All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2011 - InfoWars Special Reports
01:00:29
20110114_SpecialReport_Alex
Source
| Copy link to current segment Download episode

Time Text
I want to give a more specific idea of how the election is controlled during the electoral
and especially the primary process.
you The year 2008 and that election is the most glaring example of how the establishment, what I will call the powers that be, pulled out all the stops in order to change horses in midstream.
They began the 2008 election cycle with the same process that they always do.
The media names four or five prime candidates.
Of each party that are the top runners.
And who says that they're the top runners?
The media says they are.
And they can, of course, find any number of hand-picked pundits to get on television and confirm that these are the top picks.
On the Republican side, they said the top pick was Rudolph Giuliani.
Right after 9-11, the year following, they made Rudolph Giuliani Time's Man of the Year.
And I wrote in my World Affairs Brief That's a sure sign that they're going to promote Giuliani for some major office.
They've put him on the cover of Time magazine.
They've called him America's mayor.
This is all king-making.
Supreme.
And sure enough, they put him forth as the top Republican conservative candidate.
He was anything but conservative.
He was a flaming liberal, a cross-dresser.
This is a person who's pro-choice, who's pro-homosexual.
He's got everything in his litany of biography that a conservative would reject.
But the establishment felt this is the person we wanted to have represented the Republicans.
Hillary Clinton, of course, was the top runner in the Democratic Party and they brought out a Barack Obama, which was considered a long shot at the time when they put that person forward.
But in 2008, it's most important to watch how they manipulated the 2008 Republican primary.
Because it became very obvious in the first primary in Iowa that Rudolph Giuliani had almost no support.
Numbers were dismal.
John McCain's numbers were down in the two to three percent level.
His were dismal as well.
Ron Paul's were higher in the five to eight percent range and they were worried.
Mitt Romney, of course, had thrust himself into the election on his own money and on his own dime, running as a charismatic conservative.
He had problems initially overcoming conservatives' reluctance to accept his record as Massachusetts governor.
But he was able to successfully divert some of that concern So that as the establishment recognized that Julian was going to go down in flames, they had a big problem on their hands.
Because Romney was number two, and that means Romney would become number one if Ruli Giuliani were to go down.
And so into the third primary, just before the New Hampshire primary, and this is something as a political scientist I can tell you has not happened, except when they're attempting to manipulate.
But six of the major newspapers in the primaries that were going to be held in the next two weeks, six out of six came out and endorsed John McCain.
As the Republican primary heir to be.
And I said to myself, something's going on.
And at the same time, Rudolph Giuliani pulled his name out of the primaries.
Now, why did he do that?
It's because his news numbers were bad.
By pulling out of the primaries, the numbers don't show up.
He's saying, I'm just too busy, I'm regrouping for Florida.
What he was going to hope to do is try to manipulate the numbers.
In order to build up and have one last chance to prove that he could make it in Florida.
In the meantime, the powers that be were going to make sure that they had someone to take the number one lead away from Romney.
And that's why they pushed McCain with six endorsements.
Now how does six major newspapers Come out for someone who's got two to three percent.
I mean, it was just incredible to look how they were.
And of course, they attempted to be balanced.
They were talking about the Democrat one that they were supporting, either Hillary or Obama.
But McCain was the one that they came out unanimously for.
It worked.
Barely.
McCain started to rise.
He didn't achieve numbers that were significant until Florida came around, but Giuliani definitely bombed out by Florida.
The biggest problem they had was to make sure that Mitt Romney's numbers kept him from getting into number one spot in Florida.
And that's where they pulled Mike Huckabee out of their hat.
Mike Huckabee was a very controlled Republican Evangelical Christian former minister and governor in the South.
He was very popular and he rode the anti-Mormon sentiment of Mitt Romney to the hilt with the Evangelical Christians and that's why they picked a reverend, a former pastor, to come out and do this.
Mike Huckabee had made many, many compromises as governor.
He was not considered a true reliable Conservative.
He's one of those who I put on the camp of part of the establishment system.
He knows that there's a control system, but he perhaps thinks that it's benevolent.
But in any case, the establishment got him to put his papers in to run for president only a month after Mitt Romney came.
So they knew that Mitt Romney was going to be a force to be reckoned with, and they planned on having Huckabee come in and diminish Romney's performance in the conservative primary states.
Let me also point out that the reason why both political parties tried or worked over time to keep the primary system from subverting the primal positions of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Do you remember when that happened?
A lot of states were leapfrogging over each other to try to be the first primaries because they realized that once the first half of the primaries had taken place, none of the other primaries made any difference.
It had already been a done deal.
It had already been determined who was going to be the presidential nomination.
Remember that both of the Republican and Democratic parties were adamant.
No one shall take the place.
No one.
You'll be disenfranchised as a party if you get in front of Iowa and New Hampshire.
And the reason is, is because the establishment has long had in place the ability to manipulate the primaries of Iowa and New Hampshire.
They're small states.
They have small voter electorates.
They're mostly filled with a lot of cantankerous independents.
They can slip and go either way.
So they're able to throw it to the Republicans or Democrats in those two states.
And remember, it's the first two state primaries that determined the tone of all the rest, because the media then can say, oh, look who's the front runner.
Look who's the front runner in Iowa and New Hampshire.
That's why, in my opinion, as a political scientist, they did not want those two primaries subverted.
