While I spent the greater portion of my day preparing for this week's upcoming radio shows, I had made a mental note to try and view a rebroadcast of the Republican Presidential 'Debate' sponsored by CNN and YouTube in St. Petersburg, Florida on November 28, 2007. Though I was not let down by the nonstop rebroadcasting of this event, I was thoroughly disappointed -- even angered -- by the intentional 'slanting' of the questions posed to each candidate, both by the 'YouTube submissions,' as well as those posed by CNN moderator, Anderson Cooper.
As I listened to the debate, which was replete with what I perceived to be a 'planted' audience, applauding, booing, and cheering for their favorite candidate, I paid close attention to the video questions which CNN had somehow selected from the "5,000 videos submitted to YouTube." I am uninformed as to how and who chose what questions would be asked, though I deduced that not only the people posing the questions were 'preselected,' but that 'their questions' were also carefully scripted for them. In fact, the nature of the questions themselves and the candidates to whom they were addressed seemed to be conspicuous at best. Since I did not record the broadcast, I must rely on my recollection of certain questions, certain topics, and the relative pattern that emerged as the event progressed toward its long-awaited (by me) conclusion.
Permit me to preface my comments about the event with an analysis of how the media controls political events and adheres to the general modes of propaganda and 'spin' employed throughout a typical week in news, news magazines, and 'special investigation' programs they broadcast. Let me remind you that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion contain explicit descriptions of how the 'Illuminati,' with the aid of their international 'central banks,' their military-industrial complex, and their intelligence-agency controlled media would take control of the government of the United States. Propaganda, or politically-based mind control, is their method of preference, and it was certainly in overdrive during this debate.
It is appropriate to point out that during the course of every political campaign, we hear the same mantras on abortion, health care, education, crime, the economy, and more recently -- terrorism. Need I remind you, the reader, that nothing ever occurs after the election to fix these problems. It just 'sounds good' if a candidate mentions any of these issues during the campaign. [That's the propaganda, folks!] Then the candidates talk about changing the laws (as if we don't already have enough laws) and set about the task of catering to lobbyists and corporate interests, to the detriment of their constituents. It is an unending cycle.
Those of us who are old enough to remember have all heard these campaign mantras for more than 50 years --and these problems still have not been fixed. Have you asked yourself, "Why not?" I have, and the simple answer is, "Because they have no intention of fixing any of these problems!" What platform will they promote during the next election if there are no problems to fix? The Republicans blame the Democrats, and the Democrats blame the Republicans. Regardless of who we think we have voted into power, we are still stuck with two political parties playing ping-pong, with the American public playing the role of the ping-png ball. I wonder when Americans will finally wake up and see this game for what it really is!
Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of the realities of the political process and how easily elections are manipulated by use of the 'death rolls,' 'absentee ballots,' and the alteration of the actual vote count by electronic means. In Florida, it was "hanging chads," or have we already forgotten?
[See the article, "Slam," posted within this News archive http://web.mac.com/donnicoloff/iWeb/directlightproductions.com/News/6AB3A83D-8AC3-4632-928A-BFA281423163.html]
The reader may recall the 2000 presidential elections and the voting fraud that occurred both in Florida and Ohio. Some will argue that the Supreme Court intervened and 'made the right decision' by declaring the election results to be 'a State matter,' in this case, to be decided by Florida's Republican Secretary of State, Kathryn Harris. How convenient it was for the Republican Party to count on a Republican Secretary of State, supported surreptitiously by her Republican boss, Governor Jeb Bush, brother of the 'victor' in that deceitful 'election.' It is worth pointing out that ever since that 'decision,' the Federal government has done everything possible to dictate what the States will do, under threats of reduced Federal 'assistance and subsidization.' It was later revealed, in 2007, that voting records from 2004 in 56 of 88 counties in the State of Ohio had been 'trashed,' thus ending an investigation into massive Board of Elections fraud. Ohio, in 2004, was also governed by a Republican, Robert Taft.
It matters not what party is in power, though. Today, U.S. Presidents are handpicked by the super-secret Bilderberg Group and their 125-130 internationally elite, invitation-only cohorts who make future decisions about how they intend to seize power from various governments throughout the world, particularly, the United States. A few of the attendees at these meetings occasionally 'leak' information to the alternative media about its participants and the agenda for the coming days, weeks, months, and years. The rumor leaked after the last Bilderberger meeting was that 'they' had selected Hillary Clinton as the 'next President of the United States.'
