Skousen: Romney May Not Be Strong Enough To Turn Away the Globalists

[AuH20]

It sounds like Romney is personally a morally good man. But his ambition may be a tragic flaw in that he won't possess the courage to act against the evil he knows is being perpetuated. It sounds like he just wants the presidency as the final piece to his resume.

http://americanreport09.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/joel-skousen-gop-kingmakers-fighting-romney-while-planning-to-control-him/


Brooks is giving Romney begrudging credit mixed with snide cutting remarks. Romney, in fact, is anything but dull and has a lot of charisma. That’s what bothers them. But what they most dislike is that he got into the political scene on his own dime and his own merits. A kingmaker’s biggest nightmare is someone who has the means to bypass establishment screening.

There was even a nastier piece by Michael Kinsley on the Bloomberg website, full of the same kind of vituperative and character-ripping slights. Even communists get better treatment by the establishment: “If Mitt Romney ever becomes president, it will be because his [mainstream] supporters are convinced that he’s a liar [about
cozying up to the Right wing]. The Republican Party elite isn’t convinced by his attempts to reinvent himself as a right-wing firebrand [which
Romney is not doing—he’s playing middle-of-the-road]. The establishment Republicans, business executives and independents who are Romney’s natural constituency believe he is lying when he strikes a conservative posture on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, and when he engages in fatuous Washington-bashing [Fatuous? Hardly].

“They believe that once in office, his true nature as an establishment, moderate, pro-business Republican will emerge. They believe he’s fundamentally sound [meaning, in their minds, liberal]. Meanwhile, the right-wingers who will soon be asked to bury their dreams and support Romney are not under any delusions about his true nature. But they’ll eventually prove willing to overlook it in their hunger to defeat President Barack Obama.”

These two mean-spirited establishment hacks demonstrates without question that the PTB are not going to like it one bit if they have to work overtime to control this guy. That’s why every commentary is laced with pejoratives and insults. So, why do they hate Romney so much? Why are the PTB so dead set against him, even as he does their bidding and surrounds himself with establishment advisors? Jon Huntsman, Ex-Ambassador to China and former Utah governor isn’t much different from Romney on policy and yet, the establishment loves him. What gives?

I think the difference is Romney has not committed to the globalist agenda as has Huntsman. As a result, the PTB don’t have confidence that they can control him if Romney happens to see some of the illegal operations going on in the White House should he be elected—and there is a lot of bad stuff (like gun running to Mexican cartels) going on.

While the establishment smothers Romney with CFR types and slick operators, they’re still nervous about how successful their control will be without leaning on him hard, as they did with Reagan (assassination attempt). Reagan succumbed and I think Romney will too. That is why I don’t think Romney would be a reliable opponent of the current government agenda. He has shown far too much compromise so far. My personal sources confirm that he is morally straight and faithful to his wife, but has far too much ambition to be trusted to fight against the establishment.

As further evidence that the establishment is fully engaged in the control-Romney agenda, his campaign just announced his foreign policy team and it is truly awful: Topping the list are Michael Chertoff (former corrupt head of Homeland Security), and Michael Hayden (national security advisor and CIA) and Coffer Black (former vice chairman of Blackwater). I consider Chertoff to be one of the great evil insiders of our day, and former CIA chief Hayden is a principal at the Chertoff Group. It looks like Romney got talked into letting Chertoff pick his entire foreign policy staff. Kissinger would be pleased.

There are dozens of others including such neoconservatives as Robert Kagan, Dan Senor, and Norm Coleman forming the new staff and they are aptly described by an enthused Nicholas Burns, globalist professor of international politics at Harvard, as an “impressive team…. serious people, [and gleefully] they’re internationalists.” That’s another admission that they are globalist just like Burns.

[Indy Vidual]

It sounds like Romney is personally a morally good man.

He was an arrogant jerk when younger, how did he manage to change?