But even that did not work in 2008.
They could not get Rudy Giuliani up high enough in order to not have to do some severe maneuvers later on.
So we know how that turned out.
John McCain came forward as the candidate because of being promoted and ruining Mitt Romney's chances.
Now, the move to collect Sarah Palin Was deliberately done for this reason.
They first of all knew that McCain did not have a good record with conservatives.
He had betrayed them.
He had worked, I mean, even as his role championing the torture legislation, he had allowed the Bush administration to put in a one line exemption to no torture.
And that is if the president authorized it, which is in essence was a wide open loophole.
They knew the conservatives were very disturbed with McCain's role promoting amnesty under the Bush administration so they needed to bring in someone who would bring in the conservative votes and get them to acquiesce and bite the bullet about John McCain. This was Sarah Palin.
And I think they picked Sarah Palin because she had legitimate conservative libertarian leanings.
She was doing a lot of things that were considered libertarian in Alaska.
But I think they looked at her personal lifestyle and determined this is the person that we can manipulate.
When they brought her into the McCain primary system, she turned out to be a little tougher to handle.
She had her own ego.
She was resistant to being corrupted initially, financially, by clothes and the many perks that are given to her.
She rejected, for example, the first big name wardrobe that was given to her
because she thought it was obscene to spend this much money on clothes.
She now has succumbed totally to that and uses that kind of money to buy only these kinds of designer clothes.
But initially, you see, she was resistant.
She was resistant to the control of the establishment advisors.
She recognized that they were telling her what to do and writing her speeches and not letting her say what she wanted to say.
But in the process, apparently, She began to learn how ruthless were the national political management teams.
And when she continued to want to run for president, I think she made certain compromises that she would not be able to resist going with the establishment type of advisors.
And I'm sure that whoever remained with her told her that.
So she ended up being very useful towards boosting McCain.
And now she's useful in terms of co-opting the Tea Party in ways that I will go into.
But let me first talk about the two major sections of the Tea Party movement.
I think there's no doubt about it that the Tea Party was formed by the Ron Paul movement within the Republican Party.
The Ron Paul movement was the first and only principled movement to take the Republicans out of establishment control.
Ron Paul is the perfect champion of that because he's probably been the only congressman we've ever had in this country who we could entirely trust to be immune to establishment pressure in Congress.
He was completely isolated during most of his years in Congress.
And it is only through his run for presidency in 2008 that despite all of the media attempts to keep him off the radio, to keep him off the debates, he was able to stay on the debates because he was Republican.
The third party candidates were eliminated and always have never been allowed on the debates.
So Ron Paul's strategy was very wise there.
So he has become a force to be reckoned with.
He is in what I would call the libertarian constitutional conservative camp of the Tea Party movement.
Now the other side of the camp, which is actually larger, is the Christian conservative constitutionalist movement within the camp, and they differ in one major way.
Let me talk about the similarities first.
They're both for paring down the size of the federal government.
They want strict interpretation of the constitution.
The Christian conservative side wants an additional recognition of
Christian values and Christian heritage.
If not, as well, some enforcement by government of Christian rules of moral
conduct, which is where they differ from the libertarian conservative side.
They also want constitutional strict interpretation in the role of government, diminished role of the federal government.
But they differ in the sense that they don't trust the constitutional provision of exempting the states from the Bill of Rights, of letting states' rights determine almost anything.
In other words, the Ron Paul constitutional or libertarian side has thought through the issues to a deeper extent, so that they've said, look, tyranny at the state level is just as bad as tyranny at the federal level.
Tyranny at the local level is just as bad as tyranny at the federal level.
So, I don't take great comfort, they say, in the fact that the Constitution allows the states to get away with this.
Now, it is true, both sides recognize, the states are easier, somewhat easier to control than the federal government.
So it's easier to get change at the state level.
So they've assuaged themselves in this concern by saying, well, we can control our own state governments.
I would assert, as someone who is probably more aligned to the libertarian constitutional conservative side, That we have now learned that the state governments are not any easier to control than the federal governments.
There isn't a single state, even the most conservative states of Idaho and Utah, for example, where we actually, constitutional conservatives, control the legislature.
We have a large percentage in these two states of conservative legislators.
But a lot of these people are not knowledgeable enough to resist the inevitable pressures that come about by having Republican leadership lean on them and deny them committee assignments if they don't go along with certain things.
And we have these kinds of compromises occurring.
Now, because of the Tea Party movement, we've had a great deal more success at the state level.
With moving state legislatures in very conservative states towards taking strong positions.
For example, we have some 13 states that have taken positions affirming their Tenth Amendment right to reject any federal mandates.
We've had two states and a third on the line that is willing to state that any guns or ammunitions manufactured within the state are exempt from alcohol and tobacco and firearm restrictions.
But on the negative side, we have not had any one of those states actually stand up to the federal government
when the federal government imposes a will on the courts and say, we're not going to obey.
In other words, we've had not a single state work towards nullification of a federal law.
That is yet to be done.
If the federal government comes in and decides to enforce certain ammunition and other bans upon state manufacturers,
we're going to have a test case of whether or not the states will stand up.
My suspicion is that most of the states have passed resolutions and laws with no intention of actually fighting
directly, hoping that the feds will back down.
I don't think the feds are going to back down.
