompassing Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Mali and thrusting into the Middle East through Egyptian Sinai.
America is therefore confronted with a broad new al Qaeda front, armed with scanty intelligence. Worst of all, Washington can’t trust the new regimes and local military and intelligence organizations, thrown into power in the post-“Arab revolt” countries, for cooperation in fighting terror.
Instead of confrontation, the Obama administration has opted for retreat.
debkafile’s exclusive sources report that an administration team has hurriedly put together a list of 20 endangered countries where US diplomatic, military and economic may be targeted for al Qaeda attack.
The list is prioritized according to the level of risk and US security capability for protection.
The highest-risk locations have been quietly evacuated – either to the US or West European countries – leaving only a skeleton staff behind for emergencies. A senior American source told DEBKAfle Tuesday that Tunisia, Libya, Mali, Nigeria and Egypt have been virtually denuded of a US presence.

Middle East intelligence observers have told debkafile that they don’t recall US diplomatic military and intelligence personnel, businessmen and technical staff with their families being withdrawn from the region on this scale or at comparable speed.
President Obama made American retreat his order of the day after refusing to heed calls for a US military operation against AQIM and its head, Abdelmalek Droukdel. It was Droukdel, according to accumulating intelligence who, acting on behalf of Zuwahiri, orchestrated the Libyan Ansar al-Shariah militia’s murderous attack on the US Benghazi consulate.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday, Oct. 1, that Obama also decided against a punitive attack against al Qaeda’s stronghold in Mali.