Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Where Did Those 9/11 Hijackers Come From Again?

March 22, 2013 by  

Where Did Those 9/11 Hijackers Come From Again?
UPI FILE

The Department of Homeland Security has decided to give “trusted traveler” status to Saudi Arabian travelers. That’s right, the country that we’re told produced 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers can have its citizens coming to the United States pass fast-tracked through customs without hassle, while the Transportation Security Administration perverts and criminals fondle and/or irradiate U.S. travelers and their infants and children — even those who are wheelchair-bound — and wounded U.S. warriors.

It’s an announcement made “under the radar,” sort of like on 9/11 when four off-course hijacked airliners meandered in U.S. skies while North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) failed to take notice. And it exposes the DHS and the TSA as the frauds they are.

Folks, the 9/11 attack did not happen as you’re told. See here and here. The bombers — like the Christmas Day underwear bomber — were part of a conspiracy all right: one designed to expand the U.S. war and security state and clamp down on American liberties to the benefit of the elite.

Fifteeen Saudi “student” travelers supposedly evaded the world’s greatest and most expansive (and expensive) intelligence apparatus to pull off 9/11. Now, travelers from that same country are going to be given special status that U.S. travelers and travelers from friendly countries — outside of Canada, Mexico, South Korea and the Netherlands — don’t get?

The TSA has yet to locate and arrest an al-Qaida hijacker trying to sneak through airports. It can’t even locate and stop people trying to get caught smuggling something through TSA screening in tests.

In making the announcement about the program, DHS Secretary Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano, the totalitarian, said there was a special “bond between the United States and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” What she didn’t say is that bond was formed after the 1973 oil embargo. It’s a petrodollar bond.

As John Perkins writes in The Secret History of American Empire, establishing an ”oil standard” dollar to replace the  former gold standard and ensure that OPEC would funnel billions of U.S. dollars spend on oil back to U.S. companies required Saudi Arabia:

[B]ecause it possessed more oil than any other country, it controlled OPEC; the Saudi “royal” family was corrupt and highly vulnerable. Like other “kings” in the Middle East, the Sauds understood the politics of colonialism. Royalty had been bestowed on the House of Saud by the British… [One of the agreements made with the Saudis that went unreported] Saudi Arabia committed to trading oil exclusively in U.S. dollars. With the scratch of a pen, the dollar’s sovereignty was reestablished. Oil replaced gold as the measure of a currency’s value.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Where Did Those 9/11 Hijackers Come From Again?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • The Sarge

    It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure the reason. It’s OIL!

    • http://yahoo.com Maynard

      Sarge. It includes but goes beyond oil. Other reasons; the public loves our government officials in time of war even if they were at best bunglers who still gave out big promotions; war profiteering for example Papa Bush’s The Carlyle Group, Cheney’s Halliburton and many others; Support for Our Boys which is a smokescreen for supporting a war which actually had no reason initially; Fighting for Freedom (Whose?); Fighting Terrorism under our new doctrine: “You’re a terrorist if I say so “, the Homeland Security excuse for another pinata party spilling goodies to the politically connected. Example, Let’s buy billions of bullets for a bonus bonanza, whether we need them or not. ( Be careful walking into your Social Security Office because they loaded up on em just in case.)
      Don’t you feel safer?

  • http://yahoo.com BillT

    Maybe if I designate myself as a terrorst, I can get a “Fast track” through the TSA.

  • dan

    I won’t fly until TSA says goodbye…I wouldn’t trust them to park my car or help my dear
    mother across the street (and she’s long passed on )

    • nc

      Dan,stay on the ground! Much more room for the millions who have the guts! Something tells me that since you are a regular here flying is not the ONLY thing you FEAR! FEAR seems to be common trait of the moss backs!!

  • TML

    TSA is ineffective and no longer necessary, if it ever was before.

    The entire shadow boogeyman terrorist ninjas scheme is the same BS that Hitler pulled.

    “The Leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belong to one category” – “Terrorism is the best political weapons, for nothing drives people harder than the fear of sudden death” – Adolf Hitler

    He taught the U.S. well; the TSA are nothing more than “brown shirts”.