And so while we have great hopes that going to state and local action is the best way to pursue a strategy of winning and liberty, I don't know if we really have a viable strategy at the state level and whether or not there really truly is any safety yet Relying upon the states to preserve our liberty.
The libertarian side, for example, believes that you have to go beyond the words of the Constitution to secure liberty.
Not violate any of the principles of the Constitution, but you have to tighten up the language.
You have to make sure that they cannot add false rights, like the right to an abortion, to the Constitution.
The only way that you do that is not by demanding that they interpret according to the Founding Fathers, because the Founding Fathers had no interpretation about that.
The only way is to write more specific language prohibiting federal and states and local governments from violating fundamental rights.
And you have to define fundamental rights in a legally adjudicable way.
Now, one of the other problems in the movement which allows for co-opting of the Tea Party Is the language that we use.
Sarah Palin, for example, is a good example of this.
Sarah Palin, if you watch her on Fox News, talk in her conservative jargon, gives absolutely no specifics Everything is a trite generality that's conservative, that's pro-family.
We're for families and we're for asserting our rights.
We're not going to take this anymore.
None of those things are specific.
None of those things are well thought of.
I don't think she has anything well thought of, which brings up a point.
If you get elected a candidate such as Sarah Palin to the presidency, They will be ruled by their advisors.
Every single law that is put forth by that administration will be written by advisors.
That's the same thing that's happened in the Bush administration.
Nobody in their right mind believes that Bush wrote any piece of legislation that was presented during his administration.
No one in the know believes that Obama had any part in writing Obamacare.
In fact, this thing is so specific, is so voluminous, it had to be written two or three years, perhaps even before Obama became president.
This bill was being prepared.
Who put the tax provisions in there, for example, to have 1099s written for everyone in a transaction less than $600?
Obama didn't have a clue that was in the bill.
That shows that, see, the president doesn't write these things.
But I'll tell you, if you ever had a president like Ron Paul elected to president, he would be looking through every single word, if not writing the bills, that he was presenting.
Now that's the difference between a person that's capable of being a puppet and someone who is going to be a hands-on president.
Now I think Mitt Romney is smart enough that if he were president, if you could trust him, he would be writing bills.
I don't think he's trustworthy because he's too ambitious and he's got too many establishment advisors.
He's too malleable, but he's capable of it.
I don't think George Bush was capable of being a hands-on president.
I think Barack Obama's capable of being a hands-on president, but I think he's so co-opted by the people who brought him through the process of bringing him out of his communist Marxist background into the globalist realm of control.
And I think that happened when he was brought into the CIA for special ops.
When he was a college student.
And ever since then, he's been a protected entity within the dark side of government, including birth certificates, where he went to college, what his applications say, all of that's been sealed.
And that's only sealed when there's something to hide.
George Bush, of course, didn't want his revealed because they showed bad grades and they showed manipulation within college.
But I'm sure that if Mitt Romney became a presidential candidate, he would openly reveal all of his transcripts and his grades in college, and they're quite good.
He has nothing to hide.
Ron Paul would do the same.
Rand Paul, his son, has openly revealed all of this.
So only people who have something to hide need to have their records expunged.
But it's important for the Tea Party to understand that this use of excessive generalities makes us, our position weak.
For example, when Glenn Beck gives some of his educational things on television, he makes some excessive generalities.
He makes generalities about people who come from a leftist background and calls them communists.
Well, when you go to the extent of calling someone these are communists, and they're not actual card carrying members of the Communist Party, and it can't be proven, then it makes it easy for Keith Olbermann to discredit.
He's famous for showing little excerpts of Glenn Beck's clips and showing how this can't possibly be specifically true.
So I think we have to tighten up within our movement the care with which we make generalizations and to be more specific.
And then we can have some resistance to being co-opted.
Here's how I think it's going to play out in this present political atmosphere.
Right now, Sarah Palin is being groomed as the Tea Party candidate of choice for the presidency.
She's being promoted on Fox News, paid some million dollars a year to have a token position of commentary on Fox News, studio in her home.
You don't do that for a person who you're not trying to promote.
Now what is Fox News, who's owned by Rupert Murdoch, Promoting someone who's truly a conservative.
You notice that Fox News does not promote Ron Paul.
They've had to have him on, but mostly it's to curtail his influence, to counter, to jab and to spar, to catch him in some air that they can make him look bad on.
It's very rarely to be complimentary to Ron Paul, but they're extremely complimentary.
They give Mike Huckabee a position on the show.
Who's another false conservative, in my opinion.
I mean, I think he does have conservative ideals, but I think he's one of those that's bought into the control system.
He's talking to the Rockefeller family.
That's right.
Talking to the Rockefeller family.
It's just like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
You know, what was he doing going over and talking to the Rothschilds and meeting with, and even Sarah Palin's been given meetings with Henry Kissinger.
Now, I don't think that Henry Kissinger is saying, all right, Sarah, I want you to do this and this.
I don't think she's taking it.
I think this is an impressionable, pretty girl who's got stars in her eyes and who's taken to all these famous people so that, first of all, it disarms her.
It anesthetized her against the conspiracy theories that Henry Kissinger is on the evil side.
She's met with him and now she can say, oh, he was a nice guy, just like a grandfather to me.
That's the way they take naive people and they turn them so that they become resistant to what their conscience is telling them.
I remember that once my brother went and interviewed David Rockefeller.