With this background in mind, let us return to the 'topics' and 'issues' portion of the 'debate' in St. Petersburg:
I recall my first impression of the YouTube videos. The images did not flicker like they normally do on YouTube. In fact, it appeared that a rather expensive camera was used for most of the videos, and the audio was also above average. In one or two instances, the images appeared to be intentionally darkened (for effect), though those images, too, failed to flicker or show other signs of 'jitter.' It seemed that the videographer who shot each video, regardless of origin, had an equally steady hand (or used the same tripod), the same lighting, and consistent audio output. The backgrounds of each video revealed little details of the location where these videos were shot. In fact, from what I saw in the YouTube presentations, few, if any, of the participants appeared to own any furniture. One guy stood in a doorway between two empty rooms of what appeared to be an empty apartment, while another who asked a nonsensical question about the 'confederate flag' posed in front of it and a partially visible 'lone star' banner employed as a backdrop.
My conclusion: The filming location(s) of the videos was/were staged, and except for slight changes in lighting intensity and audio levels, the videos were not originally submitted to YouTube at all, but were scripted and produced by CNN. CNN may have submitted these half-cocked videos themselves, though it would have been just as easy for them to upload their 'mini productions' in a YouTube player before 'receiving them from YouTube.'
Then there was the intentional exclusion of candidate Ron Paul from the majority of the proceeding. His 'token appearance' was underscored by the manner in which he was not posed any questions untiil the 'debate' had aged about 30 minutes. Paul's YouTube question employed the phrase, "conspiracy theories," implying that the 'Super Highway" being built from Texas to Canada and the planned 'North American Union 'were merely fantasies' being promoted by Paul and his Internet supporters. Paul handled the attack (which I perceived as orchestrated from within the body politick) rather well, though he refrained from declaring such activity to be treasonous by referring to it as "a difference in philosophies." Building an international highway for private, corporate, and international gain is a violation of our Constitution, pure and simple. Though this 'super highway' is being paid for with taxpayers' dollars, the taxpayers have no say in the matter. What will Americans say when they find out that the first checkpoint, upon entering the U.S. into Texas, will be in Kansas City -- the planned 'port of entry' which will be 'sovereign Mexican territory'? That would have been the appropriate question to ask Congressman Ron Paul. [This question was obviously intended to discredit Ron Paul's candidacy.]
To steal any further thunder that Ron Paul might have achieved via the live or TV viewing audiences, Mike Huckabee was afforded two opportunities to declare that "the IRS should be abolished" (which he repeated twice on each occasion), as if the idea was his own. That pre-staged attack was chosen to overshadow the exposure Ron Paul garnered from his cameo appearance in Aaron Russo's documentary film, "America: From Freedom to Fascism," the film that questioned the true legality of the Federal Reserve and the role of the Internal Revenue Service in precipitating a 'New World Order.'
In another video, the questioner used the Holy Bible as a prop which was shoved into the lense of the camera, while he asked Mitt Romney if he would "honor this book" and if he "believed it to be the indisputable Word of God." Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani were also allowed to 'chime in' with their own responses, which, in my estimation, were half-hearted attempts at appearing to be 'Christian.' Only Huckabee seemed to be genuine in his Christian convictions, while the other candidates tripped over their responses, subliminally revealing their discomfort in having to respond at all. The gimmick fell flat and was saved only by the disingenuous applause of the studio audience.
The use of a Confederate flag and a Civil War battle flag from Florida as a backdrop in another YouTube video provoked subliminal racial hatred. That CNN even selected this symbolic 'submission' was an indication of their intent to provoke subliminal racial unrest and their foreknowledge of Hillary Clinton's selection by the Bilderberg Group. The prop was actually more significant than the nonsensical question posed, again, to Mitt Romney and then John McCain.