    “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison

    • http://yahoo.com Maynard

      What a powerful quote from James Madison. Our forefathers were really geniuses. Too bad most of the Sheeple could not comprehend it. War is the cause for so much of what the US government has done. Some examples of false flags to start war are: The Maine Sinking in Havana Harbor, the Lusitania sinking (?), Pearl Harbor being allowed to happen unimpeded, The Gulf of Tonkin Lie, the Incubaby Lie, 9/11 and the Anthrax Letters Lie, the WMD’s that did not exist, the Lie that Osama was behind 9/11 and the hoax that we had to attack Afghanistan to get him when the Taliban merely asked for probable cause to hand him over and Rex Tomb spokesman for the FBI admitted in 2006 there was no concrete evidenc connecting bin Laden gto 9/11.. The video we found of him contradicting his initial condemnation of 9/11 shows an imposter, probably an actor from one of our Hoaxywood CIA stable.
      Some attempts at false flags that did not work: The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that was halted by a Russian spy ship that incidentally came close enough to observe. Its purpose was to blame the sinking on Egypt. The US government was unwilling to send rescuers and covered it up showing our complicity. The Operation Northwoods proposed to commit atrocities in Miami and Washington D.C. and blame them on Castro which JFK rejected. He also signed an order to get US Personnel out of Vietnam by 1963′s close. Two sure reasons on the long list to get him assassinated. He also wanted the Treasury to print our money instead of paying the Bankster-Gangster private Federal Reserve.
      The WTC Bombing in ’93 that was muffed when Salem our informant and agent with the Muslim Extremists inconveniently taped the FBI too ordering him to give REAL explosives to the “terrorists.” The 9/11 attacks themselves were caused by pre-planning (Secret War Games, sending Colin Powell to Colombia, sending FBI experts to Monterrey, CA., sending fighters out to sea and flying them slower than the airliners, striking the spot in the Pentagon with accountants and records of fiscal malfeasance while destroying the back-up files in Building Seven. The list could go on and on and on.

  • Native Blood

    Once Again the Bush Butt Buddies get a free pass!

    • OneGuess

      Aaannnddd….here is our first very own bush bashing troll. {yawn}

      • Dave

        Absolutely right Oneguess,

        Yawn, Bush ignored the warnings of 9-11. Yawn, 3000 Americans dead… Yawn, Bush uses 9-11 to invade and occupy Iraq to the tune of 3T dollars in debt, 4000K Americans Dead, tens of thousands injured and over 100K Iraqis dead… (Boring!!)

        in 2001-2003, you didn’t hear a peep from these “patriot” conservatives protesting what Bush was doing, onlly liberals…and those liberals we called “unpatriotic” because they dared question Bush Inc… (puts you to sleep doesn’t it?)

        But lets continue bashing Obama… Thats exciting isn’t it?

      • Michelle Kienlen

        This reply is to Dave…First of all Yes 9/11 was an inside job by Bush second of all Obama is guilty of building onto The Patriot Act which BTW was Bush’s doing.Next we have Fast and Furious with Mexico and then we have Benghazi Where our Military was ordered to stand down while drones watched our people die! This current adminastration is beyond incompetant it is criminally negligent.Our people were sent to assinate Qhadifi and when the job was finished they were no longer useful to obama he watched as they were murdered.All this so that Libya’s weapons could be shipped to Syria to depose Assad.Yes I will admit our government is very guilty in past adminastations,but…..you must admit they have nothing on this admin.this one is the icing on the cake.

      • Dave

        Michelle,

        Do you know why F&F happened in the first place? Bush was working with the mexican gov and everytime they went in on a raid to get drugs or guns… they were were not there.

        Amazing isn’t it? The Mex Gov tipping off the gun cartels…

        So thats why Obama stopped working with the mex gov on raids….and guess what? They had more success on raids… Crazy right?

        Now Libya…. Where do you get your info from? Gaddafi was killed by his own people. We supplied the rebels from the eastern part of the country which the rebels controlled and gave NATO AWAC support as Eurpean led sortees kept air superiority over Gaddafyi’s forces allowing the rebels to defeat them.

        You also assert that Obama had the diplomats killed in Libta during Bengazi because “they knew too much”. Do you have any proof of this gratuitous assertion? No.

        I know conspiracys can be fun but at least get one that has some probability of being true.

        Bush was the worst president in the last 150 years. Obama is an avg president that has done things I do not approve ove and he has done some good things. Its the nature of the beast unfortunately.

  • Carl Benander

    Gorbachev once said, “trust but verify”. It’s ok to maintain a friendly relationship with the Saudis, and we should, but to actually lower all restraints seems more like insanity. The Republicans must force the DHS to undo this action.

    • Dennis48e

      I think it was Reagan that said that when he was talking about the negotiations with Gorbachev.

    • Dave

      Carl,

      Don’t hold your breath on these conservatives… they were the ones that allowed the Bin Laden family in the United States to leave the United States without being questioned at all. Bush was able to get the war he wanted thanks to 9-11.