My brother knows of my conspiracy theories and facts and he asked him about these things and of course David Rockefeller was very gracious.
Here he had someone who's naive, conservative and admits these things.
And whatever he told him, My brother was writing it down and gave him a clean bill of health that this is a wonderful guy and that he has nothing but the best of intentions.
So you see, I think that's a little bit naive.
I don't mean to say that my brother's a bad person because he was taken in by that, but I think certain people have.
The tendency to accept things and be too naive in their judgments about what's real.
I have seen more than one conservative had a personal interview with George W. Bush, walk away convinced that this man is a man of God.
And then have other advisors tell that after George Bush met with a person he was laughing and telling how he snookered that person.
Happened every time they had the prayer breakfast at the White House.
They would bear witness to them about Jesus Christ to the ministers and as soon as they leave they'd go back to their four-letter words cursing and laughing and talking about how they'd snookered these people.
We have to be very, very careful in the movement about being deceived by people.
So as I was talking about, I think Sarah Palin is the primary person they're
grooming to be a Tea Party candidate should that movement be strong enough to
actually overcome their preferred candidate, which I believe is Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich destroyed his credibility within the conservative constitutional
movement when he ran his contract with America in 1994.
He completely betrayed it as soon as he was elected to office, reelected to office and became the Speaker of the House again.
He began to promote NAFTA and GATT, nothing to do with his contract with America.
And even though he did pass some lackluster versions of his contract with America so that he could say that he had fulfilled his promise, nevertheless it was very obvious that he was a globalist.
Masquerading as a conservative.
Then, of course, he betrayed his own wife in his moral values through his various affairs.
He actually, in his background, came from a liberal economics professor and only proclaimed to be converted to the conservative cause when he wanted to run against the Clinton administration.
But he never really ran hard against them.
Now, of course, he was totally discredited.
And so what does he do?
He tries to come back to the conservative movement.
He has to address his immorality, his betrayal of his wife, his betrayal of his conservative Christian background.
So he writes a book called God in America.
And he gets certain high-profile Christian pastors to assert to the fact that we're convinced now that Newt Gingrich is back in one of us.
This is all part of a very carefully planned agenda to fool the American people.
I think then that there's a few possibilities of how this may play out.
Once again, Mitt Romney is going to be a factor.
That's why Mike Huckabee was given a show on Fox News to keep his name in front of the conservative people.
So that should he run for president to counter Mitt Romney, which he surely will do if Mitt Romney throws his hat in the ring, Huckabee would be in his ring as well to thwart that conservative Southern vote that has a tendency to be anti-Mormon in their orientation.
Now Sarah Palin Can play either one of two roles.
If the Tea Party movement is strong enough, she could be elected to be the presidential nominee.
If that happens, I believe the establishment will throw another four years to Barack Obama.
I'm convinced that he can continue to play a role as Clinton did in his eight years.
They get certain things passed that even compromising Republicans can't do during a Republican administration.
It's doubtful that compromising Republicans like George Bush could have passed Obamacare.
Only Democrats could have done that.
And they did so.
They can still do us more damage, though I might say they've done a lot, but they could still do us more damage in another four years.
They could give us cap and trade.
All of that really bad agenda is off the table right now.
They can't get it passed.
It could be passed if they're able to get another four years.
My projection is that if Sarah Palin is so vulnerable in the manner of this Vanity Fair argument about her excessive temper, about all of it.
Remember, these are establishment globalist advisors that are sitting in her camp that walk into her home.
They know all the dirt.
They're collecting it.
You haven't seen anything about what they can say about Sarah Palin until they bring out the big guns.
If she gets to be a presidential candidate.
I think she's that vulnerable that if she gets the nomination, they will sabotage her campaign and will reelect Obama.
Now, they want Newt Gingrich eventually, whether in this four years or the next four years, because I believe the eight years after the Obama period will be a period that will take us into major wars, if not a world war.
And I think they want a Republican president in there because he's able to get all of the conservatives to stop I mean, they would resist anything that Obama does, even internationally in foreign policy, but they would not resist what a Newt Gingrich as a Republican would do.
So I think that's why they want a Republican eventually to take place and it's going to be a war president.
In order to get Newt Gingrich elected because of his baggage, they may well throw Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate on that to make him more compatible to them.
And that's a possibility.
She's obviously someone who's very capable of playing that subservient role as she did to John McCain.
So that's how I think that the Tea Party movement will be co-opted.
Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich.
Now Tim Pawlenty is in there as a, he's one of that media people that are thrown out as a list of potential presidential ones.
He's also more, he's a better person than Newt Gingrich in terms of his His personal principles, but he's more like a Mike Huckabee.
He's done a lot of things that are very, very establishment.
I think he's part of the game.
He's part of the establishment system, but I don't think he's going to be the presidential candidate, but they have to throw in a few extra people to make it appear.
How should principal voters balance all the enthusiasm for a return to constitutional government with the electoral stuff?
You know, when Teddy Roosevelt ran as Bull Moose, that gave Woodrow Wilson enough strength to win as a liberal.
You know, it splits the conservative movement to have a third party, Tea Party, competing with the Republican Party.
Let's take the example of the Bull Moose Party under Teddy Roosevelt.
This was clearly an establishment era to get rid of the Taft, the first who was very much going to keep us out of war.
