Is Rand Paul plotting to insert himself as a double agent?

Linguistic analysis of Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney contradicts his words: Rand Paul is disgusted with him!

Mike Adams
Natural News
Sunday, June 10, 2012

In the aftermath of the shock and the overwhelming feeling of betrayal following Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney for president, most people are trying to understand WHY it happened. But to my knowledge no one has yet analyzed the linguistics, the intonation and the micro-expressions that Rand Paul delivered as part of his announcement, because they may provide even more information than his words.

Here, I offer a brief linguistic and micro-expressions analysis of Rand Paul’s delivery of his announcement. What you’ll see here is that even Rand Paul is disgusted with his own endorsement.
Watch his announcement here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c5odNzKVb
Linguistics and intonation
If you watch Rand Paul deliver his announcement, pay particular attention to the part where he says:
But you know, now that the nominating process is over, tonight I’m uh happy to announce that I’m gonna be supporting Governor Romney.

During this entire sentence, his voice and intonation stay relatively high, in the “optimistic” range, including as he’s talking about his father. But the minute he utters the words “Governor Romney,” two things happen:
• The pitch of his voice drops sharply.
• The strength of his voice tapers off, almost as if the last part of “Romney” has no power behind it. (CONTINUE READING)

Study Confirms Ron Paul Blacked Out by Media

Written by Raven Clabough 
thenewamerican.com
Tuesday, 18 October 2011 15:17

It has oft been a bone of contention by Ron Paul supporters nationwide that he has been either ignored or misrepresented by the mainstream media. Liberal comedian Jon Stewart devoted an entire montage to humorously and satirically underscoring the media’s deliberate — and at times blatant — efforts to ignore Paul’s top-tier status. Now a recent study by the highly respected Pew Research Center proves that Paul has indeed been blacked out by the mainstream media.

Journalism.org explains that the study “combines traditional media research methods with computer algorithms to track the level and tone of coverage of candidates for president.”
Pew compiled a list of 52 mainstream news sources, ranging from newspapers to television, and discovered that Paul has received significantly less media coverage than all of the other candidates — including Tim Pawlenty, who dropped out of the race as a result of his lack of adequate progress, and Jon Huntsman, who has one of the lowest approval ratings of all the GOP presidential contenders.
The Atlantic Wire reports:

Ron Paul loyalists have been vindicated. After months of observations that the mainstream media was ignoring the libertarian standard-bearer, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shows just that: the Texas Congressman, who has consistently polled in the high single digits — Real Clear Politics’s aggregate poll currently has him at 8 percent — has received the least overall coverage of any candidate. From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the “primary newsmaker" in only 2% of all election stories.

The Washington Post notes, “Paul’s support has been stable at 10 percent or 11 percent of Republican and GOP-leaning independents in the three most recent Washington Post-ABC News polls.” In polls where Paul is placed against Obama, both candidates are in a dead tie, with approximately 15 percent of Americans undecided. His supporters note that if Paul were afforded more opportunity in the mainstream media to voice his ideas, he could effectively increase his support in such a runoff. (CONTINUE READING)

The Revolution Against the Federal Reserve Starts Now

Infowars Press Release
Infowars.com
October 6, 2011
Public sentiment has shifted– against the trends of Washington and Wall Street– and now, against the private Federal Reserve bank which controls or influences so much of the world’s finances. Where as only a few years ago many Americans were unaware of the true nature of the shadowy organization, recent polls confirm that the public overwhelmingly wants to audit and even abolish the Federal Reserve bank.
The momentum for a second American revolution is stirring, but the establishment is working overtime to steer the public’s anger into easy controlled avenues and big government solutions. Instead, by striking at the root of the true problems, we can attempt to reign in the predatory banking powers that plague our nation and begin to restore the Republic.


The Federal Reserve banking system is at the root of that problem and a perpetual impediment towards ending the global economic crisis that continues to grow. Join Alex Jones to “occupy” the Dallas Federal Reserve, or take the message to a Fed branch near you [see dates and times below]. We must start now by focusing media and political attention on this issue, and through our presence at these banks, start brushfires in the minds of men that will tip the momentum in favor of liberty and independence for all. (SEE MAP)

The Awakening of a Generation: Ron Paul 2012

A Revolution by any other Name?

