Wednesday, January 04, 2012

The Iowa Caucus (and its Aftermath)

The Iowa Caucus is officially over. Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucus with a close second of Rick Santorum. Ron Paul was voted third in the Caucus too. Romney had a narrow victim in early January 2012. His victory was only 8 votes more than Rick Santorum. The Iowa Caucus is the beginning of the selection process to decide the Republican nominee for the Presidency of America. Mitt Romney gained heavy support from the rich, suburban voters, and moderates. Rick Santorum gained votes from religious conservatives or Evangelicals. The Papal Knight of Malta Rick Santorum’s major problem is that he’s a war monger. He said recently that he wants to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary. This will continue the globalist 10th Crusade (or the modern day war on terror). We don’t need ORDO AB CHAO. We need justice & peace for all without war or chaos. Rick Santorum said that he respects human life. I respect human life too. I reject the wanton killing of unborn babies for any reason whatsoever in especially brutal methods. Yet, I also respect programs (even from the federal government) that can clothe, give education to, and give health care to human beings out of the womb too. I am anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, and I believe in sufficiently protecting the environment. Rick Santorum can’t pander to bigoted elements in America by saying that black people should earn the money without giving somebody else’s money. That’s nonsense since mostly white people are on welfare and likeminded programs not black people. Urban League President Marc Morial pointed out that 84 percent of food stamp recipients in Iowa are white. Nationally, 70 percent of recipients are white, he said. Many people who receive public aid contributed to those programs as workers, Morial said. “By falsely suggesting that people of color are a disproportionate drain on resources provided mainly by whites, Santorum deliberately fans the flames of racial divisiveness,” Morial said. Ron Paul heavily gained votes from the youth, libertarians, and some anti-war human beings. Many people of the Tea Party crowd support Romney, Santorum, and Paul. Ron Paul gained a lot of support and he wants to continue his campaign. Electability is a huge issue for Republicans. Most Republicans voted for the Mormon Mitt Romney, because they felt that he had the most chance to politically defeat President Barack Obama. Many view Romney as the man that can appeal to moderates and independents in order for Mitt Romney to be President in 2012. Newt Gingrich won in fourth place as a result of the Iowa Caucus. Gingrich promised to criticize Romney, because he believes that the Romney campaign manufactured false accusations against him. Gingrich said that Romney used his super PAC to unjustly criticize his record. A record  of more than 122,000 straw ballots were cast in the Iowa Caucus. Rick Perry wants to go home to reassess his campaign. John Huntsman is focusing his energy in New Hampshire and he said that he doesn’t care about Iowans, which I find to be very disrespectful (since a lot of real Patriots and real people live in Iowa). Mitt Romney recently received an endorsement from ex-Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. Meghan Cain is his daughter. She feels that anyone that doesn’t agree with her views (like her pro-war, pro-austerity, and pro-establishment ideologies) should receive scorn. She was especially angry on Alex Wagner's MSNBC program. All of the Republican candidates went on to harshly criticize the current President Barack Obama. What do I think of these events? It’s obvious. These candidates have strengths and weaknesses. They are unified in believing in the archaic viewpoint that suppressing the social safety net is progressive when it is not. They accept the 1% doctrine of laissez faire, trickled down economics (and tax cuts unconditionally for the super wealthy). Ron Paul is right on the Patriot Act, some foreign policy matters, the War on Drugs, and other issues. I don’t believe in an interventionist foreign policy that involves unjust wars. I do believe in trade, negotiations, legitimate aid, and ways of global assistance. So, I am not an isolationist. I believe in the protection of individual liberties. The other candidates are blatantly for war mongering, except for Ron Paul. Yet, even he believes in promoting lassiez faire economics. In September 2008, Paul voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity. That bill isn’t even controversial. He published hate filled newsletters. This is an important issue for us to discuss (to hold private property rights as superior to federal protections of human rights is wrong period). States rights have been exploited to promote more liberties in some states than others. That is why the federal Constitution was formed to make all protections for citizens uniform among all 50 states. In every state, all peoples should have equality point blank period. All of the candidates want to privatize Social Security or partially privatize it, which will deny it for much of the future retirees. The political establishment among both parties is influenced by the CFR, the Vatican/Jesuit network, the Pilgrim Society, the Bilderbergers, and the rest of the global elite. That’s reality. In our generation, we should have assets not just cash. The assets that produce the cash are more important since cash is subject to buy outs plus inflation (causing the value of cash to decline possibly). Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to get tax, fund infrastructure, fund the arts & sciences, and other acts via the federal government. That’s clear. That article doesn’t deal with Social Security, but there is something called the general welfare and new laws can be created (that’s constitutional). Social Security is a trust fund (not some oppressive tax) that works.