They wanted Woodrow Wilson who, by the way, they controlled.
He'd been immoral while a professor at Princeton and they had him over the barrel.
So he was controlled not only because of that blackmail but he was also controlled because of the presence of I don't think that Teddy Roosevelt was necessarily a knowing conspiracist.
I think he had a big ego.
I think they had a lot of money people excite that ego saying, you need to run, we can make you win.
And they purposely did that to co-opt The Taft presidential run in favor of Wilson.
Now the same thing happened, for example, during George H.W.
Bush.
They wanted to switch to Team B, the Democrats, to get certain things done.
So the whole Ross Perot play as an independent, and it's very instructive because it's like a third party, he had lots of money to throw at it, but it was specifically designed to split off The vote that was independent and conservative to make sure that a Bill Clinton would win.
It's very instructive that the Ross Perot campaign was almost in daily contact with the Clinton campaign and the Democrats.
It's also very instructive that even after Perot had opted out and quit the race, That he was able to get back in before one of the national debates and they let him back on even after having quit the race.
Now any other normal third party person that really wasn't working for the establishment never would have been let back on to the debates.
It's very obvious that the media was behind promoting Perot in order to do that.
And many of that, much of that happened before when Ralph Nader gets into the mix again.
For example, when Bush was running for office, they wanted to subvert the Democrats and so they ran Ralph Nader to siphon off leftist votes.
So we have this principle of the establishment using third parties or independent runs in order to, but they only use it when they want to destroy A targeted party.
When a real, true third party comes up for vote, they usually try to stop that from winning.
In this case, in the coming election cycle, we will always have the problem of a Democrat that everybody wants to get out of office, Obama.
We have a Republican, which I predict will be Newt Gingrich, probably, with Sarah Palin as Vice President.
And any Tea Party movement, any third party movement, the Constitutional Party, which is probably the strongest with the Libertarian Party, capable of defeating a Republican view, will be decried by most conservatives out of this, you're throwing away your vote, you're going to cause the Republicans, you're going to give us Four more years of a Barack Obama, and this will be used against the Tea Party movement to make sure that they do not challenge Newt Gingrich when he runs.
And I fear that that's a problem that we always will face as an underdog.
I have made personally the decision that I will never again vote for an establishment party, the Republican Party, unless God willing, someone totally principled like Ron Paul becomes the candidate who I can personally trust, because I know I cannot trust those who lead the Republican Party.
And this is something that Tea Partiers need to understand.
Very, very important.
That even though you may have effectively gained control of your state Republican Party, you will be undercut at the national level when you go to the convention.
But it's very hard to get control even of the state level.
It happened in Utah because they have the caucus session.
And the caucus session means that you have representatives doing the voting.
It's not a direct primary.
And so activists and the conservative constitutionals are very active in Utah were able to capture most of the delegates.
And so they were able to oust Senator Robert Bennett who would never have been ousted.
In a heads-up primary by a direct ballot by the people.
Never would have been ousted.
There's just that many mainstream Republican conservatives that would never go against him.
In Nevada, when they tried to oust the Republican candidate in favor of a Ron Paul candidacy for the National Convention, they shut down, turned off the lights of the convention, and that shows, and the courts upheld that eventually, so it shows you that When you're dealing with even state parties, they have the ability to be ruthless and get away with it because the courts will uphold them.
I say the controlled courts.
So unfortunately, my sad message is that the conspiracy has its tentacles deeply into the media, the courts, the main people within the political parties.
And so even though you may gain ground and win a popular election, they have the power to thwart you at the power structure area by not letting you on committees, by not letting you have your say within conventions and determining who's going to speak, for example, at a convention.
All of those are ways in which they can co-opt a Tea Party from being effective.
By far the most difficult to accomplish, but by far the most effective tactic that we can develop to make the Tea Party more immune to being co-opted is by going beyond the excessive generalizations and jargon of our movement.
Even going beyond the Constitution in the words of the Founding Fathers, because anybody can use that.
In fact, there were Founding Fathers that were all over the map.
We view the Founding Fathers that we like as the ones that we quote from, but they can view other Founders that were quite statist.
In fact, my position is that the Anti-Federalists, who were like George Mason, Patrick Henry, George Mason actually the author of the Ten Bill of Rights, these were the best of the Founding Fathers and they didn't like the Constitution because they said, we don't trust the general language is going to be strong enough to keep them from subverting it.
We want to have specific prohibitions in the Constitution prohibiting the government from doing certain things.
And I'm in that camp that we need specific prohibitions of government as well as the general principles and the language.
What I'm saying is that unless we get down to do the homework within the Tea Party movement that the libertarian conservative constitutional side is doing And staying out of the jargon, because it's in the general language that allows people to get subverted by people getting up there and saying the things that people want to hear, but have no meaning without specifics.
So without the homework of teaching the specifics, and that's why the most disturbing thing, even as a nephew of W. Cleon Skousen, who was a great champion of the Constitution because I am in favor, Of going deeper into the Constitution, of tightening up the language.
I'm not saying that I'm in favor of a constitutional convention, which we could not control, that would run away from us, but I'm saying there are other ways to embark in an educational aspect or program where we start to teach people what to do to safeguard liberty, developing stronger language to do so, that would make the Tea Party movement immune from the kinds of compromises, immune, more immune at least, From trusting in these generalized statements that people make, which even Rick Perry, governor of Texas, who's a globalist, could get up there and state, of course it was an absolute lie, even he could state that he was talking about secession, that we need to think about seceding from the Union.
