DaniMartExtras, Too


REAL NEWS March 06

Posted by Xaniel777 on March 6, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : March 06, 2012




Israel and United States: Partners in International Crime


From Activist Post

US think-tank admits Iran is not a threat to either US or Israeli security, devises narrative to sell unnecessary war to public. 

Which Path to Persia? .pdf

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The corporate media has recently portrayed a narrative where we see the West apparently warning Israel against a unilateral attack on Iran. It appears that Israel is intent on “going it alone” despite the wishes of its “more rational” Western sponsors. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported in their article, “U.S., Israel Pull Closer on Iran,” that, “Israeli officials, meanwhile, said that President Barack Obama’s public and private acknowledgment of the Jewish state’s sovereign right to defend itself was a crucial gain as the two countries seek to deter Tehran,” in regards to Iran’s alleged nuclear program.

To the average reader, it would seem that both the US and Israel agree that Iran is an imminent threat against which Israel and the United States simply have differing views on how to counter. In reality, this is a premeditated, deceitful act, already clearly articulated since 2009 in a signed document, on how both nations plan on duping the world into accepting an unnecessary war.

The document,Which Path to Persia? published by the corporate-funded Brookings Institution, and signed by Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Suzanne Maloney, Michael O’Hanlon, and Bruce Riedel, who often make their way onto corporate-media networks as “experts,” clearly states that Iran is neither reckless nor likely to deploy nuclear weapons in any way but as a deterrence to Western-led military intervention. The fear is not of waking up one day to a nuclear holocaust with Israel “wiped off the map,” but rather waking up one day and realizing the US and Israel no longer hold uncontested hegemony across the Middle East.

On page 24 of the Brookings Institution report, it is stated, “most of Iran’s foreign policy decision making since the fall of the Shah could probably be characterized as “aggressive but not reckless,” before adding the baseless caveat, “but Washington cannot categorically rule out the possibility that there are truly insane or ideologically possessed Iranian leaders who would attempt far worse if they were ever in a position to do so.” Such a comment could be just as easily said about US leadership, where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana at one point suggested the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan against cave-dwelling militants using 30 year-old Soviet weapons.

Image: Screenshot taken from Defense.gov where it is admitted that a US Senator proposed using nuclear weapons against Afghanistan with then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld keeping such options “on the table.” While the threat of Iran using nuclear weapons has constituted exclusively of accusations by the West directed at the Islamic Republic, threats of the US using such weapons come directly from America’s leadership itself. 

Other US think-tanks, including the RAND Corporation , in assessing the threat of a nuclear Iran, noted that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.” The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to the conclusion that Iran poses a risk only to US-Israeli hegemony, not their national security.

The Brookings report would then go on to admit it was the intention of US-Israeli policy toward Iran to provoke a war they knew Iran would neither want, nor benefit from. The goal was to create such a provocation without the world recognizing it was indeed the West triggering hostilities:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) — Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

The same report would go on to say:

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal. — Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 52.

Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the utter lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. Brookings would continue throughout their report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran’s economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself. Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian targets, Brookings noted there was still the strong possibility Iran would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not.

The report continues:

However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks. — Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 95.

Finally, the Brookings report clearly states another option in dealing with Iran is to have Israel carry out what appears to be a “unilateral attack,” but would require sufficient preparations by both nations to make it appear as if there were some sort of political bifurcation between Tel Aviv and the West in the lead up to such an operation:

An Israeli air campaign against Iran would have a number of very important differences from an American campaign. First, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) has the problem of overflight transit from Israel to Iran. Israel has no aircraft carriers, so its planes must take off from Israeli air bases. It also does not possess long-range bombers like the B-1 or B-2, or huge fleets of refueling tankers, all of which means that unlike the United States, Israel cannot avoid flying through someone’s air space. The most direct route from Israel to Iran’s Natanz facility is roughly 1,750 kilometers across Jordan and Iraq. As the occupying power in Iraq, the United States is responsible for defending Iraqi airspace.  Which Path to Persia?-page 105 (.pdf) 

From the American perspective, this negates the whole point of the option—distancing the United States from culpability—and it could jeopardize American efforts in Iraq, thus making it a possible nonstarter for Washington. Finally, Israeli violation of Jordanian airspace would likely create political problems for King Abdullah of Jordan, one of America’s (and Israel’s) closest Arab friends in the region. Thus it is exceedingly unlikely that the United States would allow Israel to overfly Iraq, and because of the problems it would create for Washington and Amman, it is unlikely that Israel would try to fly over Jordan. Which Path to Perisa?-page 106 (.pdf)