[LibertyEagle]

It sounds like Romney is personally a morally good man.

He was an arrogant jerk when younger, how did he manage to change?

We all change as we mature. Some more. Some less.

[ctiger2]

It sounds like Romney is personally a morally good man.

He was an arrogant jerk when younger, how did he manage to change?

Yes, I thought everyone stayed the exact same their entire life. :rolleyes:

[Indy Vidual]

We all change as we mature. Some more. Some less.

Your content and tone are something I can agree with.


Yes, I thought everyone stayed the exact same their entire life. :rolleyes:

Not exactly, but how many people who are Alpha jerks in school actually turn into something much better?

[Indy Vidual]

<back on topic>

So now Mittens is a Super-hero who wants to clean up the rotten system?
Nice idea, but I don't buy it, does anyone here?

[V3n]

It sounds like Romney is personally a morally good man.

He was an arrogant jerk when younger, how did he manage to change?

The real Mitt Romney died in a car crash in France. What we have now is a clone/cyborg mix programmed to be less abrasive.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/216/7nTnr.png

[romacox]

Romney, in his own words, is a globalist ("A moderate with Progressive ideas")


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dMcjJEXt9To

Progressive defined: "In politics and political thought, the movement is associated with political leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt and thinkers such as Herbert Croly and Charles Merriam.

While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction -- the vision -- needed for true progressive government. "All that progressives ask or desire," wrote Woodrow Wilson, "is permission -- in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine."

The Progressives also believed that the scientifically educated leaders of the advanced nations (especially America, Britain, and France) should not hesitate to rule the less advanced nations in the interest of ultimately bringing the world into freedom, assuming that supposedly inferior peoples could be brought into the modern world at all. Political scientist Charles Merriam openly called for a policy of colonialism on a racial basis:

[T]he Teutonic races must civilize the politically uncivilized. They must have a colonial policy. Barbaric races, if incapable, may be swept away…. On the same principle, interference with the affairs of states not wholly barbaric, but nevertheless incapable of effecting political organization for themselves, is fully justified.

"Progressives therefore embraced a much more active and indeed imperialistic foreign policy than the Founders did. In "Expansion and Peace" (1899), Theodore Roosevelt wrote that the best policy is imperialism on a global scale:

Read more here: "The Progressive Movement And How It Transformed American Politics" (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics)

[AuH20]

<back on topic>

So now Mittens is a Super-hero who wants to clean up the rotten system?
Nice idea, but I don't buy it, does anyone here?

I didn't say that. What I said is that Skousen believes that he has a conscience and is aware of what's going on. But ultimately, he will stand down because all he wants is the presidency as the the final piece to his legacy. Romney essentially becomes immortal if he becomes POTUS, legacy wise.

[CaptainAmerica]

His principles don't line up with mine,and my faith.

[pcosmar]

Romney May Not Be Strong Enough To Turn Away the Globalists

WTF
Romney is a Globalist. And a socialist.

It sounds like Romney is personally a morally good man

He is a greedy power hungry bastard. He was a vulture in business that destroyed companies for quick profits,, destroying both jobs and industrial infrastructure.

What,?, Rand endorsed that piece of shit, and now folks want to justify it?
WTF?

[AuH20]

Romney May Not Be Strong Enough To Turn Away the Globalists

WTF
Romney is a Globalist. And a socialist.


He is a greedy power hungry bastard. He was a vulture in business that destroyed companies for quick profits,, destroying both jobs and industrial infrastructure.

What,, Rand endorsed that piece of shit an now folks want to justify it?
WTF?

Romney isn't any of those things. He is not an idealogue. He wants immortality. The presidency. I personally don't agree with this thrust but I guess when you reach a Mitt Romney's stature you run out of goals. Now regarding the whole job destroyer nonsense, that's basically what it is. A vibrant capitalist society is predicated on creation via destruction. Mismanaged companies fall by the wayside and become reconsolidated.