That was the furthest thing from his mind.
John McCain turned 180 degrees around and made promises about finishing the fence and about the border and no amnesty to get reelected.
And yet it was an absolute lie.
So we need to hold people's feet to the fire with more specifics intellectually and in terms of our speaking in order to make our people more immune to this kind of co-opting.
Now there's a real wild card that's playing out as we speak in the Tea Party movement and the establishment's desire to co-opt that movement, and that's Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck's influence has grown way out of proportion to what I think the establishment had thought when they originally allowed him to be a token conservative on CNN.
He made the move to Fox, which Fox News, in my opinion, is the controlled conservative network.
It's meant to look conservative, but it is to basically do the co-opting.
Its purpose is to promote the false conservatives and to denigrate the true strong conservatives like Ron Paul.
But Glenn Beck is messing up all of that.
And I think this is how it happened.
Remember, Glenn Beck came from a fairly unstable background, both moral and principle-wise.
He came from a rock music background, which is kind of an unstable mental state of music.
He still speaks with that shoot-from-the-hip rock DJ type mentality, which keeps him vulnerable.
I think he makes mistakes because of not Taking time to think things out or say things well constructed and he is criticized by that continually by Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews who are like hatchet man waiting in the wings always to show clips sometimes out of context sometimes in context of Glenn Beck but for all of his foibles I think Glenn Beck has become something more than what they ever intended him to become on Fox News and certainly his popularity has risen dramatically
I really feel strongly that the change came when Glenn Beck got a hold of my uncle W. Cleon Skousen's books on the Constitution, the making of America, and especially the 5,000 year leap.
It was a real turning point in his life where he decided, I've got to take a principled stand to defend the Constitution and the American way of life.
Now it's unfortunate at the same time that he was making this great transition that he took a negative view of conspiracy.
I think that was typical of people within the major media.
Everyone was denigrating conspiracy and 9-11 was the most outrageous that you could project and so he got on that camp.
But it's very interesting that as Glenn has made his transition to more and more criticism of the evil side of government, both Republican and Democrat, he's come across the Carol Quigley work and he's, of course, showcased that on a couple of his shows, where you cannot do that. You cannot study the case of Carol Quigley, an
insider who actually bragged about much of the conspiracy and then later tried to deny it. You
can't study that entire period of history without being influenced that conspiracy really
does exist. And so I think Glenn Beck is at that juncture in his life where he's seeing more and
more of the play of conspiracy. He's got the popularity and we're seeing right now how the
establishment is trying to manipulate this great wild card in the Tea Party movement.
He's trying to manipulate it, and nothing's more exemplary than what happened in the Glenn Beck rally that happened on Martin Luther King weekend.
They began to promote this as, first of all, it was, I think Glenn Beck was right that it was the only calendar day that he hadn't initially even realized it was on Martin Luther King holiday when he booked it.
But nevertheless, the media took this up as an insult to Martin Luther King and the legacy that this was going to be politicized and right-wing ranting and raving.
And so it's very interesting by subjecting Glenn Beck to criticism, Which he's sensitive to.
Now, he plays like he's not, but he is sensitive to it.
Plays like he's not, he plays like you can't control me when he did his famous debunking of the FEMA camps, where he did that 90-degree about-face.
It was very, very telling, because the day before his debunking, he said it can't be debunked.
He basically admitted on Fox News and Friends that I've been convinced FEMA camps really do exist.
And then when he got on later, and I said to my son, I remember when I saw that, I said, well, we'll see what the actual thing comes out, because I don't believe they're going to let him come up and confirm, you know, concentration camps.
And he talked about, well, I've got my independent experts and they've given me this information, and boy, I'm just blown out of the water, it can't be debunked.
So he gets on and he debunks it.
He turns around and he starts out by saying, you know, all you conspiracy theorists think, you know, I've been turned, that somebody got to me and changed me around.
Well, nobody gets to Glenn Beck.
Well, maybe not directly.
Maybe he didn't get the direct phone call and saying this and that, but he was indirectly turned, because who were his independent investigators?
Meigs and company of Popular Mechanics.
Shills for the government.
These are professional debunkers for the government.
And so they were able to turn him simply by saying, you know, this isn't reliable, this isn't reliable, without giving him the full story.
And Glenn Beck's only human.
He doesn't have access to all the information.
He doesn't let me advise him.
He doesn't let other people who know the answers advise him.
He lets Popular Mechanics advise him.
So it's only a wonder that you're going to get turned, even though it hasn't been direct.
And you don't think that you've been manipulated, but you have by partial information.
But nevertheless, with that weakness, I have a feeling that he's having fits of conscience now.
He's starting to see conspiracy operate.
He's starting to see how they're manipulating him.
In the rally, for example, they were always playing the race card.
Oberman and Matthews and many others accusing him of being a racist.
because of certain statements, whether they're set or not.
It's just being on a Martin Luther King holiday caused Glenn to turn it into a religious ecumenical rally
on honoring the troops, which is kind of a weak, safe place to be.
You know, it's like motherhood and apple pie.
Who's going to be against honoring the troops?
