by Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com

For decades, lobbies and special interests have ruled Capitol Hill, with PACs effectively steering the outcome of every major political campaign by injecting money and buying influence. Now we find out that Texas Congressman and GOP candidate Ron Paul has been targeted by a new breed of PAC, this time with foreign backing.

In recent years, activists and advocates have won back some ground in terms of placing limits and disclosure on campaign donations from individuals, businesses and have attempted to rein in some of the financial influence of political action committees (PACs). Just when one dragon was slayed, another, more menacing one was born. Enter the world of the Super PAC.

As 501c organizations, these new Super PACs take advantage of recent election funding rulings which allow corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to operate totally independently – and spend as much as they wish on election campaign media packages. Super PACs can also hold fundraisers to solicit money from donors – with no limits. The rise of the Super PAC has meant a complete runaround of any campaign ethics, or campaign finance regulation.

Where the game was often played according to how much special interests could buy a candidate, the game has now shifted into darker areas, namely, how special interests can take down, and eliminate a candidate during the early part of an election cycle. South Carolina residents are currently being slammed with a record number of Super PAC-funded TV adverts, some of which are negative in nature. More shocking is the fact that all these Super PAC ads are being paid for by just a handful of wealthy donors and establishment syndicates.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post this week, David Donnelly, National Campaigns Director for the Public Campaign Action Fund revealed, “There are probably fewer than 100 people who are fueling 90 percent of this outside money right now.” The report also adds:

In total, these new and unrestrained political action committees spent more than $15 million supporting GOP candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire and are now outspending the official campaigns in South Carolina by 2 to 1, according to advertising and expenditure data.

Out of this small handful of mega-rich donors, the Israeli lobby is represented heavily. The Washington Post adds here: And casino magnate Sheldon Adelson recently dashed off a $5 million check to a group backing former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), marking what may be the largest single political contribution in U.S. history. Adelson is well known for supporting hard-line policies favoring Israel while also advocating measures that would benefit the gambling industry.

This level of allowable interference in US campaigns has seen Super PACs propping up certain alternate horses in the political race, in order to take votes away from the any serious rival to Establishment’s front-runner of choice. Based on election results and major polling, Mitt Romney’s only serious rival coming out of New Hampshire would be Ron Paul, yet, large sums of money are still flowing elsewhere in the field. Why?

In terms of the remaining GOP field, one could not find a more unappealing and unpopular candidate to commit millions in PAC funds for the duration of the primaries than Rick Santorum. Similarly, a complete non-runner and failure in all polling, John Huntsman, managed to bag a cool $2.5 million late in the game from the Super PAC, ‘Our Destiny’, which floated his campaign through Iowa and New Hampshire. Both men have secured some heavy backing, but skeptics should really be asking after these primaries have concluded, how a candidate with no real national support base could continue through the primaries – at such a great expense.

Likewise, the career of Newt Gingrich has long since peaked, with many mainstream political pundits even categorizing him as ‘unelectable’, but his recent record-breaking PAC donation from the Israeli lobby establishment figure Sheldon Adelson now begins to make sense. Note that Adelson is also an active financial supporter and media arm for Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career in Israel.

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who is not overtly ‘pro-Israel’ in the popular neoconservative sense. On January 13, in the run-up to the pivotal South Carolina GOP primary, the Emergency Committee for Israel, run by neoconservative thinker William Kristol, released an ad in which its Director Gary Bauer makes a plea to voters – not endorsing any candidate, rather, telling conservatives that they must reject Congressman Ron Paul as their GOP candidate, deriding his foreign policy views with respect to America’s ‘special relationship’ with Israel, and fighting the War on Terror – concluding that, “We can do better than Ron Paul”. See their advert here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MX7gFB4KR0&feature=player_embedded.

In reality, Ron Paul has broadcast a consistent message over the years, one which firmly places America first, and foreign entanglements last. He is the only GOP candidate who pledges to bring the troops home, cut off foreign military aid to countries overseas and lastly, he is not supporting any form of military showdown with Iran. For these reasons, his platform comes into direct conflict with the state of Israel – who is advocating the opposite, making him a target of this latest foreign interest Super PAC attack.

From this event, one can state as fact – not theory, that Israel and its supporters in the US are actively working to derail Ron Paul’s race towards the GOP nomination, and the Presidency. This fact alone, should be cause for alarm from even the most moderate of public corridors.