The mainstream media is trying to manipulate the people to support more tensions with Iran (especially FOX News). The governments of Iran and the U.S. have tensions inside of the volatile Straits of Hormuz. China and Russia are questioning why America is interfering with their nations. Many people feel that the mainstream media is accelerating tensions in foreign policy relations among nations. Historically, the media has agitated the populace for war for a long time. The media can use the tactics of dehumanizing the claimed “enemy,” manipulate the public into accepting the reasons for the war, and use other means to advance warfare. The sensationalistic William Randolph Hearst’ New York Journal use such evil means in order to promote the Spanish American War. This form of wicked journalism is called yellow journalism. The Hearst papers trumped up the sinking of the Maine as a product of the Spanish people. The papers promoted the story that the Spanish were raping Cubans. The public went into a frenzy to fight a war after the Maine incident. Although it is now widely believed that the explosion on the Maine was due to a fire in one of its coal bunkers. Then, there were the initial lurid reports of Spanish involvement sticking up to the world and the nation was led into war. Even the sinking of the Lusitania (a British ocean liner carrying American passengers) was torpedoed by German U-Boats off the coast of Ireland. It killed over 1,000 of its passengers. Just one week before the incident, then-First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill had written to the President of the Board of Trade that it was “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” Nor did reports of the attack announce that the ship was carrying rifle ammunition and other military supplies. Instead, reports once again emphasized that the attack was an out-of-the-blue strike by a maniacal enemy, and the public was led into the war. We know about the run up to the war in Iraq. The debate was about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Judith Miller created a report that said that Iraq had WMDs, yet her report was based on false information from untrustworthy sources. Some in the media supported that view that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Even U.S. officials to the U.N. before the war issued false information as a means to promote a Western invasion of Iraq. Some reports about chemical weapons came about without an investigation on the truth came about. We know that the stockpiles of WMDs were nonexistent. The Bush administration premeditatedly lied to Americans and the Iraq War tragically existed. Now, some neo-conservatives desire an American war in Iran. If such a war would occur, that war wouldn’t be like the Iraq War. Iran is almost 2 times larger than Iraq in land size. Iran has more troops than Iraq, tougher terrain, and more people than Iraq. Iran has a navy and Iraq didn’t. A war would be disastrous on both sides equally. So, we should reject mainstream media lies. Instead, we ought to promote diplomacy, fair trade, and reasonable policies toward foreign nations (in order to prevent a war with Iran).

President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act in December 31, 2011. Now, we are living in 2012 with the law. The new law is very controversial to say the least. There was a small period of debate revolving around the law. The H.R. 1540 law was signed in Hawaii ironically. Barack Obama claimed to veto the bill, but he didn’t. He claimed to not create signing statement, but he did. His signing statement claimed that the threat of Al-Qaeda is a real one and that the DHS has the right to interfere with the policies of America (while he claimed to have a concern about human civil liberties and freedoms). The 500 page document is anti-civil liberties. The President even admitted that he disagrees with the NDAA (but he still signed it into law) via his signing statement: “…"[I have] serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." So, even President Barack Obama admitted that he doesn't agree with certain parts of the law that regulate detention, interrogation, and the prosecution of suspected terrorists. If he had real concerns with this law, he could either veto the bill or sent the bill back to Congress with his objections. Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) said that the White House asked the Senate Armed Services Committee: “…to remove language from the bill that would have prohibited U.S. citizens’ military detention without due process.” The Executive and the legislative branch are complicit in crafting this law. The President supports the NDAA as a means to fight terrorism or a strategy to promote counter terrorism methods. The critics of the law feel that any American opposed to the U.S. government’s policies can (under the provisions of the NDAA) would be classified as a “suspected terrorist” and arrested under military detention. Back in 2004, the DHS defined many categories of potential conspirators or suspected terrorists. These names are foreign [Islamic] terrorists", "domestic radical groups", [antiwar and civil rights groups], "disgruntled employees" [labor and union activists] and "state sponsored adversaries" ["rogue states", "unstable nations"]. The unspoken objective in an era of war and social crisis is to repress all forms of domestic protest and dissent. The President made a signing statement saying that the administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Barack Obama is very intelligent lawyer (as a graduate from Harvard Law School). He knows that a signing statement can have no force of law if a future administration disregards his signing statement. The implementation of the law is done by the executive branch. Section 1021 is crystal clear. The executive branch can’t refuse to implement it. The signing statement doesn’t modify or invalidate the actually signing of NDAA (H.R. 1540). The NDAA violates many constitutional principles. The NDAA is being used to promote the Western military agenda of neo-imperialism. We have the militarization of America, which is antithetical to the existence of the American Republic. The signing statement can’t mislead real people who see that the Patriot Act, the warrantless spy policy of the NSA, and other injustices in American society haven’t been repealed at all. We don’t need some post-9/11 military police state apparatus in the world. The Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution should be respected. So, the NDAA can theoretically cause the arbitrary and indefinite military detention of American citizens. Laws like the NDAA and the Patriot Act are similar to the Enabling Act (which violated habeas corpus rights from the Weimar Republic. There was the Reichstag Fire, which was exploited by the Nazis as a means to suppress the rights of the German people). The Enabling Act from March of 1933 came about the February Reichstag Fire decree that negated the Constitutional government in Germany (it was signed by President or Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg). Both rulings suppressed privacy rights, postal rights, and other freedoms in contradiction to the 1919 Weimer Constitution. We should respect the Posse Comitatus Act too. NDAA is an authoritarian law.