But while it watered down the effectiveness of what he could have done, and most people were unimpressed by his speeches, nevertheless, it did one great thing, in my opinion, which I covered in my World Affairs brief analysis of this.
It did bring together some much-needed unity within the Tea Party movement, which has some pretty strong factions, especially when you get into the differences between Christian fundamentalists and the very strong Mormon contingent within the Tea Party movement.
And Glenn Beck being Mormon, of course, there was a major piece done by Pastor Garlow on the press about whether or not he as a fundamentalist pastor could deal And would be giving assent to a false religious philosophy if he had any dealings with Glenn Beck.
And he properly, speaking on behalf, I think, of many in the Evangelical community said, no, we need to join forces where we can join forces.
Just like the Mormons really put out for Proposition 8 and helped us out in there and provided most of the manpower.
And we have to be appreciative of that.
So I think there was some much needed healing going on between the Evangelical community and the Mormon conservatives.
In fighting for the common cause without having to admit that we agree on religious principles.
That's what Garlow's message was.
Very well done piece on his site.
But my point in saying this is that they worked overtime in the media to try to bend Glenn Beck to weaken his rally as much as possible.
They underestimated the size at less than 100,000 when it was well, well greater than 100,000.
They do that in all types of major conservative gatherings.
So this is the wild card that they have to deal with.
What is Glenn Beck going to do?
He's got tremendous ability to have influence on the Tea Party movement.
If they're able to bend him towards neoconservatism, towards attacking Iran, If they can bend him to support Sarah Palin, they will be using him in the wrong direction.
If he can finally see that Ron Paul's no-compromise position in drawing a straight line between the establishment positions and the real true constitutional position is the proper one.
And he's leaning towards that because he has all of this Cleon Skousen mentor background that the constitutional position is the only one.
This is the struggle.
It's for the soul of Glenn Beck in the Tea Party movement.
And I will frankly say, though, that underlying that is a much larger, not larger, but a smaller, but more powerful movement that is influencing the Tea Parties, and that's Alex Jones' videos and documentaries and his weekly or daily television and radio show.
I think it's extremely powerful.
I can tell this as a person within the movement when I'm interviewed on various places of what kind of reaction I get.
I can tell you that Alex Jones has a tremendous influence on the hardcore level of the Tea Party movement and it's that hardcore movement which is in both camps of the Tea Party that gives the non-compromised basis and resistance to the weaker movements, the Glenn Becks,
and even weaker that the Sarah Palins are giving to the movement.
Now let me finalize by asking the question, why is it so important for them to co-opt the Tea Party?
What's at risk here?
What are we getting in the way of in our movement to restore the Constitution, to limit government?
Well, first of all, we're getting in the way, especially the Ron Paul side of the movement, we're getting in the way of the globalist agenda of continual intervention.
This was the purpose of the 9-11 attack.
Was to give it an eternal excuse to go to war against terrorists which would be morphed and used to one degree or another to continually justify going to war in any country.
Al Qaeda can suddenly emerge in any country whether it's Yemen and nobody's been able to determine actually who's in Al Qaeda.
I mean this is like the nameless top level of the conspiracy that we can't name.
Well they haven't been able to tell, oh they throw out names to be sure but there's no proof.
They could be taking names out of anything and saying this is a member of Al Qaeda just because that they're attacking America or against America.
And of course we're building that resistance to America by our continual intervention.
But there's a purpose.
It's not just the military-industrial complex.
This is not just about money.
It's not just about oil.
These are tools in the trade of the globalists to manipulate conflict.
They've got to control oil.
They're very useful.
At creating the need for governments to go to war.
For example, they cut off oil to Japan to induce it to go to war against Pearl Harbor.
They could cut off oil supplies from Iran going to China to cause China to become more belligerent in terms of a third world war scenario.
But it's my opinion that it is this anti-war movement, this isolationist movement, according to the founding fathers, of not being involved in foreign wars, that is most threatening to the globalist agenda and this is the reason why I say this the socialist portion of the globalist agenda the federal tyranny that can come only if there is war
In other words, you can't talk people into accepting a police state.
You can't talk them into accepting socialism except by corrupting a majority.
Now, they have passed an Obama socialistic medical health care, but it's very, very unpopular.
It's going to get more unpopular as it goes along.
They need war to talk people into police states and to higher degrees of tyranny and socialism.
That's why It is the foreign policy agenda that is most threatened by the Tea Party movement and especially the Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party movement.
It's my opinion that going forward, that the real purpose for attacking Iran will be to formalize the concept of America being the real bully of the world that needs to be stopped.
The American government is consciously covering for increased weaponization in China, increased armament of Russia.
Russia is going back to its predatory ways.
It actually never left them.
Communism just went underground during this period of the demise, the phony demise of the Soviet Union.
But with strongman Putin returning to power again, we're going to see a much more aggressive China.
Eventually, it's going to end up on a preemptive nuclear strike, in my opinion, of America.
And our leaders are going to come out of their bunkers and say that the Russians deceived us, that we didn't know that this was happening.
The Chinese deceived us.
We thought that they had been moderated, that they were our allies.
And then we'll be in a full-scale Third World War.
I think there'll be a Republican president during this period of time.
And I think all of our defenses will be down, all of our military will be down,
and our leaders will say we have to now give power to a militarized United Nations world army and world
government control.
And I don't think, as they did in World War II, where they returned and removed
most of those structures after World War II, they will not return power to the states.