Should a foreign country, in this case Israel, be allowed to buy a significant influence through the media in American democratic elections? Should candidates be allowed to accept donations – even indirectly, from foreign interest PACs or agents thereof, thus creating a serious conflict of interest, and threat to national security?

Democracy for hire?

Once the GOP primaries are finished and the opposition nominee is selected, you will then see the pro-Democratic Super PACS sprung into action. President Obama’s hands will remain clean until that time, ­but the Democrats could very well fall on this same sword should public outrage in America reach significant levels.

With such an over-arching umbrella of influence determining its outcome, one can only conclude that the American democratic system of elections has been manipulated and twisted to such a degree by powerful3special interests, that major elections in the US cannot be classed as either free or fair. Rather they have warped into cynical, stage-managed events, engineered by the few in order to achieve a particular outcome.

What does this say about the state of America in 2012? To this point, Donnelly sums it up: “When you think about the amazing impact that this small number of people have on deciding the election, on the information that people will have on who to vote for, it’s mind-boggling.”

Surely, the American people cannot be a winner in this current climate of campaign high finance and open corruption. Much worse however, in this current set-up the true winner of a genuine democratic race – can never be known.

Many will be understandably outraged to know how this game is being played behind the scenes. If there was ever a time for election reform, it is 2012.

FROM THE EDITOR: In continuing with our research and coverage of significant issues that have and are currently affecting our way of life, the following article, written by Andrew Gavin Marshall brings us into a long journey of historical passages about the Bilderberg group, a little known organization that has much to do with the policies that decide world events, such as future wars, countries invasions, mass destructions in other countries, or formation of new ‘free’ trade agreements for the benefit of the world ruling elite and the consolidation of a New World Order, and leading to the culmination of a New World Government to enslave humanity.

Due to its length, it will be divided into many parts. So please sit tight on your seat for a long ride, and hope that at the end, you’d have learned a big chunk of history.

Recently by Andrew Gavin Marshall: The Logic of Imperial Insanity and the Road to World War III

“To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”

~ Denis Healey, 30-year member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group

Eighth part

A Place for China in the New World Order?

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Global Research

Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin’s report of inside sources in this year’s meeting indicated a rather extensive discussion on the role of China, which is hardly surprising, considering this has been a central topic of discussion in meetings for a number of years. China emerged in discussions on Pakistan, as China has become increasingly Pakistan’s closest economic and strategic ally, a trend that is continuing as America continues to spread the Afghan war into neighbouring Pakistan. China is also a major player in Africa, threatening the West’s stranglehold over the continent, in particular through the World Bank and IMF. Most importantly, however, and not unrelated to its role in Pakistan and Africa, China has become the greatest economic competitor for the United States in the world, and as the IMF even admitted recently, its economy is expected to surpass that of the United States by 2016. Bilderberg paid attention to this issue not simply as a financial-economic consideration, but as a massive geopolitical transition in the world: “the biggest story of our time.”

What made the discussion on China at this year’s meeting unique was that it actually included two attendees from China for the first time ever. The two guests were Huang Yiping, a prominent economics professor at Peking University (China’s Harvard), and Fu Ying, China’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is especially unusual and telling of the importance of the discussion at hand, considering that Bilderberg is exclusively a European and North American (Atlantic) organization, and in the past, when Bilderberg memebers David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested Japan be allowed to join in 1972, the European rejected the proposition, and instead the Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 to integrate the elites of Western Europe, North America, and Japan. The Trilateral Commission eventually expanded the Japanese section of the group into a ‘Pacific Asian Group’ in 2000 to include not only Japan, but South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

In 2009 the G20 was endowed with the task of ‘managing’ the global economic crisis – to include the ‘emerging’ economic giants, notably China and India – and as Bilderberg member Jean-Claude Trichet stated, this marked “the emergence of the G20 as the prime group for global economic governance.” That same year the newly-appointed European Union President Herman van Rompuy declared to be “the first year of global governance.” No surprise then, that also in 2009, China and India were invited as official members of the Trilateral Commission. This indicates a growing role for India and especially China in global affairs, and participation in Bilderberg meetings emphasizes the aim to not alienate China from the established institutions, ideologies and systems of global power, but to more fully integrate China within that system. The aim of the global elite, perhaps best represented by Bilderberg, is not to allow for the collapse of the American empire and the rise of a new one; rather, it is to manage the collapse of American hegemony into an entirely new system of global governance. This ‘big idea’ is not possible without the participation of China, and thus, as Bilderberg has long been saturated with the ideology of ‘global governance,’ it cannot be seen as too surprising to see China invited. Perhaps the surprise should be that it simply took this long.

