Critique of the John Hankey Mitt Romney Video

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2012-10-27 09:09:41

Attachments : Kathy makes some excellent points!   mazeinamirror.blogsp…   The Cracks in John Hankey’s Exposé of Romney Romney… Hankey has some intriguing material here on circumstantial evidence for Mitt Romney’s ties to George H. W. Bush’s CIA drug-running and death squads. This includes allegations of the murdering of children, an archbishop, and priests and torturing and killing nuns in Central America, pushing crack cocaine in the U.S. (I suspect crack is military lab-designed), and killing journalists. He describes the two-shots-to-the head “suicide” of San Jose Mercury News journalist, Gary Webb, after Webb exposed CIA crack cocaine-running, and Webb’s description of the torture and killing of the Panamanian health minister after he denounced CIA drug trafficking in Panama. And I see Hankey included a couple of items on Bush Sr. and the JFK assassination that I’m not sure were in his previous films. I don’t agree with Hankey’s material on 9/11, since I no longer run with the “9/11 Truth Movement”, but had no idea Romney had been at FBI headquarters on 9/10. Hankey claims he was preparing press releases for the next day and I’d love to see his source on that. Hankey also believes Romney was involved in what he calls the “Manchurian Candidate” shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. When he says U.S. presidents know “less than 1%” of “Black Operations” (black ops) military-intelligence activities, he cites JFK as an example, but contradicts himself somewhat in that, obviously, George H. W. Bush, as former head of the CIA (and by Hankey’s just-cited allegations), knew a lot more. However, he does say that “typically” these agencies operate mostly outside of presidential “knowledge, approval, or supervision”. I believe U.S. presidents are not so innocent. JFK came from an Irish mafia family. But, obviously, he was not in on all CIA black ops. (Apropos of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, here is a YouTube discussing the same photo Hankey shows in his video: The Staged Shooting of Congress Woman Gifford’s:…) In regard to black ops, Hankey discusses the recent murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the 9/11/12 riots, and the signature black ops multi-layered deception surrounding it, culminating in Romney’s claim that such an attack would never have happened under President Romney. Hankey provides evidence that, he says, demonstrates that Mitt Romney harshly criticized Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s, televised characterization of the Libyan attack only two minutes after Clinton spoke. Hankey points out that this grievous gaffe was just another instance of arrogance on the part of leaders who know such things will go unchallenged by a callow press, as with media complicity in 9/11. I would argue that the press is more corrupt than callow.  Hankey states that this administrative arrogance is compounded by the claim, in the Romney response two minutes after Hillary Clinton’s speech, that all of Romney’s foreign policy and political advisers unanimously advised condemning the Obama administration’s initial statement on the Libyan attack. Hankey reminds us of 9/11 by pointing out that Eliot Cohen, a senior Romney adviser, was a founding member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the group that declared, along with Dick Cheney, that America needed “a new Pearl Harbor” before the advent of 9/11. John then ties up the package of coincidences by quoting Eliot’s reference to the two-minute gap in which he claims, “We were ready for a major debate on this. It just happened to blow up now.” John then notes that another Romney adviser, Richard Williamson, echoes Romney’s self-aggrandizement by observing, “There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation.”  As much as I agree that Mitt Romney is bad news, I cannot agree with Hankey’s conclusion, “Really, Richard, under President Romney, things would be different. I’m afraid they would be different. So, vote for Ron Paul, vote for Jesse Ventura, but don’t vote for Mitt Romney, whatever else you do. It’s just not right. And when this election is over, demand a new investigation of 9/11. Demand that Cheney be prosecuted for it.”  John Hankey is a talented and tireless researcher once he’s determined that someone is a “bad guy”. But he’s not so good at making that determination. He made a film for his high school students on critical thinking, but I believe we all have to be ready to take one step back and look critically at our own cherished assumptions. Such as Hankey’s claim that, in the early hours of the Stevens incident, Hillary Clinton was “unaware”  of who had gotten killed in Libya, while Romney knew full well. A few years ago, John still believed that the Clintons wore white hats and the Bushes wore black. The deep irony, here, is the circumstantial evidence that George H. W. Bush also had a drug-running partner in Bill Clinton, via an airstrip in Mena, Arkansas (search “bush clinton mena”). I make an allusion to it at the bottom of this blog:mazeinamirror.blogsp…. Or perhaps Hankey dismissed the evidence, but it’s at least as strong as his evidence about Romney.  Hankey also believed Al “$Global Warming$” Gore had the presidency stolen from him by George Bush–despite Gore’s essentially conceding the field. So, I suspect he may be caught in the “Republicans bad/Democrats good” brambles. That’s not a good place for a researcher with Hankey’s considerable brains and strong moral sense. It leads him to believe that the “two-minute gap” can only be accounted for by bad Romney plotting against good Obama to win the presidency. This is just where our world leaders like us to be. Even though I think even this wise blogger’s glasses are still too roseate, I’ve come to agree with his opening statement:…