[ZENemy]

Just look at the compassion and morals this man has!

I agree with the top comment



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bREKsWu_oOM

[Lucille]

Turn away? His campaign is lousy with globalists. He IS a globalist.

[libertyfanatic]

Just look at the compassion and morals this man has!

I agree with the top comment



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bREKsWu_oOM
Romney's "sympathy" for the man comes off as extremely fake. Not sure if Romney is amoral or just socially awkward.

[ZENemy]

Romney's "sympathy" for the man comes off as extremely fake. Not sure if Romney is amoral or just socially awkward.

I think deep down he is really a nic..e...fake, pathological lying piece of shit that represents the WORST about American Politics. Mitt Romney is the epitome of a tell you anything to get elected, lying politician

To me, Everything about this guy is an ACT, everything this man says is a LIE!

This, to me, is Mitt in a nutshell.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLR3CgeUeyc&feature=related

[Fr3shjive]

Turn away? He IS a globalist.

+1. I thought I typed the wrong url in and ended up at hannity's forums.

[PatriotOne]

As further evidence that the establishment is fully engaged in the control-Romney agenda, his campaign just announced his foreign policy team and it is truly awful: Topping the list are Michael Chertoff (former corrupt head of Homeland Security), and Michael Hayden (national security advisor and CIA) and Coffer Black (former vice chairman of Blackwater). I consider Chertoff to be one of the great evil insiders of our day, and former CIA chief Hayden is a principal at the Chertoff Group.

:eek:

[Victor Grey]

I see Romney as someone who is very rich, a little bored because of it, and sees political successes as just something to do.

A governorship or him being president, is kind of like an expensive car for him. It's a symbol of his accomplishment, to himself and others who care.

He doesn't really care about any ideology. Any ideology that gets the trophy is fine with him.

His goal isn't so much wielding power either. He doesn't have any deeply held convictions to wield it upon anyway.
It's self aggregation of personal accomplishments.

He doesn't get his jollies from the state of having the authority and using it either, he gets his jollies from sitting in the seat of it and the recognition toward him it brings him.


The Ruling rod to be in his hand, and the Power sword in his other, the public Title throne he sits upon, are all a distant secondary perk to Romney, compared to to the Status Crown he could wear, to which the other things would come with. He wants the prize, of the Title of President. That is really what Romney wants.

Nixon lusted after holding the sword. Clinton wanted to sit on the Throne. FDR and Obama wanted to wield the Rod.
Romney just wants the self satisfaction of wearing the Crown.

Romney is very concerning, because the truth is he will be turn any way, do any action, and tell any thing, that would lets him gain his crown.


Ron Paul, wants to swing the rod to break the sword, shrink the Throne, and tear down entire wings of the Palace. He could care less for wearing the crown.
By the time Ron would be done, the rod would hold much less power behind it.

[Origanalist]

It sounds like Romney is personally a morally good man. But his ambition may be a tragic flaw in that he won't possess the courage to act against the evil he knows is being perpetuated. It sounds like he just wants the presidency as the final piece to his resume.


I thought this was going to be a joke, do you know anything about this man?

[KingNothing]

It sounds like Romney is personally a morally good man.

He was an arrogant jerk when younger, how did he manage to change?

He probably still is, but it's silly to hold someone accountable for what they did when they were 16, or even 20. People grow up. I know I did.

[torchbearer]

I see Romney as someone who is very rich, a little bored because of it, and sees political successes as just something to do.

A governorship or him being president, is kind of like an expensive car for him. It's a symbol of his accomplishment, to himself and others who care.

He doesn't really care about any ideology. Any ideology that gets the trophy is fine with him.

His goal isn't so much wielding power either. He doesn't have any deeply held convictions to wield it upon anyway.
It's self aggregation of personal accomplishments.

He doesn't get his jollies from the state of having the authority and using it either, he gets his jollies from sitting in the seat of it and the recognition toward him it brings him.