An Israeli attack on Iran would directly affect key American strategic interests. If Israel were to overfly iraq, both the Iranians and the vast majority of people around the world would see the strike as abetted, if not authorized, by the United States. Even if Israel were to use another route, many Iranians would still see the attack as American supported or even American orchestrated. After all, the aircraft in any strike would be American produced, supplied, and funded F-15s and F-16s, and much of the ordnance would be American made. In fact, $3 billion dollars in U.S. assistance annually sustains the IDF’s conventional superiority in the region. Which Path to Persia-page 106 (.pdf)

The US withdrawal from Iraq is being done in tandem with NATO operations to destabilize Syria and in turn disrupt Hezbollah’s capacity to retaliate against Israel in the event of a strike on Iran — a concern also duly noted within the Brookings report.

…the Israelis may want to hold off until they have a peace deal with Syria in hand (assuming that Jerusalem believes that one is within reach), which would help them mitigate blowback from Hizballah and potentially Hamas. Consequently, they might want Washington to push hard in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus. -page 109 (.pdf)

It is quite clear that eliminating Syria entirely as an obstacle has been instead attempted, and with NATO standing by and a continuous influx of foreign fighters being armed and sent across the border to mire Syrian forces in asymmetrical warfare, any coordinated retaliation against Israel by Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah has been at the very least blunted significantly.

John McCain, who chairs the US State Department-funded International Republican Institutecredited by the New York Times for fueling the “Arab Spring” unrest to begin with, is now calling for US airstrikes on Syria to speed this process up before Russia’s Vladimir Putin begins an expected process of rolling back Wall Street-London gains over the past year.

The recent charade played out by both Israel and the United States in regards with “what to do about Iran,” is merely premeditated playacting, carrying out the directives clearly laid out in the Brookings Institution report, which have been systematically carried out, verbatim, even as it was being published in 2009. There is no real bifurcation between the West and Israel, only an attempt to compartmentalize responsibility for an unwarranted, unjustified, and ultimately unpopular, criminal act of war that may end with millions maimed, killed, or otherwise affected.

We are witnessing an open conspiracy to commit vast crimes against humanity playing out before our eyes, and it is our daily capitulation, our daily sponsorship of the corporations and financier interests driving this abhorrent agenda that allows it to continue on in earnest. Simply “protesting” a war long since decided will not be enough. We must also strike at the very source of power behind Wall Street and London, and it can be done with an act as simple as exposing and boycotting the corporations and financier interests which constitute this murderous global menace.

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.   Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here.



US Congress expands authoritarian anti-protest law


From WSWS.org

By Tom Carter 

3 March 2012 

Defend democratic rights! Support the Socialist Equality Party election campaign! For more information and to get involved, click here.

A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives and Thursday in the Senate would expand existing anti-protest laws that make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by a lengthy prison term—to “enter or remain in” an area designated as “restricted.”

The bill—H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year’s popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility.

H.R. 347 expands an existing federal criminal statute – Title 18, Section 1752 of the United States Code, or the “restricted buildings or grounds” law. The law was originally passed in 1971 and was last amended in 2006.

Under existing law, the areas that qualify as “restricted” are defined in extremely vague and broad terms. Restricted areas can include “a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” and “a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

The Secret Service provides bodyguards not just to the US president, but to a broad layer of top figures in the political establishment, including presidential candidates and foreign dignitaries. What constitutes an event of “national significance” is left to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. The occasion for virtually any large protest could be designated by the Department of Homeland Security as an event of “national significance,” making any demonstrations in the vicinity illegal.

For certain, included among such events would be the Democratic and Republican National conventions, which have been classified as National Special Security Events (NSSE), a category created under the Clinton administration. These conventions have been the occasion for protests that have been subjected to ever increasing police restrictions and repression. H.R. 347 signifies that federal law will now more likely be used to criminalize future protests at such events.

The standard punishment under the “restricted buildings and grounds” law is a fine and up to one year in prison. If a weapon or serious physical injury is involved, the penalty may be increased to up to ten years.

Also criminalized is conduct “that impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” and “obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds.” These provisions, even more so than the provisions creating “restricted areas,” threaten to criminalize a broad range of protest activities.