I do not believe in accidents. I used to. I believed in accidents as a child. In the years before my exposure to realities of our world, I believed in the power of chance and the power of unanticipated outcomes as the defining narratives of our time. I wouldn’t say that was the same thing as believing in Santa Claus or a State Department proclamation about spreading democracy, but it was a naivete unfit for my transition to adulthood.On the other hand, it would be unwise to be smug, to feel I have The Big Picture. I will always be unlearning something I once thought I knew. For awhile, I believed Jesse Ventura might be “the real deal” because I was impressed with his besting (or seeming to) Alex Jones when Ventura argued for Judy Wood’s findings about 9/11. I figured that Ventura going counter to the Official 9/11 Truth he’d promulgated on that ultimate oxymoron, “TruTV”, was a sign of his authenticity. So I believed Jesse Ventura’s claim, to Alex, that his contract was inexplicably not renewed for the next season. But when he started sounding like a mad dog, barking about leaving “fascist America” and becoming a Mexican citizen (after losing his fabricated lawsuit against the TSA) and wanting to be the first U.S. ambassador to Cuba, I realized he was just another rung in the ladder to global government. He, also, like Truther hero, William Rodriguez (whose spell I was under for awhile), was a Hugo Chavez groupie. The Chavez who recently endorsed Barack Obama.mazeinamirror.blogsp… the “Occupy” world “revolution” in service to Agenda 21.  Like Jesse Ventura, Ron Paul is controlled opposition, but a much slippier fish. He’s not a voluble Navy SEAL/wrestler. He places himself in situations where he can smoothly and safely back-flip when his position is too controversial. Yet he keeps company with Luciferians,… Paul is not alone in his predilections. In fact, if you do enough research (and you don’t have to look far, anymore), you’ll find it’s the Judas Grail that explains why presidents and presidential candidates are involved in drug running, torture, murder, and more, in the first place. Here’s a blog discussing possible evidence for Ron Paul’s being a Freemason:angelbabe43.wordpres… John Hankey glimpses these iniquities (as when, in this film, he revives the idea of blood sacrifices touched on in his movies about the JFK and RFK murders), but veers off by blaming individuals like Dick Cheney (or Romney or Bush the 41st or 43rd). This willful ignorance allows him to cling to the notion that Cheney masterminded 9/11–a position that most “9/11 Truthers”, as he proclaims himself, have left behind. A lot of his other notions about that event are discredited in the eyes of many of his Truther colleagues.  I love John Hankey’s movies about the JFK and RFK assassinations (where he goes into much more detail about George H. W. Bush) and, back when he produced them, his films about 9/11. But he can’t seem to break his own glass ceiling of naivete. This reminds me of Bob Dylan’s words in “My Back Pages”, “Lies that life is black and white, spoke in my skull. I dreamed romantic facts of musketeers foundationed deep somehow. “If John Hankey applied his principle of “critical thinking” to the truths at which he phobically glances, he’d see that we stand on a spinning Glass Onion of infinite layers. Which is why John Lennon, a devotee of master Satanic magician, Aleister Crowley, sang, “I told you about Strawberry Fields, you know the place where nothing is real…”I would definitely recommend John Hankey’s DVDs, Dark Legacy, JFK II: The Bush Connection, and The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Jr.

Related articles...

Comments are closed.