  • Michelle Kienlen

    We are being destroyed from the enemy in our White House and on Our Capital Hill.The only way America will be saved is for americans to demand that Washington obeys our Constitution and Our Bill of Rights,short of americans marching on Washington,I do not foresee that happening we have a rogue government in charge now.

  • J.

    And “barry the puppet” does nothing.

  • http://omanuel.wordpress.com omanuel

    Thanks, Bob, for having the courage to ask the right questions and to challenge the tyrannical one-world government that was established on 24 Oct 1945 to replace the constitutional rights of citizens in individual nations.

    E,g., constitutional limits on the US government, as laid out in the 1776 Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” – to self-governance – not to be ruled by the tyrannical, one-world government established by frightened world leaders on 24 Oct 1945:

    http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/fear-and-loathing-of-humans-the-pathology-behind-the-climate-change-movement/

    Here is President Eisenhower’s warning to the nation on 17 Jan 1961:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

    Now we must find a way to abolish the tyrannical, one-world government, without restoring racial and nationalistic hatreds and warfare.

    With kind regards,
    - Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    http://www.omatumr.com

    • antonio

      Omanuel, Your 1945 date is way way off. the one world government started way way way before that date…
      Anyways, its not really important. The important part is to know that if you want to abolish the tyrannical, one world government; you must abolish the US constitution first…The US constitution created your tyrannical government and it allows for treaties. Treaties is a very big part in globalization…

      • http://omanuel.wordpress.com omanuel

        The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen United States of America in 1776 provided guidelines for the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights:

        http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

        The first part of the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly states we have the right to abolish the tyrannical, one world government that now engulfs our planet:

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      • roger

        one world govt was offspring of United Nations and
        NATO after WWII Roosevelt was pro isolationist

    • Antonio

      Omanuel, I do not care what the declaration of independence says. The fact is that if there was NO us constitution, then there would be NO federal government. IF there was NO federal government, then you would need to worry about a tyrannical government; so now let’s abolish the constitution and get back to the original founding documents where our real true freedoms shall prevail…

  • Dave

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/charts-cost-iraq-war

    Brought to you by conservatives…

    Enjoy.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

      Brought to you by the Conservatives? Don’t you mean brought to you by the “Federalists”?

      Of all wars since WW1 up to the present, the majority of all the wars were under Democratic Presidents. So, should we be thanking the Liberals? Nonsense!

      War is big business, Dave. Our so-called Washington leaders are selected and guided by the “military-industrial-complex” and big-money interests…not the electorate!

      • Dave

        Well Jay, since conservatives are very fond of lumping us liberals into a nice big bunch, I am returning the favor.

        George W. Bush is a conservative, Dick Cheney is a conservative, Donald Rumsfeld is a conservative. Condi Rice is a conservative… The biggest proponents of the defense and oil industries are conservatives…

        So yeah, this war was brought to you by conservatives.

        War is big business and if you look at who made the money, its the defense industry and the oil industry… Those two industries typically not on the liberals “love” list and the same can be said for the oil and defense industry not giving the bulk of their money to elect liberals. Wouldn’t you agree?

        You may call them federalists, but I want to keep it simple like the right does and I call them conservatives. If it works for them, surely it can work for me. :-)

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        Dave: Well Jay, since conservatives are very fond of lumping us liberals into a nice big bunch, I am returning the favor.

        Some, not all…so you return the favour by being equally narrow-minded? How is that of
        profit to you?

        Dave: George W. Bush is a conservative, Dick Cheney is a conservative, Donald Rumsfeld is a conservative. Condi Rice is a conservative… The biggest proponents of the defense and oil industries are conservatives…

        Wrong! George Bush is a Neocon, Dick Cheney is a Neocon, Rumsfeld is a Neocon, Rice is a Neocon…The biggest proponents of the defence and oil industry are Neocons.

        Definition of Neoconservative:

        A neoconservative (also spelled “neo-conservative”; colloquially, neocon) in American politics can appear to be conservative while in fact favoring big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then dominated the George W. Bush Administration after 2001. Neoconservatives are often preferred by liberals to portray the conservative voice in the media, as in television talk shows, newspaper columnists, magazines, think tanks, and advisory positions in Republican Administrations.

        In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues, [and] are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with paleoconservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

        On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

        you can continue reading here if you like: http://the-classic-liberal.com/conservative-what-is-neocon/

        Dave: So yeah, this war was brought to you by conservatives.

        No, this war was brought to you by the “military-industrial-complex” and big-money interests!