Is Bilderberg Building a Global Government?

Jon Ronson wrote an article for the Guardian paper in which he managed to interview key members of the Bilderberg Group for an exposé on the organization, attempting to dismantle the “conspiracy theories” surrounding the secrecy of the meetings. However, through his interviews, important information regarding the social importance of the group continued to emerge. Ronson attempted to contact David Rockefeller, but only managed to reach his press secretary who told Ronson that the “conspiracy theories” about Rockefeller and “global think-tanks such as Bilderberg in general” left David Rockefeller “thoroughly fed up.” According to his press secretary, “Mr. Rockefeller’s conclusion was that this was a battle between rational and irrational thought. Rational people favoured globalisation. Irrational people preferred nationalism.”

While dismissing “conspiracy theories” that Bilderberg “runs the world,” Ronson did explain that the Bilderberg members he interviewed admitted, “that international affairs had, from time to time, been influenced by these sessions.” As Denis Healey, a 30-year member of the Steering Committee, himself pointedly explained: To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing… Bilderberg is a way of ­bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren’t politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy.

­

­by Tenants Together

A family is evicted and their belonging thrown out on the street.

Banks in Merced, California can no longer throw renters out of their homes just because of foreclosure. Until now, renters in this high-foreclosure region of California were subject to arbitrary eviction after their landlord’s foreclosure unless they held a long-term lease protected by federal law. Under a new law passed by Merced’s City Council that took effect yesterday, banks and private investors will not be able to displace tenants unless the tenants violate their obligations or the owner wants to move into the property.

“This is the moral high road. It is the right thing to do,” said Councilmember Bill Blake, a former Merced Undersheriff who was an early champion of the just cause for eviction law.

Mayor Pro Tem Noah Lor, Council member Mary-Michal Rawling, and Councilmember Bill Blake authored an Op-Ed in the local Merced Sun-Star last week in which they explained their support for the new law: “We will not continue to allow banks and other post-foreclosure owners to displace Merced’s families for no good reason. The “Just Cause for Eviction” law strikes the right balance: allowing eviction where a tenant does something wrong or where the landlord wants to move into the property, but prohibiting eviction where there is no good cause.”

The Sun-Star issued an editorial endorsing the law. The law has overwhelming support from local residents who turned out in droves to oppose a last-minute repeal effort led by local realtors. Michelle Dirickson, a renter evicted by foreclosure, commented: “this law doesn’t cost anybody anything. It doesn’t hurt anybody, and it helps families and it stabilizes communities.”

Dean Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together, praised the city council members who supported the law. “Mayor Pro Tem Lor, Councilmember Blake, Councilmember Rawling and former Coucilmember Carlisle deserve enormous credit here. They took a principled stand in the face of special interest pressure and the residents of Merced will be spared evictions and blight as a result.” Realtors who handle foreclosed properties for banks are leading an effort to overturn the ordinance. They have found an ally in Merced’s newly elected Mayor, Stan Thurston, himself a local landlord who received realtor donations in his recent election campaign.

The effort to repeal the law was stymied on December 19 when the council voted 6-0, the mayor abstaining, for a review by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission as to whether Thurston must recuse himself from voting to repeal the law due to a conflict of interest arising from his landlord activities. City Attorney Greg Diaz estimates that the review will take at least 6 months, during which time renters will continue to have the protections of the local Just Cause for Eviction law that goes into effect today. “The repeal effort is doomed,” stated Preston of Tenants Together. “It was a bad idea — an attack on Merced residents by a bunch of self-interested realtors who work for banks.”

Sixteen cities in California have just cause for eviction laws. The laws vary in scope but all prohibit the eviction of renters after foreclosure unless there are grounds (such as nonpayment of rent) for the eviction. Several cities have adopted these laws recently in response to the epidemic of foreclosure evictions.

Statewide, Tenants Together estimates that at least 38 percent of foreclosed units are rentals, with hundreds of thousands of renters displaced since the foreclosure crisis began. Tenants Together issues an annual report on the plight of California tenants in the foreclosure crisis. The reports are available on the organization’s website, www.tenantstogether.org. Tenants Together also operates ­a hotline (1-888-495-8020) for California tenants in foreclosure situations.