So nationalism is a true bulwark as a firewall against world government and the tearing of world government.
I mean, technically, as a free market and political scientist, I could design A world government, a federal government, a state government that would uniformly defend human rights and restrict the powers of those governments so that they could not oppress other people.
So inherently, in principle, there's nothing wrong with having a federal government.
In principle, there's nothing wrong with having a larger federal government above that.
If you had the specifics that allowed for complete decentralization and absolute protection of human rights, and non-intervention militarily around the world.
You can write that into law, but that's not what their intent is.
Their intent, of course, is to give us the mere verbiage of protection of human rights
while they're having loopholes which allow for unlimited power.
We could have and design a true free market world government
as well as a federal government with restricted powers, limited to constitutional principles,
and decentralization down to the state and local level if we wanted to.
But they won't give us a chance.
That doesn't mean that we can't do it on our own, though.
You know, one of the problems in the conservative Tea Party movement is that we think that we have to get the majority first before we can undo these things.
I say, because the chances are very slim of us getting back a majority anyway, that we need to do our restructuring, homework, before, so that everybody's on board.
And then, in a crisis, remember, these evil systems use a crisis To create their own dialectic.
There's no reason why we can't use those same crises of war, when they lose power to a certain extent, when there is social unrest, to group together people under liberty.
But we have to prepare the structures beforehand.
And it is not enough, I assert, that we say, oh, we're just going back to the original Constitution.
Well, which version?
The one that allowed for slavery?
The one that didn't?
The one that took away this right or that right?
Which version?
We can't agree on that unless we do our homework.
Unless we rewrite the portions instead of saying, because you know you have, you never do get all perfect conservative libertarians in one group even in a war-type crisis.
You'll always have a lot of mainstream mixed in.
They're the ones who say, well we know how to establish, re-establish government.
We know how to interpret the Constitution.
So unless we actually do the homework of rewriting in tight legal language the principles of the Constitution so that they cannot be reinterpreted if we get a chance to lead in the next crisis, we will not be prepared because during a crisis is no time to sit down and hold legal, political, and philosophical discussions about these things.
And so my appeal to the conservative Tea Party movement is be open to putting on your thinking cap and going through the rigorous process of outlining what does it really take to safeguard liberty in detail so that we cannot be fooled by false proposals by candidates who haven't thought those things out.
The most important thing I'm concerned about, I think, from what you can gather from my comments today, is that if we do our homework, if we think through these processes correctly, if we know the answer to the detailed questions, We become resistant to be co-opted.
I'm very fearful that we're going to face what we might call a Tea Party deception, a grand deception, and that is that in the name of the Tea Party, someone like Newt Gingrich may claim to be a Tea Party candidate, or Sarah Palin clearly thinks of herself as a Tea Party candidate.
But we have to prepare against deception by knowing how to view who's establishment, who's not, and who's on our side, and who cannot be bought, who cannot be co-opted.
That's the most important thing.
In this area of Hegelian dialectic and controlling both sides so that when you search for a solution you have, when there's a reaction against the crisis, when there's a reaction against the problem, there will be true voices out there and you want to be able to overwhelm the true voices by other less true voices, watered down conservatives, more what they call mainstream, popular.
Conservative voices.
On the left, for example, to create crisis, you have to fund these.
It's not just funding communism.
It's funding the environmentalist movement, for example.
I mean, look at the major funding in the environmental movement, besides the federal government, which is the largest.
There's also the major oil companies.
What are they doing funding the environmental movement that restrict their ability to oil?
I think it's because they've been instructed to.
They, in order to have their international contracts and the immunity from prosecution for things like the BP oil spill, you've got to do the bidding of the people who tell you what to do.
And I think they say investiveness... I also have a theory, my own though, that the reason why Our oil is being off limits to production.
It's because the globalists know in this next big war, when we are cut off from our foreign supplies, they want us to use that foreign oil now, hold ours in reserve, not so that they give us any of that oil, but to prosecute this globalist war.
Because war machines use an awful lot of oil.
I think all of our strategic oil reserves are being reserved for the globalists' use.
And I think that's why they're doing it, not because of any environmental aspect.
But, for example, there's a great multicultural conflict agenda that has been going on for decades here, and that's the whole reason for unlimited immigration, of allowing illegal immigration in waves and waves that could be stopped by a simple fence.
It's because when you have, you water down the electorate with people who are used to democratic socialism, and in addition, of course, you have the conflict As our society becomes more socialist, you have various ethnic groups competing for their share of the productive pie.
That's why Bosnia blew up, is that in a socialist country, I mean, you can design legal things so that nobody gets any portion of the productive pie, but there's no socialism, and then it doesn't matter if you're an ethnic minority or not.
Your rights are just as strong as the next, and you're not vying for any people's Benefits you're not vying for medical care.
You're not vying for education dollars because nobody gets that it's all private now in this light That's why I think we have funding going to La Raza from Bill Gates in his foundation from the Ford Foundation Because these organizations are going to create extreme tension building upon this Amnesty legislation, and they're being funded to the tune of millions of dollars.
In fact, there was even abominable legislation that had funding for La Raza and other minority oriented groups going through.
I think there's an agenda that is in play here that is aiming towards creating greater
conflict.
When you're on the site, you can also tune in 24 hours a day to my daily radio broadcast.
▲
Export Selection