In order to appreciate the broad sweep of the “restricted buildings or grounds” law, it is necessary to consider a few possibilities:

  • A wide area around the next G-8 meeting or other global summit could be designated “restricted” by the Secret Service, such that any person who “enters” that area can be subject to a fine and a year in jail under Section 1752(a)(1) (making it a felony to enter any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so).

  • Senator Rick Santorum, the ultra-right Republican presidential candidate, enjoys the protection of the Secret Service. Accordingly, a person who shouts “boo!” during a speech by Santorum could be subject to arrest and a year of imprisonment under Section 1752(a)(2) (making it a felony to “engag[e] in disorderly or disruptive conduct in” a restricted area).

  • Striking government workers who form a picket line near any event of “national significance” can be locked up under Section 1752(a)(3) (making it a crime to “imped[e] ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds”).

Under the ancien regime in France, steps were taken to ensure that the “unwashed masses” were kept out of sight whenever a carriage containing an important aristocrat or church official was passing through. Similarly, the laws expanded by H.R. 347 help create for the US president and other top officials a protest-free bubble or “no-free-speech zone” that follows them wherever they go, making sure the discontented multitude is kept out of the picture.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act is plainly in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which was passed in 1791 in the aftermath of the American Revolution. The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (The arrogance of the Democratic and Republican politicians is staggering—what part of “Congress shall make no law” do they not understand?)

H.R. 347 comes on the heels of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed into law by President Obama on December 31, 2011. The NDAA gives the president the power to order the incarceration of any person—including a US citizen—anywhere in the world without charge or trial.

The passage of H.R. 347 has been the subject of a virtual blackout in the media. In light of the nature of the bill, which constitutes a significant attack on the First Amendment, this blackout cannot be innocent. The media silence represents a conscious effort to keep the American population in the dark as to the government’s efforts to eviscerate the Bill of Rights.

The timing of the bill is significant. H.R. 347 was reported to the Senate floor by the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 17, 2011, amidst a massive nationwide crackdown on the Occupy Wall Street protests – and just two days after hundreds of New York City police conducted the infamous military-style raid on the demonstrators’ encampment in Zucotti Park, driving out the protesters and erecting barricades.

A Congressional Budget Office Cost Report accompanying H.R. 347 explains that the bill “would modify and expand the current laws that prohibit access to certain federal property” such that the government could “pursue cases against violators that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute.”

The CBO report claims that “H.R. 347 would apply to a relatively small number of offenders,” but the dramatic sweep of existing law combined with the changes made by H.R. 347 suggest otherwise.

H.R. 347 expands the existing law (according to congressional records, it “clarifies” existing law) by replacing language prohibiting “willfully and knowingly” entering a “restricted area” with language prohibiting merely “knowingly” entering a “restricted area.”

This seemingly minor change in fact dramatically increases the reach of the law and makes the prosecution of demonstrators easier. Under H.R. 347, individuals could be charged for violating the statute even if they did not intend to do so.

The bill also extends the reach of the law to include Washington, DC, which previously was covered in regard to “restricted” areas only by local laws. This change, reportedly requested by the Secret Service, enables the accused to be prosecuted in federal court.

The bill now awaits President Obama’s signature before it becomes the law of the land.

What lies behind the ongoing attack on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a growing understanding in the ruling class that the protests that took place around the world against social inequality in 2011 will inevitably re-emerge in more powerful forms in 2012 and beyond, as austerity measures and the crashing economy make the conditions of life more and more intolerable for the working class.

The virtually unanimous support in Congress for H.R. 347, among Democrats as well as Republicans, reflects an overriding sentiment within the ruling establishment for curtailing existing democratic rights and moving toward dictatorial methods of rule.

This sentiment was most directly expressed this week by Wyoming Republican legislator David Miller, who introduced a bill in the state legislature that would give the state the power, in an “emergency,” to create its own standing army through conscription, print its own currency, acquire military aircraft, suspend the legislature, and establish martial law.

“Things happen quickly sometimes—look at Libya, look at Egypt, look at those situations,” Miller told the Star-Tribune in Casper, Wyoming. Repeating arguments employed by every military dictatorship over the past century, Miller declared, “We wouldn’t have time to meet as a Legislature or even in special session to do anything to respond.” Miller’s so-called “doomsday law” was defeated in the Wyoming legislature Tuesday by the narrow margin of 30-27.