Tenants Together members in Merced have already started mobilizing to educate renters about their rights under the new law. “We will make sure tenants are armed with the information they need to assert their rights,” stated Angela Fragulia, a Tenants Together member who was evicted from a foreclosed property in Merced and became a leader in the just cause campaign. “We cannot allow banks to kick more innocent renters out of their homes.”

by the El Reportero’s heath news services

1. Limit phone calls to those that are absolutely necessary, and restrict these to 6 minutes maximum, which is the time the body needs to adjust. Use a hands-free kit and hold the phone more than 20/30cm away from your body in order to limit the impact of radiation on yourself.

2. Do not carry your phone directly on your body,even on stand-by, and do not use it less than one metre away from another person, in order to reduce the effect of ‘passive’ radiation. .

3. Those under 15 should not use a mobile phone at all because they are still growing. With their lighter body weight the radiation is more damaging, especially to the brain, weakening the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB), and to the reproductive organs/ovaries, etc.

4. Any elderly person should be discouraged from using a mobile phone, as well as anyone in a weakened state (the radiation will weaken their organism further), and any pregnant woman. Microwave radiation is readily absorbed by the amniotic fluid in which the embryo and then the foetus develops. .

5. Use the phone only in conditions of optimum reception: do not use it in a confined space such as an elevator, basement, underground station, caravan, etc. In these situations the strength of the signal both sending and receiving is much greater thus the radiation is much more intense.

6. Do not use the phone while you are in a moving vehicle, including the train, bus, etc, since its antenna will be constantly scanning for contact using the maximum signal strength, and the radiation from both incoming and outgoing signal will be intensified.

7. Do not use the phone while in any vehicle, even when stationary. An enclosed metal container produces the “Faraday cage” effect, which maximizes the damaging impact of radiation, reflecting not only on the person phoning but also on other passengers, especially children. Thus it is essential to step out of the vehicle before making a call. .

8. Do not keep a mobile phone beside the bed at night switched on, because even when on stand-by it is in contact with the nearest phone ­mast and emits radiation at regular intervals. .

9 . Equip your- self preferably with: – a mobile phone with the lowest possible SAR rating (= Specific Absorption Rate of microwave radiation by human body tissues). The regulation limit is 1.1W/kg for eye-sockets and cheeks. – b phone with an external antenna, because even if it is less trendy, the omni-directional antenna broadcasts with maximum efficiency and therefore uses a weaker signal than one with an inbuilt antenna. The fashion factor matters less than the health factor.

10. Use of a mobile phone should be avoided by anyone who has any metallic object in or on their head, whether magnetic or not, such as amalgam fillings and dental bridges, metal plates, screws, clips, body ornaments, earrings or metal framed glasses. The same is true for those with walking frames, wheelchairs or metal crutches, so as to avoid increasing radiation by the phenomena of reflection, amplification, resonance, passive re-emission, etc.

11. Make use of protective items to shield yourself from radiation, such as a metal phone carrying case, protective anti-radiation fabric and veils, metallic foil wallpaper, anti-radiation paint, etc, all which have been proved to be effective.

12. Make as many phone calls as possible using landlines which emit no radiation, and which can often be used for free and for unlimited time via the Internet, even for phone calls abroad.

by the El Reportero’s news services

Sebastián Piñera

The impression that violence in Mexico may be about to reach a plateau has been gaining ground. David Shirk, director of the University of San Diego’s Trans-Border Institute (TBI), has ventured that 2011 may be the peak year, and that the pattern for a subsequent decline of drug-related violence could well be discerned in what he dubs the ‘Tijuana model’.

Chile inches forward

The student education protests in Chile have been largely defused by the government led by President Sebastián Piñera, which finally managed to outmanoeuvre the students by securing approval for the US$60bn 2012 budget in congress. The protests have been taxing, not only on the government but also on the political system as a whole. Political actors now recognise that Chile must contemplate fundamental political reforms to address some of the wider issues raised by the protestors (and the large section of the population that backed them).

Navy moves into Veracruz

The Mexican admiralty announced on Dec. 21 that marines would replace the state police in the state of Veracruz’s main conurbation, Veracruz-Boca del Río.

Ecuadorian Court ruling against U.S. Oil company for pollution

Press media and others affected by environmental pollution stressed the ruling of the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos against the U. S. oil company Chevron-Texaco, forced to pay over eight billion dollars for contaminating the Amazon.