        Dave: War is big business and if you look at who made the money, its the defense industry and the oil industry… Those two industries typically not on the liberals “love” list and the same can be said for the oil and defense industry not giving the bulk of their money to elect liberals. Wouldn’t you agree?

        Not so, David! Why do you think we are still in the middle-east? Bush is gone. Obama has been in office for over 4 years, yet, we are still there…and preparing for war against Syria and Iran. Time to take those blinders off!

        Dave: You may call them federalists, but I want to keep it simple like the right does and I call them conservatives. If it works for them, surely it can work for me.

        It doesn’t work for me!

      • Dave

        Jay,

        I know neo-con is a popular term. I think it is nonsense and excuse for consevatives to escape any responsibility for anything wrong they do.

        There is nobody in politics that is described as a neo-liberal are there? No…

        I will not let conservatives make excuses and escape responsibility.

        The Iraq war is not like turning on and off a light bulb. Obama finished up the Iraq war as it should be, towards the end Bush even put forth the timeline to end it.

        Please tell me any LIBERALS that have the defense and oil industries as big donors.

        We are tied to the middle east because we are slaves to big oil… Jimmy Carter rightly warned us to get off it in 1979. We all laughed at him and went about our business of excess and self-endulgence and Reagan hopped right into bed with big oil as soon as he became president. I remember it well.

        The term neocon is born from conservatives never takiing responsibility for anything. Thats why Reagan (good president in their eyes) is called a Conservative and George W Bush (Persona non grata in the GOP and the worst president in the last 150 years) is a neo-con to them.

        If the right gets to lump all liberals, progressives, Democrats, Socialists, Communists and Marxists into one bunch. Then the left can do the same for neocons, corporatists, fascists, conservatives. Its only fair. I will not let conservatives control the debate like they always like to.

        Its time for them to have a taste of their own medicene.

      • CJ

        Dave, thanks for conforming you’re more a socialist, but you ‘ain’t no liberal’. Changing the definition to suite your agenda doesn’t make it right. Calling cr@p ‘peanut butter’ doesn’t change the taste, and that’s what you attempt to do. True conservatives see this clear as day, and you aren’t fooling anybody here.

      • Dave67

        CJ is exhibit A of how conservatives try and control the debate by interchanging socialist, liberal, communist, Marxist depending on their mood at the time.

      • Dave

        I give you Jay… Exhibit A

        CJ

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        David: If the right gets to lump all liberals, progressives, Democrats, Socialists, Communists and Marxists into one bunch. Then the left can do the same for neocons, corporatists, fascists, conservatives. Its only fair. I will not let conservatives control the debate like they always like to.

        The Right (Republican)/ Left (Democrat) paradigm is the illusion that we have a 2 party system. The fact is that the leaders at the top are working toward a common goal of Totalitarianism. The Right and the Left just have different pathways leading us down that same road. The Right and the Left are like two wings on the same ugly bird, with the same flight plan.

        “I believe we have a one party system in this country, called the big-government party. There is a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare and taxes and assaulting commercial liberties.” -Judge Napolitano

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        David: Please tell me any LIBERALS that have the defense and oil industries as big donors.

        The big-banks, wall-street, and the defence-industry are big donors to the Liberals.

      • Dave

        Jay, the sad truth is that for all the bluster that goes on with Bob and others that say they are above “this” paradigm or that “paradigm is that they use it when it suits them.

        If I had a dollar for everytime someone on this board says erroneously that Obama is a “socialist” or “communist” or a “marxist” and that includes many of the authors here. I would be a very rich man.

        Liberals are heavily financed by the defense industry? (from the 2012 elections)

        McKeon, Buck (R-CA)-House-$566,100

        Brown, Scott (R-MA)-Senate-$282,638

        Ruppersberger, Dutch (D-MD)-House-$230,550

        Young, C W Bill (R-FL)-House-$230,260

        Brooks, Mo (R-AL)-House-$205,520

        Smith, Adam (D-WA)-House-$201,000

        Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX)-House-$199,500 -Not Liberal

        Nelson, Bill (D-FL)-Senate-$189,100-Not Liberal

        Granger, Kay (R-TX)-House-$182,950

        Paul, Ron (R)-House-$182,024

        Critz, Mark (D-PA)-House-$161,874-Not Liberal

        Thornberry, Mac (R-TX)-House-$160,600

        Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL)-House-$156,500

        Wittman, Rob (R-VA)-House-$156,450

        The idea that liberals get much of the defense money is crazy talk.