Questions about torture and terror afforded McCain a rare opportunity to attack Ron Paul for his admonitions regarding an immediate withdrawal from the phony war in Iraq. McCain, who supports the war, conveyed a 'message from the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan' with the phrase, "Let us win," as he scowled at Paul, who stood to his left. I reminded myself of the countless videos we have seen of the soldiers returning from the battle theater, claiming that "the war was a farce -- a ploy to make money for the military-industrial complex, while murdering or displacing millions of innocent Iraqi citizens." The ensuing analysis put forth by the candidates then switched to the war in Viet Nam, after which the American people were assessed responsibility for our 'loss.' "We won every single battle," the candidates proclaimed, though we lost the war. Of course, the candidates failed to mention the CIA's involvement in the drug trade during that war, and concluded that "Viet Nam is now our friend." [More propaganda]
In the context of the aforementioned issue, Afghanistan was referenced as the 'hiding place' of Osama Bin Laden (who alledgedly died of kidney failure in December, 2001). There was no mention of the 500% increase in the opium trade, once the Taliban were 'removed from power,' despite the increasingly frequent reports that 'they have returned.' So again, we are fed this mantra about a 'boogie man' that no one seems to be able to locate. Have we forgotten that Saddam Hussein was found hiding 'in a hole in the ground'? Again, there was not even a gratuitous mention of the CIA's involvement in the drug trade. [More propaganda]
At one point early on in the 'debate,' Mitt Romney quipped, "We'll talk about that later," [paraphrased by this writer] as if he had been briefed about the questions beforehand. My conclusion was that most of the candidates were briefed about the questions, an opportunity that was obviously not afforded to Ron Paul.
Overall, Ron Paul's unanticipated popularity in this premature presidential campaign has forced the media to resort to underhanded tactics which smack of intelligence-based propaganda. The most glaring attempt to sabotage any future support that Paul might garner was contained in a carefully crafted question. The question centered on forcing Paul to prematurely admit his 'possible intention to run as an independent candidate,' a right reserved for all of the candidates. Yet, this 'loaded' question was intended to set up a future situation, should Paul actually decide to run as an 'Independent' candidate, where he can be called a 'liar.' To the dismay of the individual(s) who carefully crafted this 'booby trap,' Paul responded, "I'm running as a Republican."
In the carefully scripted post-debate interviews with candidates, audience members in two locations, and the usual political pundits and party heads, little attention was paid to Ron Paul. No wonder. He received the smallest portion of air time during the broadcast, and brought that to the attention of the viewing audience during a rare post-debate interview with the media. This opportunity portrayed him in a 'sour-grapes' fashion and was likely anticipated by CNN.
By now, the reader may be assuming that this writer is a Ron Paul supporter. Such an assumption would be unfair and equally premature. I am merely describing my observations of a political event that was obviously orchestrated to produce a disingenuous outcome. The intentional exclusion of any candidate deserves this same analysis, as does the intentional lack of substance in such an 'important' political event.
The intentional, 'accidental' question posed by a self-proclaimed 'gay' U.S. Army retiree, Brig. Gen. Kevin Kerr, raised eyebrows and comments after the 'debate.' Kerr, a 42-year veteran (now retired) claimed that his "closet homosexuality" was not a threat to his military associates, though to remain silent today "poses a problem today." "Why today?" I asked myself.
As CNN apologetically stated almost immediately after the broadcast, Kerr, it was found, "had ties to the pro-gay/lesbian agenda of Sen. Hillary Clinton" [herself a 'closet lesbian'] and was another well-orchestrated attempt to inject hatred and controversy into the event. CNN's apology came within seconds after the conclusion of the post-debate interviews and also appeared to be a 'timed event.' CNN had plenty of time before the broadcast to 'learn' of this connection, though they chose not to disclose it to the public until after the event.
Any researcher knows that such information is not obtained, researched, and verified 'within a few seconds' at the conclusion of any live broadcast. CNN knew about this individual's association with Clinton, and chose to present this belated disclosure as if they were the ones that had been duped. [Recall that the Bilderberg Group has already chosen Hillary Clinton as "Dubya's" successor.] One can only conclude that this covert 'slip up' was propaganda intended for public consumption and for the ultimate benefit of Clinton. For what other reason would Kerr have been invited to sit in the audience and then be called upon to address the candidates in person? Shame on CNN! And shame on anyone who was duped by this bunk! Such antics are designed to discredit the multiple disclosures of rampant homosexuality and pedophilia in the political and military arenas which are occuring in real time.
This event was, summarily, a poorly orchestrated attack on Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign. Ron Paul has been speaking the truth, so in essence, this event was also an attack upon the truth. Unfortunately, the 'sheeple' will have already swallowed the bait -- hook, line, and sinker.
As I conclude this spontaneous analysis of the 'St. Petersburg, FL Presidential Debate,' I am convinced that this writing was not only cathartic in one sense, but yet another opportunity to discern the truth. Hopefully, I have opened some minds and caused others to awaken from their mind-controlled slumber. You should be offended at the underhanded tactics employed by the media and their intelligence-agency 'handlers.' Just don't come to me later on, asking what to do, when you've finally figured out what is happening. By then, it will be too late.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.