The Single Chamber of the Sucumbíos Court issued its ruling on appeal, confirming the responsibility of Chevron-Texaco in a case that the settlers and natives of the Amazon have been pursuinbg for 18 years.

The plaintiffs, some Ecuadorian Amazon communities represented by U.S lawyers in Ecuador, claimed a compensation of 113 billion dollars and initiated the case in 1993 for alleged contamination caused by Texaco.

Judge Nicholas Zambrano, on Feb. 14, 2011, found the company guilty and indicated that it must pay 18 billion dollars to rehabilitate the environment, contaminated by throwing oil and liquid pollutants affecting rivers, streams, land and the environment.

­The lawsuit, filed for damages caused between 1964 and 1990, when the oil company operated in Ecuador’s Amazon region, includes injury to the health of the inhabitants of the area and hundreds of deaths from diseases caused by pollution.

Humala tightens the ship with sweeping cabinet change

Peru’s President Ollanta Humala waited just

Does the rule of law still stand in the peach state?

by Sharon Rondeau

The Post and Mail Attorney Orly Taitz has posted on her website an order from Judge Michael Malihi denying the request of an attorney representing Barack Hussein Obama to dismiss three ballot challenges filed respectively by Taitz, Atty. Van Irion, and Atty. J. Mark Hatfield on behalf of Georgia registered voters and others. Taitz represents four presidential candidates and a Georgia voter, David Farra; Irion represents David Welden, a Georgia voter; and Hatfield represents Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, both Georgia voters.

The Post & Email published an article on January 2, 2012 regarding Taitz’s ballot challenge in Georgia as well as in other states.

Also on January 2, 2012, The Post & Email spoke with Atty. Van Irion, who described his ballot challenge on behalf of David Welden. Irion had stated that a hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2012, and we have contacted him to inquire as to whether or not that hearing will take place given today’s order from Judge Malihi.

In his order , Malihi wrote, inpart: The Georgia Election Code (“the Code”) mandates that “[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

The Post & Email had published another Georgia voter’s petition asking that a special grand jury be convened to investigate the non-response of Secretary of State Brian Kemp to the voter’s previous FOIA request and formal letter inquiring as to the information Kemp relied upon in 2008 to place Obama’s name on the ballot. The voter cited the same statute as Malihi in contending that registered voters have a right to challenge candidates’ qualifications for any office. The voter, Millard Blanchard, claimed that Kemp had broken the law by failing to remove Obama’s name from the 2012 presidential ballot.

Judge Malihi appeared to support Blanchard’s claim in his decision:

Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

A former secretary of state, Karen Handel, utilized the law when she disqualified someone from his candidacy for local office.

Of the new development, Taitz stated on her website, “I still can’t believe this…Judge Malihi, Deputy Chief judge of the Administrative court in GA, ruled, that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. He will have to stand trial and prove his eligibility for office…Now judge Malihi is sending a message: ‘nobody is above the law.’”

Questions have swirled since 2008 regarding Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of president. While he claims a birth in Hawaii, many experts deemed the long-form birth certificate issued on April 27, 2011 a forgery. Obama also claims having been born to a foreign father who never held U.S. citizenship, thereby raising the issue of whether or not he meets the criterion of “natural born Citizen” as stated in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

The Post & Email is aware of at least one researcher who has stated that Obama falsified his entire background and that he was actually born in New York City to two U.S.-citizen parents but sent to live in Indonesia as a toddler. Trowbridge has asked Obama to “step forth in integrity.”

Today in Concord, NH, several state legislators held a press conference to inform the public about what they believe could have been election fraud committed in 2008 by Barack Hussein Obama if he was not constitutionally eligible to seek the office of president. They have also objected to the denial by the New Hampshire Supreme Court to review a decision by the state Ballot Law Commission to include Obama’s name on the ballot for the 2012 election. The Commission as well as the Secretary of State’s office claimed they were not responsible for vetting candidates, but in both 2011 and 2008, the Assistant Secretary of State had disqualified one candidate, respectively, for failing to meet constitutional eligibility requirements for the presidency.

In 2010, a candidate for U.S. Congress from Texas was disqualified by the Secretary of State for apparently having a party affiliation as he was planning to run as an Independent. A challenges to Obama’s eligibility has also been filed in New York, and a website with national ­scope has been established to assist voters to do so in each of the 50 states.

© 2012, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.