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
April 10, 2011
Call it the Ron Paul Revolution

While no personality should be followed, rather the ideals they represent, the necessity to reclaim the Tea Party is apparent. By naming it the “Ron Paul Revolution” it will become virtually impossible to commandeer without conceding to the ideals of Constitutionalism, minimal government, non-interventionism, and ending the Federal Reserve. Impossible indeed would it be to slip in the disingenuous continuation of the doomed ever-convergent left/right agenda.

By battling for the leadership of the Tea Party, now thoroughly infested by Neo-Conservatives and feckless career Republicans, we are needlessly expending our energy. The very name “Tea Party” invites ambiguity amongst which vile infiltrators can peddle agendas nothing at all related to restoring and upholding the US Constitution. In fact, it has allowed the Ron Paul Revolution, from which the Tea Party was spawned, to be pushed back toward the controlled left/right paradigm.

Ron Paul has dedicated his life to his nation, a dedication one needs only to examine archival videos to observe and note its consistency over more than two decades. That is something none of the impostors infiltrating the Tea Party now can claim, including the disingenuous Glenn Beck and his feckless intellectually compromised counterpart Sarah Palin. These are the same talking heads that have been misleading the country all along, repackaged and resold under the brand “Tea Party.”

In the 2008 election, despite Ron Paul not being on the ballot, I sent in my vote all the way from Thailand with his name written in. It was not so much a vote for Ron Paul himself, as he was no longer in the race, but rather the ideals he represents. There is no sense at all voting between establishment controlled, career liars like Barack Obama or John McCain. Their servile obedience and dependency on the corporations that fund their campaigns and write their talking points within the halls of the globalist think-tanks ensures unequivocally their betrayal of their campaign promises, their betrayal of the American people, and perhaps most egregious of all, their betrayal of the US Constitution. There is no lesser of two evils, and to vote for either one is as fruitful as not voting at all.
(CONTINUE READING)

I Don’t Trust the Tea Party

Allan Stevo
LewRockwell.com
November 2, 2010
I don’t trust the Tea Party. I’m distrustful of new movements and remember how for eight years of Bush II, people who once had smaller government views suddenly abandoned those views in blind devotion of the president. I realize that it’s easy to believe in freedom for just a few years. My distrust is aided by the fact that the idea of freedom is a momentarily politically expedient idea to some.

For right now, I simply see the Tea Party as a safety valve in our system. Photo: Fibonacci Blue.

Today it is a political expedient for some Republicans – a temporary means to an end. The banner of “freedom” is currently serving as a vague, and therefore effective, uniting statement among the opposition now that there is a Democratic president in power. One day when there is again a Republican president, it is likely that freedom, liberty, or some rhetoric having to do with the Constitution will be the vague political expedient used to unite those that oppose that president.
Each time a new president is elected, the opposition freedom movement crumbles as the party votaries step in line. The hangers-on often follow the power. To some, any president is distasteful. For those who desire to be around power, however, a powerful president from his or her own party is less distasteful than a powerful president from the other party. After eight or more years away from the teat of power, some will take any opportunity to make their way back into the presence of the most powerful people in the world.
The exodus away from ideals and towards power that follows an election is repeated almost cyclically. Having a memory is my main “impediment.” It’s the main reason that I’m not able to think highly of the Tea Party movement. I recognize a man must not be judged based on his words, but instead on his actions. Therefore, I see recent Johnny-come-latelies to “freedom” as untested. If the Tea Party movement lasts a few election cycles, I’ll start to take an interest in them.
Until then, I’m going to simply enjoy watching the political mayhem that takes place in the upcoming months. In a stable society the drama of political shifts can be amusing to watch. That the two parties believe in virtually the same ideas does not detract from the entertainment, because the media doesn’t seem willing to admit that, nor do some Americans, which will make for good manufactured drama. I’m not saying that it’s my job to test anyone and offer a stamp of approval, but it’s good for everyone involved to recognize that freedom is commonly a temporary alluring idea that is often forced to take the backseat to pursuits of power, or influence, or even just a feeling of being in the “in crowd.”
No matter how we try to avoid being pulled into a desire to be on the winning team, it’s sometimes hard to recognize changes in ourselves. I watched a good friend turn into a Bush II devotee a few years back, and who has amazingly lost all recollection of the rage he had for the former president. He was in the Army (on reserve) and angry that a moron had started a war and that that moron regularly used loose political language to talk about that war. The man was a Protestant pastor, proficient in Arabic and well-studied in Islam. He privately preached the idiocy of Bush to me for nine months. Six years later, we got together again and he told me “George Bush is the best thing since sliced bread.” Neither he nor his wife could remember any other opinion ever having come from his mouth. This story is not unique.
I’ve also watched beloved peace activists turn into Obama devotees, forgetting that they once despised anyone who would not preach and act in the most peaceful of ways. I remember specifically the weekend when Obama’s pro-war policy became news. For most of 2008, it only took about 3 clicks and 5 minutes of reading on Obama’s campaign website to see that he had officially zero interest in pulling troops out of the Middle East. They were there to stay. Maybe not 140,000 troops in Iraq for all time, but he’d keep them somewhere in the Middle East. Of course, he had many, many supporters who did not actually know what his stated policies were, nor even what his Senate voting record was like. Some of his supporters were proud peaceniks. Then, over a weekend in the fall of 2008, McCain was, as usual, saying that we must stay the course in Iraq and Obama started saying that the U.S. must stay the course in Afghanistan. His peacenik supporters had loved the man, not the policies, but they never realized that. Once the weekend was over they continued to love the man, not the policies. They were no longer peaceniks.
Sometimes we take ourselves too seriously, which is not that great of a thing when we also tend to be very forgetful of our past beliefs and behaviors. That aspect of human behavior leads me to not take the Tea Party too seriously. (READ MORE HERE)

Toner Bomb Plot Used to Empower CIA

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 1, 2010

In addition to adding new urgency and a fresh dose of hysteria to the flagging war on manufactured terror, the toner bomb plot has provided an excuse to rationalize the global reach of the CIA.
“Officials said support was growing both within the military and the administration for shifting more operational control to the CIA — a move that would allow the U.S. to strike suspected terrorist targets unilaterally with greater stealth and speed,” reports the Wall Street Journal today. “Allowing the U.S. military’s Special Operations Command units to operate under the CIA would give the U.S. greater leeway to strike at militants even without the explicit blessing of the Yemeni government,” or the American people who, as usual, remain woefully uninformed.

Corporate media does its part to justify expanding war on terror into Yemen.

The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) conducts several covert and clandestine missions, such as unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, special reconnaissance, psychological operations, direct action, counter-terrorism and war on drugs operations.
Exploiting the obviously contrived Yemen toner bomb plot (see Paul Watson’s article today) as an excuse to shift more operational control to an unaccountable CIA would reduce conflict between the CIA’s National Clandestine Service and the more clandestine parts of USSOCOM. It would also consolidate operations.
Moreover, a commissioned Pentagon study revealed that such a move would allow the CIA to maintain its covert capability and be the “sole government agency conducting covert action.” The DoD found that under U.S. law and the Constitution it does not have the legal authority to conduct covert action, nor the “operational agility” to carry out these types of missions.
Since the creation of the National Security State in the late 1940s, the CIA has used covert operations to consistently overthrow governments and install favored actors in power. “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work,” said Henry Kissinger in 1975 after the U.S. government betrayed the Kurds of Iraq.
In the 1980s, former CIA agent John Stockwell estimated that the agency has run thousands of covert operations since its inception, “all designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries.”
We are told the Obama administration is behind the effort to put the CIA’s “elite U.S. hunter-killer teams that operate secretly” inside Yemen, but the effort transcends any perceived rule by the teleprompter reader in chief.
(READ MORE HERE)