      • Dave
      • Dave

        Here are the big banks

        Corker, Bob (R-TN)-Senate-$347,190
        Tester, Jon (D-MT)- (Not a liberal)Senate-$300,218
        Bachus, Spencer (R-AL)-House-$282,650
        Brown, Scott (R-MA)-Senate-$279,617
        Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX)-House-$223,259
        Cruz, Ted (R-TX) (And Tea party favorite)-$211,520
        Perry, Rick (R)-$209,900
        Boehner, John (R-OH)-House-$203,400
        McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)-Senate-$198,450
        Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV)-House-$192,750
        Mandel, Josh (R-OH)-$176,526
        Dewhurst, David H (R-TX) $172,350
        Warner, Mark (D-VA) (Not a liberal)-Senate-$167,400
        Berg, Rick (R-ND)-House$166,412
        Himes, Jim (D-CT)-House-$163,950
        Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)-Senate-$160,420
        Stivers, Steve (R-OH)-House-$155,300
        Carper, Tom (D-DE)-Senate-$155,030

        Now what I have given you are the largest recipiants of money from the defense industry, wall street firms and big banks…

        Every one has the most money going to conservatives… And we wonder why the big banks have not been broken up, the economic gamesmanship on wall street has not been stopped and why we have a 700B defense budget that is a complete waste of money?

        Conservatives don’t want to stop the money train.

        So you can say the liberals are heavily financed by those industries, but the actual record shows what I have know all along, the real damage to this country has been done by conservatives and the banking institutions, wall street institutions and the defense industry that finance them.

      • nc

        WTS, Is there another country you had rather live in than the USA? Would that mean that we are the best over-all country as in Number One in the world? What got us here and what has kept us here in Number One? Conservative leadership??Name one TRUE CONSERVATIVE President ON OUR RISE TO NUMBER ONE???
        Liberals love war????? Do you know anyone more LIBERAL than Obama? Got any ideal why that “war loving liberal” is ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan???

      • Dave

        Oh, I forgot one Jay… Big oil
        Perry, Rick (R)-$980,124 (honorable mention)
        Cruz, Ted (R-TX)-$716,868
        Dewhurst, David H (R-TX)-$636,446
        Berg, Rick (R-ND)-House-$537,299
        Rehberg, Denny (R-MT)-House-$489,201
        Boehner, John (R-OH)-House-$417,399
        McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)-Senate-$410,450
        Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT)-Senate-$374,150
        Wilson, Heather A (R-NM)-$325,200
        Barrasso, John A (R-WY)-Senate-$323,616
        Williams, Roger (R-TX)-Senate-$316,358
        Allen, George (R-VA)-$314,450
        Brown, Scott (R-MA)-Senate-$307,550
        Pompeo, Mike (R-KS)-House-$302,300
        Mandel, Josh (R-OH)-$267,371
        Boustany, Charles W Jr (R-LA)-House-$261,250
        Cantor, Eric (R-VA)-House-$250,450
        Heller, Dean (R-NV)-Senate-$244,450

        There are the top money getters from big oil…

        I don’t know Jay, I see a pattern developing here.

        Where are the liberals on any of the banking, wall street, oil and defense lists?

        They are nowhere…

        I am proud to be a liberal, not a socialist, not a communist, not a marxist or any of the bogus terms conservbatives try in vain to label us as.

        In these industries, Liberals have infinately cleaner hands than Conservatives.

        As I said before NeoCon is applied to Bush because he was a massive screw up and EVERYONE knows it. Reagan is still loved (wrongly by the right) and much of what Bush did was the same policies that Reagan gave us… but Reagan is “honored” by the label “conservative” from the right.

        Very convenient.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        The industry, which encompasses everything from multinational oil conglomerates to pipeline companies and refineries, historically donate more money to Republican candidates than to Democrats, but that trend began shifting in 2008… Through the first quarter of 2008, Republicans received 74 percent of total oil and gas donations, down from 82 percent in 2006, according to (OpenSecrets.org), a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign finance reports.

        Donations to Democrats that year, who controlled the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, have already eclipsed 2006 totals by 18 percent, with Democratic candidates accepting $4,395,551 through the first quarter of 2008 compared to a 2006 total of $3,576,445. Republicans are still largely on the receiving end of oil and gas donations, though, accepting $12,650,059 in that cycle and a total of $16,570,858 in 2006.

        Colorado Democrats in congressional races have accepted 24 percent of the total oil and gas donations during said election cycle, up from 15 percent in 2006.

        The last time Republicans received less than 75 percent of total oil and gas campaign donations was in 1994 when Democrats last held control of the House and President Bill Clinton was in office.

        “(One) reason for the oil and gas industry to have given/giving more money to the Democrats, is that they were considered by most handicappers at the time, going to be in power for the foreseeable future,” said Kyle Saunders, a political science professor at Colorado State University and an energy expert…

        The Oil and Gas industry, which includes multinational and independent oil and gas producers and refiners, natural gas pipeline companies, gasoline service stations and fuel oil dealers, has long enjoyed a history of strong influence in Washington.

        Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans.

        Though former oilmen George W. Bush and Dick Cheney occupied the White House for eight years, the oil and gas industry could not win support for repealing bans on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. However, Congress voted in 2008 to lift a ban on offshore drilling.

        These companies are also wary of cap-and-trade climate change legislation, such as the measure Democratic President Barack Obama supports. Yet Obama still received ($884,000 FROM THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY DURING THE 2008 CAMPAIGN), more than any other lawmaker except his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

        Top Contributors, 2011-2012

        Contributor Amount

        Oxbow Corp $4,357,400

        Chevron Corp $3,870,846

        Exxon Mobil $2,769,917

        Koch Industries $2,389,048

        Chesapeake Energy $1,759,933

        Occidental Petroleum $1,537,875

        Continental Resources $1,290,150

        Clayton Williams Energy $1,223,200

        Petco Petroleum $1,075,500

        Pilot Corp $863,850

        Valero Energy $828,919

        Devon Energy $780,452

        Mewbourne Oil Co $734,498

        Hilcorp Energy $664,155

        ConocoPhillips $638,902

        Independent Petroleum Assn of America $638,500

        Marathon Petroleum $616,698

        Hess Corp $583,175

        Chief Oil & Gas $580,755

        Energy Transfer Partners $563,901

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        NC says: Liberals love war?????

        Maybe not the “constituency”, NC…but for the “party-representatives” in Washington…? That’s another story.

        Consider…

        For example:

        While on one his Hawaii vacations, Obama tapped Jerome Powell to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Powel served as the undersecretary for finance under the president George H. W. Bush and was a partner of The Carlyle Group.

        The Carlyle Group is a massive private equity firm and one of the “LARGEST DEFENSE CONTRACTORS” in the world.

        They’re made up of some of the most influential policymakers over the last five administrations including (both Bush presidents), former Secretary of State James Baker III, former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, former Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt to name a few.

        Other notable investors in The Carlyle Group include the bin Laden family and the Saudi Royal Family.

        Who is Obama’s secretary of the army? Why…none other than John M. McHugh, a former Republican congressman from New York.

        First elected in 1992, Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.) was the ranking Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee, and over the years, political action committees and individual employees within the defense industry contributed more than $220,000 during his campaign. This sum makes defense the No. 4 largest sector to support McHugh, coming in behind the health sector (which has contributed $231,000 since the 1992 election cycle), the business sector ($389,000) and the labor sector ($740,000).

        Who is Obama’s secretary of Defense? Why…none other than the former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel…

        “Multiple foreign corporations that have bypassed or attempted to bypass United States and European Union sanctions against Iran are funding the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank chaired by defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel.

        One council sponsor, Italian oil company Eni, has vehemently defended its trade with Iran, saying it was “proud” of its cooperation with the regime.

        “Given the existence of foreign pressures, implementation of most projects in Iran is challenging and complicated,” Eni’s Executive Vice President Guido Michelotti told reporters during a 2011 visit to Iran. “Yet, we have always been interested in cooperation with the Iranian side since we feel proud of cooperation with Iran.”
        Eni recently obtained a limited sanctions exemption to recover compensation from Iran for prior work.

        Another Atlantic Council sponsor, Deutsche Bank, is currently under U.S. investigation for sanctions violations. Hagel sits on Deutsche Bank’s board.

        Over 10 percent of the Atlantic Council’s corporate sponsors are either Turkish energy companies or companies with a large stake in Turkey’s energy sector, which is closely linked with Iran.

        “Turkey is allowing Iran to access means to use the revenues from oil for whatever purposes Iran seeks,” said Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The Turks so far have not been willing to do the things you’d expect them to do to squeeze Iran.”

        Turkish energy companies that fund the Atlantic Council include Calik Enerji, which is owned by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan’s son-in-law. Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil company SOCAR has also partnered with the Atlantic Council, and has representative offices in both Turkey and Iran.

        Both Hagel and the Atlantic Council have been critical of Iran sanctions in the past. The defense secretary nominee repeatedly voted against sanctions legislation while in the Senate, and the Atlantic Council has published reports questioning the effectiveness of sanctions.

        Hagel said he does support sanctions, as long as they are multilateral at his recent Senate hearing.

        A congressional aide who has worked on Iran sanctions issues said the corporate links raise questions about whether Hagel was aware these companies were attempting to bypass sanctions. But an official working on the Hagel nomination defended his chairmanship of the Atlantic Council, noting that (Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright and James A. Baker…do the names sound familiar, NC?) have served as “honorary directors” of the think tank.
        http://freebeacon.com/the-atlantic-councils-sanctions-busting-backers/

        Who was the (former) Deputy Secretary of Defense? Why…none other than William Lynn, who came directly from the lucrative world of big time lobbying for the world’s largest missile manufacturer, (Maryland-based Raytheon Co). Incidentally, Raytheon happens to be one of the Pentagon’s biggest missile suppliers thanks greatly to Lynn’s efforts.

        Lynn was Raytheon’s senior vice president for government operations and strategy which means he was dedicated to lobbying the same agency he used to lead. Lynn held the position for six years, at Raytheon, and will receive a Raytheon monthly pension of $4,300.

        In his position as Secretary of Defense, Lynn was Pentagon’s top operations manager which means he had final approval authority on essentially all defense contract, budget and program decisions.

        Obama’s White House general counsel (Gregory Craig of Bill Clinton fame) said in regards to/of lynn’s approval…

        “exigent circumstances relating to national security” led the administration to give Lynn (AN ETHICS WAIVER). A Republican senator who strongly opposed Lynn’s nomination and voted against confirming him said the Office of Governmental Ethics will have to set up a full-time department just to handle Lynn’s conflicts-of-interest waivers involving Raytheon”.

        And that’s just a small sample, NC that should give even the dullest amongst observers, pause…btw, if you need more to convince you…? that Obama is the new “salesman/front-man…on contract” for the “lucrative” and multi-billion dollar, “Defense-Industry”, you let me know…as i’ll be more than happy to share it with you!

        This is not the first time Barack Obama has placed Bush Sr.’s minions into influential positions. In August 2010, Daniel F. Akerson, a managing director of the Carlyle Group, in what was called a “surprise move” was named the CEO of General Motors (GM), otherwise known as “Government Motors”…

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        Hedge funds donate big to Democrats

        The world’s top-earning hedge fund managers have bankrolled almost exclusively Democratic campaigns.

        The top 10 highest-paid hedge fund managers in 2009 have dished out campaign contributions almost only to Democrats.

        Over their lifetimes, those managers have given almost $33 million in campaign contributions to Democrats, according to research by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and that is based on data maintained by the nonpartisan CQMoneyline.

        The same managers gave roughly $600,000 to Republicans, according to the research. The contributions went 98 percent to Democrats and two percent to Republicans.

        The money went to Democratic campaign committees, individual lawmaker’s election bids and other political action committees.

        The data looks at the 10 highest-paid hedge fund managers in 2009, as identified by AR: Absolute Return+Alpha magazine. The New York Times published a story in March identifying the hedge fund managers, including (John Paulson-front man for the bail-out request) and George Soros…

        http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/95763-hedge-funds-donate-big-to-democrats

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        When President Obama nominated ‘Ernest Moniz’ to be energy secretary earlier this month, he hailed the nuclear physicist as a “brilliant scientist” who, among his many talents, had effectively brought together “prominent thinkers and energy companies” in the continuing effort to figure out a safe and economically sound energy future for the country.

        Indeed, Moniz’s collaborative work—best captured in the industry-backed research program he oversaw at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology—is well known. So, too, is his support for Obama’s “all of the above” energy strategy—one that embraces, fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewable energy sources.

        But beyond his job in academia, Moniz has also spent the last decade serving on a range of boards and advisory councils for energy industry heavyweights, including some that do business with the Department of Energy. That includes a six-year paid stint on BP’s Technology Advisory Council as well as similar positions at a uranium enrichment company and a pair of energy investment firms.

        Such industry ties aren’t uncommon for cabinet nominees, and Obama specifically praised Moniz for understanding both environmental and economic issues.

        Still, Moniz’s work for energy companies since he served in President Clinton’s Energy Department has irked some environmentalists.

        “His connections to the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries threaten to undermine the focus we need to see on renewables and energy efficiency,” said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

        Slocum pointed out that Moniz, if confirmed, will set research and investment priorities, including at the department’s network of national laboratories.

        The Energy Department hands out billions of dollars in contracts and loan guarantees as it pushes energy research and development and administers the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile and cleanup efforts. (On fracking, probably the highest-profile energy issue of the moment, the Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction.)

        Reaction to Moniz’s nomination has been mixed among environmental groups, ranging from support (Natural Resources Defense Council) to concerned acceptance (Sierra Club) to outright opposition (Food and Water Watch).

        What criticism there has been has focused on his support for nuclear power and for natural gas extracted through fracking as a “bridge fuel” to transition away from coal.

        Here’s what we know about Moniz’s recent involvement with the energy industry:

        He was on BP’s Technology Advisory Council between 2005 and 2011, a position for which he received a stipend, according to BP. Spokesman Matt Hartwig said the company does not disclose details of such payments. (A 2012 BP financial report disclosed that one council member received about $6,200.) The council “provides feedback and advice to BP’s executive management as to the company’s approach to research and technology,” according to the company. BP has also provided $50 million in funding to Moniz’s MIT Energy Initiative. Moniz talked about that relationship while delivering a warm introduction before a 2009 speech at MIT by BP’s then-CEO Tony Hayward.

        From 2002 to 2004, Moniz sat on the strategic advisory council of USEC, a public company that provides enriched uranium to nuclear power plants. A company spokesman said Moniz was paid for his role on the nine-member council, but declined to say how much. USEC, which has been seeking a $2 billion loan guarantee from the Energy Department for a centrifuge plant in Ohio, has applauded Moniz’s nomination.

        He’s on the board of ICF International, a Fairfax, Virginia-based company which does energy and environmental consulting. It has received Energy Department contracts as part of what one executive called a “longstanding relationship with the Department of Energy.” As a board member, Moniz got $158,000 in cash and stock in 2011, according to the company’s most recent annual report.

        He is on the strategic advisory council of NGP Energy Technology Partners, a private equity firm that invests in both alternative energy and fossil fuel companies. The Washington, D.C.-based firm declined to comment.

        He is on the board of advisers of another private equity firm, the Angeleno Group,which says it provides “growth capital for next generation clean energy and natural resources companies.” The Los Angeles-based firm didn’t respond to requests for comment.

        He is a trustee of the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC), a Saudi Aramco-backed nonprofit organization. The organization did not respond to requests for comment.

        He was on the board of directors of the Electric Power Research Institute from 2007 to 2011, following a stint on the group’s advisory council that began in 2002. A nonprofit utility consortium, the organization does research for the industry with an annual budget of over $300 million. The group paid Moniz $8,000 between 2009 and 2011, according to its most recent tax returns.

        Since 2006, Moniz has been on the board of General Electric’s “ecomagination” advisory board which advises the company on “critical environmental and business issues.” The company did not respond to inquiries about compensation.

        A spokesperson for the MIT Energy Initiative said Moniz is not giving interviews, and the White House didn’t respond to requests for comment.

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/ernest-moniz-industry-ties-nomination

      • Dave

        One last point Jay. Congress, not Obama makes the laws… So your posts about Obama and McCain are moot because everyone tries to curry favor with the people running for president. And as I proved, Big Oil, Wall Street, the Big Banks and the Defense industry love the conservatives way more than they love liberals.

        The proof there is who is gettting paid… Looks like Boehner, McConnell and Cantor all have their hands out and are getting paid handsomely to undermine this country.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        Dave: And as I proved, Big Oil, Wall Street, the Big Banks and the Defense industry love the conservatives way more than they love liberals.

        Big Oil, Wall Street, the Big Banks and the Defense-industry love whoever happens to be in power…at this time it’s the Democrats and Obama, and boy, do they love him and his ministers. Bottom line, Dave, both parties will sell their souls to the highest bidder…that’s the reality!

      • Dave

        Jay, Like I said before… Big Oil and the defense industry were never big donors to liberals. If you have stats that say otherwise, please present them. Otherwise, you know I am right about Iraq being presented to us by conservatives.

    • Dave

      Jay,

      Obama is not a liberal. I never considered him a liberal. He is not. He has done a couple of “liberal” things… But he is not a liberal.

      Feinstein is a liberal, Russ Feingold is a liberal, Alan Grayson is a liberal

  • Michael

    Sounds like an engraved invitation to hit us again. Go obama and beeg sis!

  • Raul Matas Sanchez

    Obviously, it is OIL, ORO NEGRO, AS WE CALL IT IN SPANISH

  • Harold Olsen

    There is no doubt in my mind that if the Obama regime had been in power during WWII, both Germany and Japan would have been given “trusted traveler” status. If you are America’s enemy, you are Obama’s friend.

  • http://www.facebook.com/charles.town2 Charles Town

    911 was an inside job…those hijackers were pawns in a bigger game

    • Toy

      Thank goodness they weren’t prawns, because Mahomet says that they are haram!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.