The Ruling rod to be in his hand, and the Power sword in his other, the public Title throne he sits upon, are all a distant secondary perk to Romney, compared to to the Status Crown he could wear, to which the other things would come with. He wants the prize, of the Title of President. That is really what Romney wants.

Nixon lusted after holding the sword. Clinton wanted to sit on the Throne. FDR and Obama wanted to wield the Rod.
Romney just wants the self satisfaction of wearing the Crown.

Romney is very concerning, because the truth is he will be turn any way, do any action, and tell any thing, that would lets him gain his crown.


Ron Paul, wants to swing the rod to break the sword, shrink the Throne, and tear down entire wings of the Palace. He could care less for wearing the crown.
By the time Ron would be done, the rod would hold much less power behind it.


i see the ring of power corrupting almost any man.
not ron paul. he would be one of the few.

[KingNothing]

Romney May Not Be Strong Enough To Turn Away the Globalists

WTF
Romney is a Globalist. And a socialist.



No. He's a Mitt Romneyist. If he were a "globalist" and if you believe They control the world, why did They shut him down last time around and not rally around him this time until every other candidate proved himself completely inept and detestable?



He is a greedy power hungry bastard.




He was a vulture in business that destroyed companies for quick profits,, destroying both jobs and industrial infrastructure.



Oh come the hell on. Who's the anti-capitalist now, comrade?

[devil21]

Brooks is giving Romney begrudging credit mixed with snide cutting remarks. Romney, in fact, is anything but dull and has a lot of charisma. That’s what bothers them. But what they most dislike is that he got into the political scene on his own dime and his own merits. A kingmaker’s biggest nightmare is someone who has the means to bypass establishment screening.

Lost me at his opening premise. Romney's money is crap compared to those that finance his campaign. What did Chris Rock say? If Bill Gates woke up with Oprah's money he'd throw himself out a fuckin window. Guess which one is Romney and which is Rockefeller? Romney is a puppet. Did anyone consider that he was offered a future presidency in exchange for being the "architect" of the national health care program? A guy like Romney already had very strong connections. He didn't just show up with a checkbook and write a campaign check and start winning. His dad was Michigan Governor ffs. This is not to say that Romney will win. The promise of winning would be enough to secure his allegiance though.

[PierzStyx]

Romney's "sympathy" for the man comes off as extremely fake. Not sure if Romney is amoral or just socially awkward.

I think he is just really socially awkward.

[devil21]

No. He's a Mitt Romneyist. If he were a "globalist" and if you believe They control the world, why did They shut him down last time around and not rally around him this time until every other candidate proved himself completely inept and detestable?

Romney 2008 was more formidable than Romney 2012 imho. If status quo Pres nominees are decided long in the future, as I believe but ymmv, then it's better to put up the weaker (but remotely viable) candidate if you wish for that side to lose. Romney is a weaker candidate this time around because everyone knows his dirt. I think we generally agree that McCain was sacrificial lamb in 2008. Romney is a terrible candidate now and garners even less enthusiasm than McCain did. If you WANT to lose then why not do it that way?

[Indy Vidual]

Yes, I agree.


He probably still is, but it's silly to hold someone accountable for what they did when they were 16, or even 20. People grow up. I know I did.

It's silly to hold Rand Paul (for example) accountable for smoking pot and being a bit wild in college. At the same time, it is highly probable that some of his independent spirit survived even as he matured.

With Romney, it's highly likely part of the arrogant jerk is still there.

[HigherVision]

Romney fucking sucks, I just don't want Rand Paul to lose so I understand why he 'endorsed' him. But I would never vote for the guy.


It's silly to hold Rand Paul (for example) accountable for smoking pot and being a bit wild in college. At the same time, it is highly probable that some of his independent spirit survived even as he matured.

What's wrong with smoking pot and being a bit wild, as long as you don't hurt anyone?