This article, originally posted March 3, has been edited to clarify the extent of existing law




The End Of America, A film by Annie Sundberg & Ricki Stern

From The End of America Movie.com

1. invoke an internal and external threat

People who are afraid are willing to do things that they wouldn’t otherwise do.

2. establish secret (unaccountable) prisons where torture takes place

In a secret system, the government does not have to provide any proof of wrongdoing by those it holds, so it can incarcerate anyone it wants.  

3. develop a paramilitary force

A private military force — under the exclusive direction of the “commander in chief” with no accountability to Congress, the courts, or the public — blurs the line between a civilian police force and a militarized police state.

4. surveil ordinary citizens

People who believe they are being watched are less likely to voice opposition.  To scare a population into silence, the government need only monitor the activities of a few to make everyone fear that they are being surveilled.  Every closed society keeps a “list” of so-called opponents it tracks.   

5. infiltrate citizen’s groups

Spies in activist groups put psychological pressure on genuine activists by undermining their trust in one another. They may also disrupt legal activities, undermining the effectiveness of group efforts.  

6. detain and release ordinary citizens

Detention intimidates or psychologically damages those arrested and also lets everyone know that anyone could be labeled an “enemy combatant” and “disappeared.” 

7. target key individuals

People are less likely to speak out when those who are highly visible, like journalists, scholars, artists, or celebrities, are intimidated or have the livelihoods threatened.  Targeting those who are especially visible makes it less likely that people will speak out and robs society of leaders and others who might inspire opposition.

8. restrict the press

The public is less likely to find out about government wrongdoing if the government can threaten to prosecute anyone who publishes or broadcasts reports that are critical of the government.  

9. recast criticism as espionage and dissent as treason

People who protest can be charged with terrorism or treason when laws criminalize or limit free speech rather than protect it. 

10. subvert the rule of law

The disappearance of checks and balances makes it easier to declare martial law, especially if the judiciary branch continues to exercise authority over individuals but has no authority over the Executive branch.



Mass Conscious Arriving



By George Ure


We’ve been discussing (admittedly on a hit and miss basis) the idea that there’s a global mass consciousness awakening/emerging right here on the internet.  So for your further ponderings, here’s something else to toss into your thinkery: A 63-minute video (categorized as edu-tainment/documentary)…x-out the pop ups before you play…

So what comes into focus (better than I could put into words) is this whole idea of the internet becoming something of a Super Self for the whole world.

 Unfortunately, that’s problematic.  What happens if the global self turns out to be crazy?  I mean it is possible that when all of humans are averaged we’re a bit bonkers, isn’t it?

In the weekend’s Peoplenomics report on “luck” we ended by asking an interesting rhetorical question:  Is is possible that the reason we don’t all see the wind that drives luck around, or for that matter, we don’t seem to sense auras, the stream, and so forth….well, could that all be because our selections of words and thought tools are not quite exactly right – and might those things cause us to miss a lot of what’s obvious?

 I mention this because the internet’s emergent mass consciousness may actually point in a particular direction toward refining how we use words and symbols such as math as a way of getting a little closer to the Larger Truth which Scully assures us is out there, somewhere.

 Not like any language is perfect. and in fact mathematics as the West thinks it, is founded on the notion of objects and counting, instead of sets, unions, intersections of unions (vesicas) and so forth.  Maybe it’s not a big error in thinking – we do manage to fly and build nukes and such, but is it a big enough blind spot to keep us from rising to greater heights?  A reader comment very much on point:

“Hey George,


Interesting concepts in the last few paragraphs today. I think there are a lot of concepts in human thought that we may have missed by channeling things down a practical road.


For example, I have often wondered, for instance, what is really the speed of light.,( I suppose that is why Einstein defined it as “c”, a numerically unassigned constant, rather than the common 186,282 miles per second. (Besides, equations don’t usually do well utilizing numbers in the theoretical realm, until practical applications arise, which is the purview of engineers and technicians, more along my field)).


Definition seems to be a matter of the practical , so often. But why is there a speed, and what is it really, outside the human influenced realm? And after all, what is a mile ( or what is a second for that matter)? Simply randomly assigned values based on subdividing a common factor in our local environment down to a manageable size component thereof, to be crunched further using other more practical aspects of our ubiquitous “number mill”.


I’ve often thought that perhaps instead of “thinking with words( or numbers), as we all have to do based on our personal language experiences, we must miss a lot of information and waste a lot of time. How often do we really think in concepts anyway?


My proof of this is my wife, who is Canadian, with both French and English as her native tongues, in which she is very fluent. Indeed you could not tell she spoke French, being quite fluent even in social slang idioms, for the most part, but often her French thinking shows up in her use of similes, which she unmercifully butchers. (Also, shows up her math training and some other things, such as knowing right from left, linguistically.


She has to hold up her left hand, which forms an “L”, then she knows and can visualize it. Otherwise, to her it is “gauche and droit” which she can visualize immediately.)


My overall point being, we generally ( at least I do) tend to think as though we were speaking, which makes us take the time to form sentences in our heads, such as “ I’m going to the store now”, at least in part, if not in whole. Do we really ever just visualize the gestalt of “I’m going to the store now” as an action in our minds, to be completed as though it already exists, without the intervening language?


We probably do but at some point in the action, language asserts itself, almost as though we have to validate the thought with the language pattern itself. Just habit I guess.


Perhaps you or someone else might not follow this pattern, but in analysis of my habits, I do, and being a relatively normal guy, I feel I am pretty close to the norm. I think we probably all do this to some degree.


The point being, we waste so much time in the processing of our thoughts, more so than if we grasped and moved the concepts along immediately as actions, until we absolutely needed to insert the language, much in the way we move our bodies when we perform natural muscle motion.


For example, when I play guitar, and do a solo, I move to where my ear knows the sound that I want resides, without having to consciously think : “ I will now move my third finger to an “A” on the sixth string, then slide it up a fret, then bend it ½ step, and back down, then etc.,etc.”


If our thoughts in communication were as fluid as that of our “animal” body movements, who knows how much farther afield we might be by now not only in physical knowledge of our universe, but in the inner knowing of the deeper realms that still remain unattainable to us. In addition, we sometimes restrict ourselves even in our private thoughts because we feel we are treading on socially established mores of thought that are inappropriate for exploration by virtue of the fact they are not approved by society in general, such as deeper spiritual thought, etc.


That is probably why the Eastern philosophies are so much more advanced and non-religion biased than Western standard “Christian “ thought. ( which by the way I think is responsible for a huge degree of the inhumanity of man to mankind, , (counter-intuitively it seems)

just sayin’….)


Not really any purpose to this rambling, other than pondering along the same lines you were following ( at least I think I am). But wanted to see if you had any other thoughts on the matter yourself. I hope I have made sense, and not wasted your time. You just got me going with your article today…”

No waste of time, at all! It’s that socially imposed thinking stuff that likely keeps us all from being more god-like in our thinking.  I wonder if minds like Tesla or Leedskalnin somehow managed to break into that “rarer realm” of right thinking that was somehow better fitted to seeing the world a bit more clearly than the rest of us.

 If you want a little something to work on when the boss ain’t looking today, I’d table this as a worthy exercise.  We already know from working with Clif’s linguistic project ( at Half Past Human.com ) that how humans think (and act) is at least some x number of degrees out of phase with the larger reality.  Problem comes down to “How to solve for x?”

 Which is why I’m focused for now on the matter of “luck” since if there’s to be any ripping of the veil between this realm and another, the fabric should wear thin along a particular seam.,..and I’m guessing that between statistical probabilities and real-world experiences is as good a place as any to go mining.



Ron Paul gets endorsement from five members of Romney’s family


The Daily Caller


Photo: AP

Texas Rep. Ron Paul on Monday announced that five distant relatives of rival Mitt Romney’s family are endorsing his Republican presidential campaign.

A news release from the Paul campaign boasts of having the support of Ty Romney, Travis Romney, Chad Romney, Jared Romney and Troy Romney. Three of the Romneys — who live in Idaho — will speak on Paul’s behalf during the state’s caucuses on Tuesday.

“I support Ron Paul because he defends the Constitution, loves America and understands what it means to be an American, including the right to live your life any way you want as long as you respect others,” said chiropractor Travis Romney, a second cousin once removed from Mitt Romney.

This isn’t the first time a family member of one of Paul’s rivals announced support for the libertarian-leaning candidate from Texas. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s nephew, John Garver, penned a column for The Daily Caller endorsing Paul. 



Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: