North Korean leader Kim Jong Il dead at age 69

Associated Press
December 19, 2011

Kim Jong Il, North Korea’s mercurial and enigmatic longtime leader, has died of heart failure. He was 69.

In a “special broadcast” Monday from the North Korean capital, state media said Kim died of a heart ailment on a train due to a “great mental and physical strain” on Dec. 17 during a “high intensity field inspection.” It said an autopsy was done on Dec. 18 and “fully confirmed” the diagnosis.

Kim is believed to have suffered a stroke in 2008, but he had appeared relatively vigorous in photos and video from recent trips to China and Russia and in numerous trips around the country carefully documented by state media. The communist country’s “Dear Leader” – reputed to have had a taste for cigars, cognac and gourmet cuisine – was believed to have had diabetes and heart disease.

“It is the biggest loss for the party … and it is our people and nation’s biggest sadness,” an anchorwoman clad in black Korean traditional dress said in a voice choked with tears. She said the nation must “change our sadness to strength and overcome our difficulties.”

South Korean media, including Yonhap news agency, said South Korea put its military on “high alert” and President Lee Myung-bak convened a national security council meeting after the news of Kim’s death. Officials couldn’t immediately confirm the reports.

The news came as North Korea prepared for a hereditary succession. Kim Jong Il inherited power after his father, revered North Korean founder Kim Il Sung, died in 1994.

In September 2010, Kim Jong Il unveiled his third son, the twenty-something Kim Jong Un, as his successor, putting him in high-ranking posts.

Traffic in the North Korean capital was moving as usual Monday, but people in the streets were in tears as they learned the news of Kim’s death. A foreigner contacted at Pyongyang’s Koryo Hotel said hotel staff were in tears.

Asian stock markets moved lower amid the news, which raises the possibility of increased instability on the divided Korean peninsula.

South Korea’s Kospi index was down 3.9 percent at 1,767.89 and Japan’s Nikkei 225 index fell 0.8 percent to 8,331.00. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng slipped 2 percent to 17,929.66 and the Shanghai Composite Index dropped 2 percent to 2,178.75.

The 2000-Page Power Grab any Dictator Dreams About

In the words of the very same legislators who created the new financial bill, ‘No one will know until this is actually in place how it works’…, said Christopher Dodd, democrat from Connecticut.  The new bill gives sweeping powers to the president, whoever it is, to determine what is done with many aspects of American citizen’s lives.  “…it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” added Dodd.

WSJ

After more than 20 hours of continuous wrangling, Congressional Democrats and White House officials reached agreement on the

Lawmaker Christopher Dodd (D), next to senator Richard Shelby.

final shape of legislation that would transform financial regulation, avoiding last-minute defections among New York lawmakers that had threatened to upend the bill.

After months of uncertainty about how the U.S. would craft new rules, the agreement offers the clearest picture since the financial crisis of how markets and the government will interact for decades to come. The common thread: large financial companies are facing a tougher leash.

he bill is expected to have enough support to become law. Both chambers plan to vote next week. The margin in the House and Senate will likely be close because most Republicans are expected to oppose the measure.

If the bill passes, President Barack Obama is expected to sign the package into law by July 4. Thursday’s agreement also gives the president leverage going into a weekend summit of world leaders in Canada, where he will prod other nations to rewrite their rules.

“This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), a chief architect of the compromise.

In two important ways, the agreement is tougher on the banking industry than officials in the Treasury Department anticipated when they first drafted their version of the bill 12 months ago.

Lawmakers agreed to a provision known as the “Volcker” rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which prohibits banks from making risky bets with their own funds. To win support from Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.), Democrats agreed to allow financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds.

The move could require some big banks to spin off divisions, known as proprietary-trading desks, which make bets with the firms’ money.

The bill also includes a provision, authored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark), which would limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives. This provision almost derailed the bill following vehement objections from New York Democrats. Ms. Lincoln worked out a deal in the early hours of Friday morning that would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk.

Banks, however, would have to set up separately capitalized affiliates to trade derivatives in areas lawmakers perceived as riskier, including metals, energy swaps, and agriculture commodities, among other things.

A panel of 43 lawmakers spent two weeks reconciling differences between a bill that passed the House in December and the Senate in May. They concluded their negotiations along party lines at a little after 5 a.m. ET in a Capitol Hill conference room marked by tension, levity and exhaustion. Senior administration officials, including Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Neal Wolin, arrived late in the afternoon to try and quell the feud between the New York delegation and Ms. Lincoln.

Major components of the bill, including the derivatives provisions, were negotiated in the hallway of the Dirksen Senate Office Building as the clock neared midnight. At one point, after hearing of an offer from Senate Democrats, Rep. Melissa Bean (D., Ill.) exclaimed: “Are you flipping kidding me? Are you flipping kidding me?”

Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit.

“My guess is there are three unintended consequences on every page of this bill,” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) said of the nearly 2,000-page bill.

The deal comes as the banking industry is still struggling to regain its footing. Hundreds of banks have been dragged down by bad loans and investments. The violent restructuring of the U.S. banking sector two years ago has left just a few companies controlling a vast amount of the deposits, assets and financial plumbing of the country.

Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal. And the banking sector in parts of Europe remains fragile.

The legislation would redraw how money flows through the U.S. economy, from the way people borrow money to the way banks structure complicated products like derivatives. It could touch every person who has a bank account or uses a credit card.

It would erect a new consumer-protection regulator within the Federal Reserve, give the government new powers to break up failing companies and assign a council of regulators to monitor risks to the financial system. It would also set up strict new rules on big banks, limiting their risk and increasing the costs.

The legislation gives the Securities and Exchange Commission new powers to regulate Wall Street and monitor hedge funds, increasing the agency’s access to funding. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission would also have new powers under the bill, which would try and force most derivatives to face more scrutiny from regulators and other market participants.

To pay for some of the new government programs, the bill would allow the government to charge fees to large banks and hedge funds to raise up to $19 billion spread over five years. The assessment is designed to eventually pay down a part of the national debt.

The broad contours had been set for weeks and mostly mirror a proposal the White House has pushed since last summer. But the last few days represented a mad dash of political maneuvering to iron out final details.

Negotiations went into Friday morning, with New York Democrats and White House officials meeting to address the bill’s potential impact on New York, which relies on the financial industry for employment and tax revenue.

To win broader support, Democrats softened the bill’s impact on community banks, auto dealers, and small payday lenders and check cashers.

From the beginning, lawmakers opted against a dramatic reshaping of the country’s financial architecture. Instead, they moved to create new layers of regulation to prevent companies from taking on too much risk.

For example, regulators decided not to order a sweeping consolidation of the regulatory agencies policing finance. They also decided not to bust up large financial companies, despite pressure from liberal groups.

But they did create a process for seizing and dismantling faltering companies, tools the government lacked in 2008 during the seemingly chaotic events surrounding Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group Inc.

Democrats are banking on stronger government regulators to constrain risk in the financial system and prevent a future banking crisis—or at least blunt its impact.

The Footprint of the Establishment

The Powers that Be shaped us in more ways than We think!

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 10, 2010

Every time we need to know what happened in the past we refer to history books, visit a local library, check the Internet or look into

Human Farming is the Establishment's favourite method to enslave the masses.

our own archives to see what history tells us. But how many times do we wonder about what history doesn’t tell us? See, history is not written by historians, they just give us accounts of that official version of history. The reason why many look back in time is to avoid making the same mistakes that our ancestors made as humanity advanced. But how do we avoid those mistakes if we simply don’t know them?

You don’t have to be an expert in history to figure out who wrote it and why. It takes a couple of clicks nowadays. After finishing college, anyone can surely say, for example, what type of government we have, where our educational system comes from and why we fought and continue to fight bloody wars for decades. Can we?  Really?  What if part of the history you know; the one learned in elementary school, high school and college is not as it is drawn by the books we so carefully read?

If your educated guess to the first question is a Constitutional Democracy or a Republic the answer is wrong. If your answer to the second question is from our Founding Fathers, it is wrong, too. And if your answer to the third question is freedom and independence, it is also wrong.

Let’s take for example the origins of what we call today Government, which many believe is representative. The beginnings of our model of government rests in the Hegelian model of government, not on the model our Founding Fathers would have sketched. The Hegelian model of government believes that IT is supreme, and that individuals must be subjects of the government – i.e Patriot Act, Martial Law, Illegal Spying, Torture, Military Commissions Act, RFID card, etc. But how do the elites that support this kind of governance get away with telling us that we live in a free democracy? They indoctrinate us almost from birth in concentration camps called schools, which not only do not follow a democratic government’s educational policy, but instead, a very well redesigned version of the Prussian Universal Education model, put together by the same elite that pays to publish the history you and I know.

Now, you probably think, how can an elite simply get away with all this? To put it simply in one sentence, it’s called a Political Conspiracy. The elite, better known as the powers that be, not only wrote the history you and I know, but also designed and financed the educational system you and I attended, modeled after the Hegelian form of government they adore and praise. That is why we have no clue about it, because we were born and raised in a Matrix type of environment that seems natural to all.

You are right! There need to be hundreds and thousands of people involved in a conspiracy of such level in order for it to work… and there are… The brain of this conspiracy, the Club Bilderberg, meets once a year in cities of their choosing like Virginia, Versailles, Stresa, Munich, Ottawa, Istanbul and Sitges to discuss global policies on economy, environmentalism, politics, health, trade, immigration, etc. Among the attendees are elements from the Bank Industry, The Military Industrial Complex, Academia, The Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex, Mass Media, and of course the politicians we vote for every four years. In one word, the Elite.

I know… You want me to call them by their names… After reading through lists of Bilderberg attendees over the years, I can absolutely and certainly say that crooks like David Rockefeller, the same Dave whose family financed the Hegelian inspired Universal Education system we studied in, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, George Pataki, Texas governor Richard Perry, John Kerry, Henry Kissinger, Etienne Davignon, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and Donald Rumsfeld, among others. These and other people who have in their hands the present and future of our world, are the cabal responsible for hiding the truth about history that most of us don’t know. Why? Because they wrote it themselves.

The Footprint the Establishment has left and continues to leave in our lives, our society, and our world began early in the 1800’s. As I said before it is a political conspiracy, that is, the use of political power which is passed around from generation to generation in order to keep the secrecy of their association.

Let’s see how a conspiracy works. First, there has to be a secret meeting. Second, those who meet must agree to a course of action; and third, such action must be illegal. The Establishment, or what many call The Order, derives from a German secret society. The order was included as the Russell Trust in 1856, to later be known as the Brotherhood of Death. To us all, it’s better known as “Skull and Bones. The American version of this Order was founded in the U.S in 1833 at Yale University by General William Russell and Alphonso Taft, who in 1876, became Secretary of War under the Grant administration in the United States. The Order meets annually on Deer Island in the St. Lawrence River. Among the original members are Samuel Henshaw Bates, Rufus Hart, Asahel Hooker Lewis, Samuel Marshall and Frederick Mather. All of these people along with the two founders occupied high level position in early forms of government.

The beginnings of this elite governed group can be traced back to the 1600’s when the first wealthy families arrived to the U.S from England. One example is the Lord family. In this particular case there were two branches: The one from Thomas Lord and the other from Nathan Lord. Later members arose from families who managed to make money to send their children to Yale, such as the Harriman, Payne, Davison and of course Rockefeller. The Lord’s established themselves in Hartford Connecticut where they kept a tradition typical of the elite: Intermarriage; in order to further concentrate and maintain power.

From there, they extended their arms to places like New York, where they founded businesses like law firms and consultancies. Among their clients, the New York Times and the Rubin Foundation. The latter is the financial supporter of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC.

So, now that we know how the establishment got to us, let’s see how it’s left a footprint in three of the most important aspects of our lives: Education, Energy and War.

The concept or idea over which The Order works is control; controlling it all through the compartmentalized control of the parts. For example, if they control the politicians, they can get access to powerful governments on two or three or whatever the number of political parties that exist. If they control energy companies, they can subdue society into accepting only the means of energy they can make a profit of. If they control the media, they can tell us their version of world events; who’s the bad guy and the good guy. If they own the producers of weapons, they will encourage war, and finance all the sides involved in the war because they know the profits and the control derived from war will be much greater. If they own the pharmaceutical companies, they will own all the patents to the drugs the population consumes and at the same time ban any claim on medicinal products they don’t control. If they control the food industry, the production of goods, they can sell cheap food to the masses to make them sick and fat, so they have to consume the illicit drugs they produce which by the way make people sicker. If they control the election process through remotely controlled electronic voting machines instead of traceable paper ballots, they will never let go off power.

Why do I point to Education as an important example of the way the Establishment leaves a footprint? Well, because the complete development of a society rests on the educational level of the members. In the case of the Western world, the educational model was founded after the Prussian Educational mold. This model came into existence in 1819 in the military state of Prussia. There, the Elite decided that the population had to be converted into instruments of the State in order to increase efficiency. The system was based on the premise that by erasing the creative, innovative ability of the population was how they would become obedient servants. In a matter of a few years, Prussia, which did not have natural resources, became one of the richest regions in Germany. It became so influential, that it was later the city from where two world wars originated. It was through a fully controlled educational system designed to dumb down the population, that the Elite was successful in their attempt to impose any policy they wanted to a willingly accepting crowd of mental zombies. Many countries around the world studied and continue to study the Prussian model today. From Japan to China to England to the United States. In America, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie imported the Prussian model through their foundations. It later evolved and new concepts appeared. One of them very well known to us all, Human Resources brought upon the masses the infamous Kindergarten, where children are grown up like vegetables to become subjects to the system that saw their parents come up the very same way. Later on, the Elite realized they weren’t getting people young enough so they founded the Pre-Kindergarten.

Behind this system of control was the goal that the Establishment has always had, the disintegration of the most basic form of social unity; the family. The family is the biggest obstacle to create the global system of control, therefore it has to be done away with. Multiple options were offered to parents, among them, to put the children in the hands of “experts” who had been already brainwashed following the Prussian model. The only difference perhaps between the original Prussian system and the one that currently operates around the world, is that in Prussia, the laws explicitly said that the State owned the children. In the U.S efforts were made in the 19th century to create such laws, but they did not bear fruit. The Prussian system was sneaked into society under the fear instilled by world wars, economic depressions and of course the already traditional feeling of dependency that the population has towards the State.

In 1871 in the book called “Descent of Men” Darwin said 95% of the people were inferior and only 5 % were evolving. From this way of thinking came the teachings of Sr. Francis Galton, the father of Eugenics, from whom men like H.G Wells and William Huxley took off to write their famous “scholarly” works. It is important to note, that although many people regard Charles Darwin as an outsider that made it into the circle through his discoveries in he sciences, the truth is that Darwin’s family was one of the richest in the world. Darwin met with the members of the Elite for many years. In those meetings they tailored science to fit the reality they wanted the rest to learn. John Calvin said there are so many of these inferior people that we cannot police them, so we are gonna have to teach them to police themselves; and generation through generation, the population was dumbed down more and more until it fit the corporate fascist model the Elite wanted.

The common denominator of this educational model, no matter where it’s been applied, is the fact that the
masses -from where ingenuity and creativeness emanated- became nothing else than obedient sheep; docile beings that do not know much more than what they learn in high school or college. As a result, we now have a population that cannot find their country on a map, much less other countries like Iraq or Afghanistan.  However, the masses do support invading the two countries in the name of peace. In 1950 the U.S had 90% of all patents in the world, nowadays it only owns about 30 percent and dropping fast. The Prussian model has worked to perfection.  The same can be said about other countries.

Now when we turn our head to the Energy issue, it is important to note other members of the Elite, or the Order that have been key in the implementation of Educational and Energy policies. I earlier said that the origin of this Elite is immigrants from Europe; England to be more specific. The Lords, the Rothchilds and other families that emerged later like the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Morgans and of course, the Bushes. The founders consisted of Puritans who always absorbed the wealth of rich families, without inviting those families to join their organizations. Most of these families were bankers, lawyers and traders that later became the Barons of the Mercantilistic model that substituted free markets. In the energy sector the Bush family has been a continuous player. They have maintained contact with Saudi Arabia’s kingdom for years and have done business with them thanks to the fortunes stolen by Prescott Bush, the grandfather of former president Bush, from the Nazi Empire when he left Germany after their defeat. With him others like Percy Rockefeller, the Paynes, the Pratts, etc are all linked to the Standard Oil Company, the Shell Oil Company, Creole Petroleum and Socony Vacuum. Currently we are fed the idea of the lack of sources of energy. While fossil fuels are painted as necessary evils to the development of the world, we are also told that oil reserves are scarce and that we have reached a peak. The debate in the main stream corporate Elite-controlled media is always centered on the pollution or the scarcity, but very little time is given in comparison to real alternative energy sources. While countries like Brazil run their cars on sugar cane-derived ethanol, the United States still remains in the debate of which alternative source is better or how many miles per gallon should a car provide. Let’s take a look at a source of energy that is never discussed: Cold Fusion.

Cold Fusion occurs when lighter nuclei in an atom fuse together under intense heat in a reaction to form a heavier nucleus. One of the results of this fusion is the release of gigantic amounts of energy which would provide an endless source of energy to carry out the world businesses for as long as humans exist. All this by the way, at conditions near room temperature and atmospheric pressure. However, Cold Fusion has been dismissed as an impossible by the profiteers who own the energy companies we depend on to live. Government agencies have also dismissed the potential of Cold Fusion and denied funding to further investigate the possibility of developing technology that allowed us to be energy independent. Instead, they suggested a bunch of alternative energy sources that counted with their blessing such as corn-based ethanol which has proven to be a new failure.

The cold fusion researchers presenting their review document to the 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion said that the observation of excess heat had been reproduced, that it can be reproduced at will under the proper conditions, and that many of the reasons for failure to reproduce it have been discovered. Despite the assertions of these researchers, most reviewers stated that the effects are not repeatable.The 1989, a DoE panel said: “Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process”, but it also recognized that the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence. (Wikipedia)

However, for those who know what Cold Fusion is and how it works, the future is promising. Dr. Edmund Storms, a retired scientist who worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said the only problem is the attitude people have towards Cold Fusion as a source of energy. “It’s an interesting time because a number of other ideal sources are being proposed. Cold fusion is probably the most thoroughly documented at this point, but all of them have several things in common. They would be very inexpensive, pollution-free, and inexhaustible.” Questioned about whether Cold Fusion violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, which has been one of the reasons given to keep the experiments and the funding off the table, Dr. Storms says: “No one is proposing to violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. We’re talking about ordinary nuclear energy. There’s nothing magical about it. It’s the mechanism for achieving these nuclear reactions that is poorly understood at this time and, therefore, is in dispute.”

Although according to Storms neither the government nor any enterprise could practically deny access to the knowledge of Cold Fusion, anyone could seriously damage the research and progress of new technologies by claiming that the knowledge is flawed, thereby, making it harder to find funding or support of any kind.

In a book called: Cold Fusion: Secret Energy Revolution, Anthony Sutton declares that Cold Fusion is already being worked with in different laboratories around the globe and that soon, either governments or companies will come forward with practical applications. According to Sutton, Cold Fusion technology is being used by companies like BlackLight Power, Inc, Catalytic Fusion Power, Inc and financed by DARPA to produce catalytic hydrogen technology. “Free energy is here with water as fuel and will revolutionize our world. One device is the size of a thermos flask, uses water as fuel and lasts indefinitely,” Sutton declares. How many times have we heard of Cold Fusion on the news? Read on the papers? In the meantime we are led to believe that we are destined to invade middle eastern countries for their oil as the only way to secure our future energy sources. Of course of the mass population knew a little about alternative energy sources, they wouldn’t support needless wars or the drilling of National Parks or ice shells for petroleum.

Now, the subject of energy brings along a very important issue, which is exactly a consequence of energy dependence: War. If countries were energy independent, there would certainly be less conflict among them. This is because one country would not be able to impose rules onto others because they own energy sources that the other countries need. Today, OPEC controls the supply of petroleum which is vital to the commercial activity that moves the world. A handful of countries decide how much oil is produced and with that, the prices are determined. If the producers feel like they are not getting enough profits for their oil, they can simply decide to limit output so the price goes up. Although energy is probably the clearest example of how dependence causes conflict, there are countless other ones. For example, food production, manufacturing, the printing of paper money -which nowadays has turned out to be worthless, land tenure, immigration, etc.

The important point here is that war; just as many other activities, is a business. Investments are made before war occurs, so profits are expected. The best way to secure maximum profits is to invest on all sides, and that’s what history shows has happened in all major conflicts that humanity has endured: WWI and WWII are two examples. Here of course the Elite has left their Footprint stamped deeper than in any other aspect under their control. Then we have the Spanish-American as well as the Mexican-American wars which are also great examples. All armed conflicts recorded in history have come about due to the greed and evil spirit of those who seek to control us all. Although money and profits are important factors, the end goal is control. This control comes through consolidation. Armed conflicts and economic unrest provide great opportunities to bring about this consolidation and therefore control. When a country or the whole world goes into military or economic crisis, the people are the victims, while the Elite not only increases their resources tenfold, but also their control of industry, the bank system, infrastructure, military, land, and more important… Us. No example of a central government that ruled with an iron fist is responsible for an era of prosperity or bountifulness. On the contrary, it always mirrors repression, crisis, abuses, torture and inequality.

The reason why I linked war and conflict with oil, is because it is the freshest example. But the American civil war, the Spanish-American and WWI and WWII were also about influence and consolidating, a position as the world’s superpower. At the beginning of this essay I mentioned where the members of the Order came from and what type of businesses they are tied to. Nowadays, the war profiteers are weapons contractors, energy companies, security contractors, oil diggers, insurance companies and others. When a war explodes anywhere in the world, the list of companies offering their services to provide weaponry, planes, transportation, security, insurance and medical services is already typed up; and they are the same crooks who have already invested in promoting the wars during which they will provide services. When a country is dominated by the will of global corporations like Shell, NewsCorp, Halliburton, BP, GE, bankers like JP Morgan and wealthy men like Rupert Murdoch, David Rockefeller, Lord Rothchild and Prescott Bush, the decision to go to war or not isn’t made; it is imposed. Every major war has been financed by these and other families who have always held power by dominating all the sides involved in the conflicts. It’s a win-win situation. No president, prime minister or dictator achieved their goal of tyranny and control alone, there have always been the men behind the curtains who provided money, intelligence and hardware to carry out their own agenda. The group of bankers who created the private Federal Reserve, who control the Bank of England, the World Bank… is the same cabal that dictates the policies of the World Health Organization, who created the United Nations and who wrote the Nazi oriented Universal Human Rights Declaration to which they want us all to submit to.

Only those who really know history are able to envision the future; the future they want. The rest of us…, we’d better wake up and fight the bastards or we are doomed to repeat it.

Consulted Materials:

UNDERGROUND HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION. John Taylor Gatto.
AMERICA’S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT. Anthony Sutton
COLD FUSION AND THE FUTURE. Jed Rothwell
AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM. Aaron Russo
THE END OF AMERICA. Naomi Wolf
PROGRESS AND POVERTY. Henry George
THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. Adam Smith
WIKIPEDIA

In the U.S., the Establishment is on the Run

The waking of the United States of America has begun.  All over the country, incumbents traditionally in bed with corporations have been voted out of office again and again and again.  Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania and other states saw the break of dawn with different eyes as grassroots supported candidates took over senate seats from Establishment candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties.  While only a few years ago people simply could not see through the smoke screen called partisan politics, it took many Americans only six months to realize that Obama was just another disappointment.  Therefore, many of the President’s allies are now being booted out of office.  The massive awakening has started.  May this awakening serve as an example for more Americans to keep on fighting for liberty and freedom.  May this movement infect patriots in other countries so they also defeat the tyranny of the Establishment, the Globalists and their conquest agenda.

Politico

Rand Paul, the first-time candidate for elective office who has emerged as a symbol of the national tea party’s clout in Republican politics, appears to have clinched the GOP’s nomination for this state’s open Senate seat – in a victory certain to jolt the political order in Kentucky and across the country.

The 47-year-old Bowling Green ophthalmologist – who until last year was best known for being the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), whose staunch libertarian views have spawned a national grassroots following – knocked off Trey Grayson, the Kentucky secretary of state who had been the favorite of this state’s political heavyweights, most notably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“I have a message, a message from the tea party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back,” Paul, with his parents and the rest of his family by his side, declared to roaring supporters at a posh country club here in his hometown.

With his attention-grabbing views railing on Washington and its ballooning budget deficits, the fire-breathing Paul successfully connected with this state’s furious Republican primary voters, something that the more subdued Grayson was unable to accomplish in the fight to replace the retiring two-term Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.).

“The electorate is pissed,” said Mike Shea, a long-time political adviser to McConnell. “Rand did a really good job of tapping into those themes and tapping into that anger. Trey is a nice guy, but in his commercials and everything else, he seemed completely unable to generate any kind of dialogue to indicate he was tapping into that. If you meet him, he didn’t seem like he was angry.”

With 89 percent of the precincts reporting, Paul appeared poised to seize a huge victory – leading Grayson by 59 percent to 35 percent of the vote. The Associated Press projected that Paul would win the race.

A packed crowd here at the Bowling Green Country Club let out a loud cheer when the AP projected the race for Paul, who was expected to address some 100 activists here later Tuesday.

But many of the Paul supporters had expected nothing less than resounding victory.

“I kind of expected it actually,” said Brent Young, a 45-year-old tea party activist who works with a local firm researching swine production. “I’ve really been a big supporter of his dad, and I really hope he can be elected in November. Time will tell but we really do think he’s a different kind of politician – and hopefully send a message to the GOP that we want something different.”

Paul is expected to face either Lt. Gov Daniel Mongiardo or state Attorney General Jack Conway, who are in the middle of a neck-and-neck battle for the Democratic nomination. Conway’s views are more in line with the Democratic base’s positions, and he is seen by national Democrats as a safer choice. But Mongiardo is seen as more unpredictable on the campaign trail, though his conservative views that break with the White House could appeal to rural and right-leaning voters. Conway is leading the race in early returns.

While polls showed Paul building a comfortable lead in the final weeks of the primary campaign, his win is still poised to send a shockwave threw the Republican establishment. It’s the first clear statewide victory by the disparate national tea party movement, which propelled his victory based on his calls for radical reforms to Washington, including imposing term limits on senators, mandating Congress be more sensitive to its constitutional prerogatives, constitutionally mandate Congress to balance its budget and force all legislation to directly apply to lawmakers. Absent from Paul’s campaign was much focus on socially conservative and national security views that have generated enthusiasm among tea party supporters in other states.

Conway was leading the race by just two percentage points with 92 percent of the precincts reporting.

“It’s not a real good time for any individual to be in a political position,” Republican state Sen. Carroll Gibson said simply.

Tuesday’s voting turnout appeared lighter than usual in much of the state, due to inclement weather and a lack of a presidential contest this midterm season. The day was colored by allegations from the Grayson camp that Paul’s supporters had been intimidating voters outside polling stations and had improperly sought to verify that voting machines were properly being used, allegations Paul firmly rejected.

Paul appears to have his work cut out for him uniting a divided GOP electorate here. A Public Policy Pollingmemo issued Tuesday found that 53 percent of likely Grayson voters had an unfavorable view of Paul, and 43 percent said firmly they would not vote for the tea party-favorite.

In his victory speech Tuesday night, Paul said nothing about Grayson and declined to extend an olive branch to his opponent’s supporters. Instead, he launched a fierce attack on President Barack Obama, accusing him of “apologizing” to the dictators and running the country towards socialism.

Beyond that, he’ll have to face a newly energized Democratic Party, which views his victory as a bright spot in an otherwise dim election year since it puts the Republican-held seat immediately in play. Already, Democrats are planning to pounce on a number of Paul’s more politically controversial views, including his calls to eliminate the Education Department, severely cut agriculture subsidies to farmers here and his advocacy for increasing the age for Social Security eligibility.

“Sometimes people run primaries different than they run general elections,” Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of theNational Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO when asked if he were concerned that Paul’s views would make him unelectable in a general election. “We’ll see what happens.”

But Paul said he will not “weave and dodge” from the tea party’s message, and he insisted that he will not moderate in the general election.

Grayson, 38, had been viewed as a rising star in the state’s Republican Party. Young, telegenic and seen as a pragmatic-minded conservative, he is one of only five living Republicans to win statewide here, where a majority of voters are either Democratic or independent. With the quiet backing of McConnell for months, Grayson was seen as the heir apparent to Bunning’s seat.

But in the final hours of the campaign that slipped away from him, Grayson’s allies began looking back at what went wrong – and the explanations ranged from failing to account for Paul’s rise early enough, a subpar advertising campaign and a failure to effectively communicate fiscal views to the electorate.

“It seemed to me that he got off to a slow start,” said state Sen. Tom Jensen, a Republican who backed Grayson. “We never really picked up the momentum. It seemed like Rand Paul had the momentum from the beginning and just didn’t lose it. They ran a good campaign.”

And several people here said Grayson failed to push back against the notion that he was the establishment choice, a politically toxic label this election year that he could have more forcefully sought to affix to his opponent.

“He accepted the mantle of being the ‘Washington D.C.’ candidate despite Paul’s obvious ties to his father, and he ceded ground on key fiscal arguments,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist based in Louisville. “Grayson wanted this primary to be about national security because that’s where they thought they had the best opposition research. But this race was about spending and fiscal issues from the beginning, and Grayson’s lack of focus on that cost him early momentum which he never regained.”

As late as Monday, Grayson had complained that he couldn’t get traction on what he considered a key Paul gaffe: that a nuclear-free Iran wouldn’t be detrimental to national security. Paul had responded with a television ad calling Iran a threat, and the tit-for-tat never quite resonated with voters.

“We ran an ad and a quote from him saying that – I don’t know what else we could have done,” Grayson said. “On an issues discussion level, I’m not sure what more we could have done.”

In addition, Paul has positions that stray from the conservative line, including his hesitation over building a fence along the southern border with Mexico and for endorsing a federal ban on same-sex marriage; such positions didn’t seem to resonate with GOP primary voters in an election-year with many concerned about the budget deficit.

And Paul seemed to squash any momentum that Grayson seemed to muster. Last month, for instance, Bunning – who has a strong base of support in the conservative northern part of the state – grabbed headlines when he endorsed Paul, just a day after a new poll found the race tightening.

“I was very surprised because he had said to me straight up that he was going to stay out of the race,” Grayson told POLITICO about Bunning’s decision. “I was surprised. Based upon the things he said to me, I couldn’t reconcile that with what his actions were a month or so ago.”

But Paul benefitted greatly from his name identification as result of his father’s quixotic presidential run for the 2008 GOP nomination that spawned a buoyant band of libertarian followers. And he seemed to be doing something Grayson did not: speak directly to the mood of Republican primary voters angry at President Barack Obama’s agenda – and that anger seems to have cost Grayson his bid for the nomination.

“Obama is the best thing to happen the Republicans, but also the worst thing to happen to some Republican [politicians],” said Todd Inman, a Republican Party activist who supported Grayson.

But Paul credited a “nationwide movement” that helped him win his primary.
“What I say to Washington is, ‘Watch out, here we come.”