Islamic history is important to know about even if you don't know about Islam. Islam is one of the largest monotheist religions in the world today. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last of the great prophets. The Islamic traditions and cultures over the centuries derive from a culture from the Middle East. In other words, even Muslims today in 2012 utilize Middle Eastern dress, traditions, language, and culture. Of course, many Muslims also wear suits and ties just like anybody else. So, I want to make that clear. The Islamic religion existed from the Arabian Peninsula. This region is mostly made up of Semitic Arabic peoples. Mecca and Medina are the famous cities in Saudi Arabia. Mecca is the location of the hajj. The hajj is the journey (if one is able) of that every Muslim must perform from their homelands. Mecca is the place where Muslims globally pray to what they call Mt. Ararat, break bread with their fellow man in the concept of universal brotherhood, throw rocks at the symbol devil, and give prayer to the Lord of the all the words. Islam from the 7th century spread rapidly from Saudi Arabia to Asia and Africa. The first Muslim Empire spread from Northern Africa (plus southern Spain) to India. Allah is the God for Islam. The Quran is the major religious text of Muslims (including the Hadith, etc.). Islam believes in the five pillars or rules that all Muslims must perform. They accept Judeo-Christian prophets like Moses and Jesus. They reject the concept of the Son of the living God. After Muhammad died, the Islam Empire spread fast. Cultural diffusion of Islamic culture came into Africa, Europe, Asia, etc. The Muslim Empire conquered the areas in the Fertile Crescent, Central Asia, Iran, etc. They have defeated much of the Byzantine and Persian Empire. The Arabic language unified Muslim culture and helped to spread Islam along the Old World trade routes (yes, the Silk Road too). Yet, the first Muslim Empire was short-lived. On the other hand, Islamic culture deals with advances in literature, mathematics, language, calligraphy, art, and other methods. For example, the Muslims created the great architecture wonder of the Dome of the Rock in the holy city of Jerusalem. The Muslims used mosaics and the Arabic alphabet. Islamic territories developed universities in Cairo, Saudi Arabia, and into Spain via the Moorish Kingdom as well. They translated ancient Greco-Roman texts into Arabic. Many Muslims used medicine and expanded on the geographic knowledge form the ancients. Slavery was done by some Muslims as well like some professing Christians performed slavery. After the death of Ali, there is the Sunni and Shia division in Islam. This division is similar to the Protestant Reformation or the Catholic/Orthodox division. The Sunnis believes that the political allies of Muhammad should run the show. The Shias believe that the relatives and descendants of Muhammad should run the Islamic empire. This led into conflicts between Sunnis and Shias to this very day. This conflict is evident by the sectarian violence we witness in Iraq. The most powerful form of Islam today are the Sunnis, which have dominance in Saudi Arabia. The capital of Islam moved into Baghdad at one point. The Muslims fought into France, but they were defeated at the Battle of Tours in France. The Mongols temporarily ruled Baghdad during the era of Genghis Khan. The early growth of Islam comes at the same time during the medieval societies of Europe.




The cube is a key part of occult architecture in the world. The cube shape is related to the concept of Saturn. Before going forward, Saturn must be explained first. Saturn is a planet in the solar system. Yet, the ancients worshipped the planet Saturn as a god. Saturn is huge and it’s the largest plan in our immediate solar system. The ancient cultures used rituals and rites in their celebration of Saturn indeed. The exchanging of rings and the objects placed on religious people’s heads all related to the ancient action of Saturn worship. The image of Saturn is commonly shown in popular culture all of the time as well. To the ancients, the planets and the stars had supernatural powers. These stars and planets were admired by ancient human beings. Some researchers believe that Saturn was the ruler of Kings and a supreme god. Pro-occultists believed that Saturn ruled the Kingdom of Atlantis and was the divine ancestor of all earthly patriarchs and Kings. In ancient Greek Mythology, Saturn was a Titan (of part of the most ancient of gods). To ancient Semitic civilization, Saturn was called “El.” Saturn was represented by a black cube. There is a large black cube in Santa Ana, California. There is one in Apple’s 24/7 store in New York City. There are large, black cubes in Manhattan, Denmark, Australia, etc. The ancient apostate Hebrews (as opposed to Hebrews who really worshipped the Supreme God of the Universe) represented Saturn with the six pointed star. This star evolved into the Star of David and this symbol is found on Israel’s flag. To the Greeks and the Romans, Saturn and his Titans were overthrown by the Olympians (made up of younger gods and goddesses like Jupiter, Vesta, Ceres, Juno, Pluto, Neptune, etc.). Old paintings show Saturn as acting cruel in his life (as in the creation of death). Occultists and researchers believe that Saturn is code name for Satan. Why? The reasons are that Saturn is given a negative connotation, it’s considered evil, it’s represented to Pan (to the half man, half goat creature being an archetype of Satan), etc. Pan is known for being in the forest, acting lascivious, and piping with music. Even Pope Benedict XVI is known to wear his Saturn hat according to the Associated Press. The Saturnalian Brotherhood from the ancient times and today is still influential in the world today.


By Timothy

No comments: