Why The Hysteria Over Syria?

If you are new to this story, understand, what is happening in Syria has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

It also has nothing to do with dead civilians.

In recent years, your lawless federal government, US Inc., has killed thousands of innocent civilians with missile strikes, paid mercenaries and drone attacks. Obama authorizes these attacks regularly. You can be certain, collateral damage is not the issue.

And it also has nothing to do with a Syrian “civil war”.

What is happening in Syria is not a civil war. It is paid mercenaries (the rebels) trying to topple the Assad government. And it is US Inc. that is funding the “rebels”. Google it and see for yourself.

Here’s a couple of articles to get you started (Article I, Article II).

Does US Inc. running guns in support of mercenaries trying to topple governments surprise you? If it does, you need to spend a lot more time here and a lot less time in front of the television. Remember, there is a reason it is called the “boob-tube”.

By the way, this gun-running fact sheds a little light on the attack in Benghazi and the killings of four Americans. True, it doesn’t explain who did it. But now you can begin to understand why the supreme ruler and Central Planning blamed it on an amateur video.

After all, who in their right mind would come clean and confess the reason a covert intelligence agent—I’m sorry, an Ambassador—and his security team were killed was because they were running guns to mercenary misfits trying to topple governments in the Middle East. No, it is much easier to lay the blame on an amateur “B” movie that was apparently so bad it drove peaceful protestors insane enough to reach for their RPGs rather than their signs.

Ask yourself this: if China or Russia or some other “villainous” country was running guns here in America trying to topple your state or local government, how would you feel? Would you take action? Don’t these folks, watching US Inc. trying to topple government after government in the Middle East, have a right to be angry? Don’t they have the right to take action?

But let’s jump back to Syria.

If it isn’t the people rising up in a civil war against their government, and it is rather, US Inc. paying and supplying mercenaries to try to topple a government, then the next question to address is why it is happening, what has Syria done?

Remember when Israel and US Inc. went public with the sales pitch that Iran was building nuclear weapons? There were calls for an attack. Well, an attack didn’t happen but sanctions were imposed against Iran and the economy in that country has been hurt.

But last month, Iran, Iraq and Syria signed a deal to build a pipeline to give Iran direct access to Mediterranean ports, thereby allowing it easier access to Euro-asian markets. Increased access to markets means increased sales.

But why does US Inc., and its controller, Israel, care whether Iran can increase gas/oil sales?

Because in March of last year, Iran announced it was going to start side-stepping the petrodollar system and start doing oil deals in currency other than federal reserve notes (US dollars).

Well, for the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and other NWO elites, who reap trillions by controlling the petrodollar system, this was way too much to handle. So Iran got put on the hit list.

Israel, the criminal capital for the NWO, and US Inc., the enforcement arm, work together. The relationship is just like Republicans and Democrats. It is the “good cop, bad cop” routine played out on the world stage.

In this case, Israel calls for blood—an attack on Iran because it will soon have nukes. The excuse has to be nukes, of course, because how can you justify pummeling Iran into the stone age just for selling its oil to China for yuan or Russia for rubles or Japan for yen? You can’t. So Iran has to become a nuclear villain.

Then, at the very next press conference, US Inc. takes the stage and announces its concern and calls for sanctions. These sanctions are put in place to punish Iran and hopefully, force it back into the petrodollar system.

But, let’s face it, if you are part of the NWO cabal, you know you have a long-term problem. Sanctions alone won’t do the trick. Iran is a big country. It sells a lot of oil. And selling oil outside the petrodollar system cuts into your profits. It cramps your life-style. It is unacceptable.

In fact, you have already showed the world this is unacceptable behavior. You whacked Saddam in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya for the same offense–stepping outside the petrodollar system.

Obviously, these messages went unheard, as apparently these mud-blood leaders in other countries just don’t get it. So, rather than an individual assassination, perhaps it is time to take down a country and send an unmistakable message to leaders around the world—fuck with our cash and not only will we whack you and your family, but we’ll destroy your country, too. Syria has been targeted because it gets the NWO cabal on the door-step of Iran.

Most of the world’s countries have turned against the NWO banksters (research BRICS for more information). Russia, as an example, paid them in full a few years back and Putin has been a thorn in their side ever since. And just a week or so ago, Hungary threw them out. The world has come to see them as the lying, cheating thieves and mass murderers that they are. It is only in NWO controlled countries, like America, where the masses still regularly fall for the ruse.

Now these countries can’t match the military might of US Inc., so a fight is out of the question. But the flow of money, on the other hand, can be altered, manipulated or shut off. And a major step to shutting off the cash flow to the NWO cabal is doing oil deals outside the petrodollar system.

This, crusaders, is what the Syria situation is all about.

The world is trying to use currency other than dollars to drive the NWO criminals into bankruptcy and submission. At the same time, the NWO inbreds are trying to force the world to keep using their money—to ensure profits forever—and will kill people and destroy countries to get their way.

Iran is the true target. Syria provides very convenient access.

Here at home, Secretary of Hate John Kerry, representing the cabal and showing off his sub-par facelift in HD for the world to see, gave a poor speech late last week and toured the propaganda press shows over the weekend to try to sell the sheeple on more US Inc. violence.

Unable to provide specific reasons why dead civilians in Syria pose a “national security threat” to Americans, Kerry relied on name-calling (Assad is a “thug and murderer”), and emotionally charged phrases (it was an “indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons) in his sales pitch. He provided no proof that it was Syrian government forces that passed the gas, none, just claims and accusations.

Perhaps it is just me, but the claim that “Syria has gassed its own citizens” sounds a lot like the claim that “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” or “Iran is minutes away from deploying a nuclear missile”. To me, claims and accusations carry much more weight when there is evidence to back them up. How about you?

What about the pictures of the victims?

Well, as it turns out, in an attempt to support the Secretary of Hate, the government goons within Central Planning circulated fake photos to reference the chemical carnage. Check that–the pictures are not fake–the photos are real–they just document the dead of Iraq in 2003, not gas victims in Syria.

But, hey—you say “to-may-to”, I say “to-mah-to”—dead people are dead people, right? Who cares that they are different victims from a different country that died from different events a decade ago.

Is this an intentional act by US Inc. to deceive the American public or just bumbling bureaucrats?

I’ll let you decide.

But it does remind me of when the propaganda press showed the innocent victim in Palestine that, after the camera man got his video shot, got up off the stretcher and walked away (LINK) or when the propaganda press used a different school to document Sandy Hook events (LINK) or when the BBC announced that Building 7 had collapsed during the 9/11 attack — almost 30 minutes before it actually did (LINK).

Using fake pictures to support a fake claim makes sense to me.

And why would the Syrian government, known for months to be pushing the paid mercenaries back, resort to chemical warfare? Why violate the supreme ruler’s “red line” and risk drawing more US Inc. resources into the fight? Assad and his merry men are winning. It is a well documented fact that they have hammered the “rebels” in cities like Aleppo, Qussair, Homs and elsewhere. Why invite more foreign intervention? This move makes no sense.

But what does make sense, especially if you are trying to topple a government and you are getting your ass kicked, is to run a false-flag operation, gas some mud-bloods, blame the other guys and then turn to the American sheeple and try to bilk them out of billions so you can step up the conflict.

You have to escalate it. The guys you are illegally funding aren’t getting the job done and it’s been a couple of years now. The longer this takes the more likely the American public will find out it is US Inc. behind this “civil war”.

It’s clear machine guns, rifles and grenades aren’t going to take down the Assad government. Obviously, larger weaponry (missiles) is needed. But, since you already sold the public on the idea that this is a Syrian “civil war”, you need an excuse to introduce the larger weapons. Even sheeple know you can’t just stick your nose into another country’s civil war. Thus, the chemical attack and cover story.

There are plenty of reports that indicate it was the “rebels” that actually used the gas. Of course, they aren’t carried by the propaganda press but if you dig deeper than Fox or CNN or CBS, you’ll find them. Indeed, Veterans Today, as well as some other online news sites, has run a series of articles drawing attention to this.

I don’t have all the answers but I offer these points for your consideration regarding Syria and why the supreme ruler and Secretary of Hate have recently started to pound their chests. Is it really about dead civilians? Is it really about a chemical attack? Or is the back story just a wee-bit more complex?

Think about these points and come to your own conclusion. Sniff around a bit. Follow your nose.

But for the record, when I inhale deeply, I smell bullshit.

GET FREE WEEKLY HEADLINE LINKS—SUBSCRIBE NOW

Ronald Reagan vs George W. Bush

Obama screwed up.  Instead of portraying Romney as George W. Bush, which has been a major campaign goal of the left, he instead tied Romney to Ronald Reagan.  Oh, Obama was so clever.  “The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back”.  The modified version of the old high school punchline is backfiring.

The problem with tying Romney to 1980s foreign policy is that we didn’t fight any major wars during Reagan’s Presidency.  Instead, our greatest enemy sat across the ocean with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us, not daring to attack out of fear of mutual destruction, until eventually they just collapsed under the weight of their own oppressive economic system.  That’s a foreign policy I could live with.

Biden Smiling

The real reason we are out of Iraq

Contrast that with Obama, who defended the Bush doctrine with his surge in Afghanistan and his own foreign policy which came across as a comedy of errors.  Obama praised himself for getting us out of Iraq.  The truth is, he barely managed to keep to Bush’s timeline.  Then Obama tried to negotiate to keep some of our intelligence troops in Iraq, but he sent “Chuckles” Biden to secure the terms and we ended up getting kicked out of the country.  After all the work, and blood, we have little influence over the direction of Iraq and we share their friendship with Iran.  Great job, Mr. President.

Romney was no cowboy in the debate.  He was calm, collected, and unfortunately even pulled his punches.  But I would feel much more comfortable with Romney sitting across the table from our foreign leaders than Obama.  Obama’s cowboyish attacks and disrespect showed the greatest evidence for why his foreign policy is a trail of failure and disaster.  We can only pray that his meetings with foreign leaders didn’t follow the same tone.

And of course we saw arrogant Obama in the debate last night too.  When he talked about killingsmiling obama Bin Laden and having Bin Laden in his sites, I had to laugh.  I’m picturing Obama with a sniper rifle.  I wonder if it was just a Freudian slip when Bob Scheiffer accidentally said “Obama’s Bin Laden”.

Commentators can say what they want about Obama’s new found aggressiveness and ability to attack Romney with zingers, truth be damned.  But I think most American families watched last night and saw a clear choice between which candidate they would like to see sitting down with Assad’s replacement to discuss the future relationship between our country and Syria, or which candidate they would like to see negotiating how we end our involvement in Afghanistan.  Or perhaps which candidate they would like to see negotiating trade with China.  I think we would prefer Reagan-esque Romney to arrogant Obama and “Chuckles” Biden.  The 21st century called, and we could use a little 80s foreign policy.

The Signs of the Times: The Eschatology of Ahmadinejad’s final Speech Before UN

The speech by the President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the 67th UN General Assembly was religiously charged. Yet, there is no analysis of this in the media. What was interesting was not that he opened with praise to Allah, but that he closed with an Islamic eschatological vision that was the point of the various injustices and failures of capitalism (and communism) his speech outlined.

Here is what he said.

Ahmadinejad said “God has promised us a man of kindness, a man who loves people and loves absolute justice, a man who is a perfect human being and is named (inaudible), a man who will come in the company of Jesus Christ and the righteous.”

He then expounded further, “He will come to return all children of Adam, irrespective of their skin colors, to their innate origin after a long history of separation and division, linking them

What if Bush had made similar eschatological condemnations of the Islamic nations and world’s leaders in their face?

to eternal happiness and joy. The arrival of the ultimate savior, Jesus Christ and the righteous will bring about an eternally bright future for mankind, not by force or waging wars, but through thought, awakening and developing kindness in everyone. Their arrival will breed a new life in the cold and frozen hearts and body of the world.”

It is a shame that the media is so religiously illiterate that they thought this was just religious rant or doctrinaire speak. All the injustices and failures he talked of were simply setting the stage for an eschatological warning to the nations of the earth that we are on the verge that Islam will reign as a punishment. These are the signs of the times.

Curiously, though I do not say this in the spirit of conspiracy, the UN transcript I’ve quoted from says the name of the individual who will come with Jesus in judgment was inaudible – more illiteracy. In fact, I heard it quite clearly. His name is also stated in the official transcript from the Iranian government.

The one who will come that Ahmadinejad is referring to is the Imam al-Mahdi, who is not mentioned in the Quran. According to tradition, the Mahdi will appear to bring justice and truth to all, when the entire world will accept Islam. His death (before the day of resurrection) will bring turmoil, uncertainty, and temptation. There is not agreement over the Mahdi’s precise relationship to Jesus, but Ahmadinejad was clear that they will appear together. The various interpretations are a denial there will be a Muslim Mahdi, since the second coming of Jesus alone will fulfill this role. Others believe Jesus will return as a just judge, but he will die after forty years and be buried in a spot beside Muhammad’s tomb in Medina that has been reserved for him.

The Imam al-Mahdi is the divinely guided one, and is a concept developed by the Shiis and some Sunnis into that of a messianic deliverer who will return to champion their cause.

What is clear, and was clear in Ahmadinejad’s speech, is that the Imam al-Mahdi will appear when the world is irretrievably corrupt. We are witnessing the signs of this time. His reign will result in a time of natural abundance, justice, restoration of faith and of defeat for the enemies of Islam.

Apart from the US representative remaining absent and the Canadian delegation walking out, the Israeli delegation was not present. The speech took place on Yom Kippur. Was this as a result of the UN organizers diplomacy, or did their fabled tolerance fail them by not selecting another date?

It is strange that George W. Bush was constantly attacked by the US media for using religion in his rhetoric and bringing America to the precipice of intolerance. Yet, here in New York this speech is not analyzed in the religious sense in which it was intended. What if Bush had made similar eschatological condemnations of the Islamic nations and world’s leaders in their face? What if a future President Mitt Romney were to outline a Mormon eschatology? Yes, violent demonstrations and flag-burning across the Islamic world.

Reality Check

As we head into Michigan and Arizona, the Republican party needs a reality check.  Fortunately, here it is:

Rick Santorum

The media is doing their best to paint Santorum as some sort of radical conservative religious whacko.  Hardly.  Santorum on social issues is saying what most Republicans are thinking.  The thing is, conservatives are scared to death of Obama winning re-election and many will gladly sacrifice what they believe to take the candidate everyone is telling them can win.  But here’s the thing, Obama’s economy has about a 26% approval rating and any Republican looks amazing economically next to Obama.  If Obama wins, it will be because he runs an incredible marketing campaign, race bates, and paints his opponents as somehow more socially radical than he is.  It won’t be because Obama saved the economy, unless moderates and independents are even more gullible and stupid than we thought.

What should keep Republicans up at night about Santorum is his passion on Iran.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.  I think they will use it on Israel if they do.  But America is not ready to commit to another war.  I think we would have to see another 3,000 US civilians die on one day before the majority of Americans get the stomach for what Santorum has been talking about.  That includes what he has talked about with central America.

Mitt Romney

Romney is uninspiring by design.  His economic plan is a mixture of timid populism.  In the end, what he is running on is his record of creating a great deal of personal wealth and success, as well as his management skills.  But Warren Buffett, another populist, has also made great personal success through good management, and I think he would be a terrible President.  If this election were solely about the economy,the DNC would be looking for a new candidate and Romney would already be the GOP candidate.  The fact is, as long as Romneyites continue to downplay social issues, they will continue to loose the support of the majority of conservatives who actually care about social issues.  Believe it or not, many Americans on both sides of the aisle hold the value of their social and religious issues higher than the economy.   For example, many pro-lifers would sacrifice a great deal of wealth to stop the murder of the unborn.

What keeps Republicans awake at night about Mitt Romney is the fact that even his economic plan has been as malleable as his social stances.  What was supposed to be Romney’s conservative strength has instead turned into calls to raise the minimum wage and tax the rich to redistribute to the poor.  In each case, this was a reaction from the Romney campaign to criticism from the left.

Newt Gingrich

Newt is the smartest candidate and he has the best ideas.  It is no secret that I believe this.  But Newt is easily destroyed by opponents and the media.  He has tried to run a cheap campaign with little or no ground game, which makes victory as visionary as a base on the moon.  Part of Newt’s problem is that now his electability is questionable instead of Santorum’s.  Newt isn’t going to win anything until he re-establishes himself as the only electable anti-Romney.  Every time Santorum wins another state, Newt’s chances dim even more.  Get ready for things to start looking real bad as Santorum wins Arizona and maybe Michigan.

What keeps Republicans awake at night about Newt Gingrich is how easily he is destroyed by negative campaigning and how weak his campaign structure is.  If Newt can’t beat the unelectable Santorum and uninspiring Romney in every state, how would he propose to beat Obama?

Ron Paul

No one ever thought Ron Paul would win, except maybe his 10% who also think that being obnoxious will win people over.  However, it has been noted that Paul seems to have a cozy relationship with Mitt Romney.  Perhaps Paul also thinks only Romney can beat Obama.  Or, as some have suggested, maybe Paul has a secret deal with Romney to secure a VP slot for him or his son.  Actually, a Romney/Rand Paul ticket would be an incredibly smart idea and might be the only thing that can bring the extremes of the Republican party back together.  The only thing, of course, other than Obama himself.

What keeps Republicans awake at night about Ron Paul is his Iran policy.  Yeah, maybe we aren’t ready to go to war in Iran like we did in Iraq.  But I also don’t think most Americans are ready to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that Iran isn’t a threat.  I think fewer Republicans have an appetite to continue the World America Apology Tour under a different name.

Barack Obama

The real reality check for Republicans should be a refocusing on Barack Obama.  Believe it or not, there are people out there who support him.  After Solyndra, Fast n Furious, reversing Mexico City policy, forcing religious organizations to provide abortion pills, Obamacare, and everything else Obama has done, there are actually cars on the road with Obama 2012 stickers on them.  Somehow, Obama still has a shot in this race.

What should keep Republicans awake at night about Barack Obama is that despite all that he has done to this country and to the rule of law and constitution, there are people who still support him.  The media refuses to vet Obama, even ignoring his radical social positions on abortion.  Meanwhile, in desperation Santorum is releasing economic plans that are going ignored by the party and media.  GOP candidates are doing a great job of getting their message out.  Unfortunately, their message is that each other suck.  Let’s hope that Republicans will find a way to inspire the entire base, and expose Obama on fiscal AND social issues.

Too Bad The Debate Won’t Matter

It is way too late in the game for the groundswell of Santorum supporters to turn back and take a gamble on Newt.  At stake is handing the Republican nomination to an establishment Republican with a liberal tax plan, timid economic plan, and nothing more than a strong business reputation to run on.  But after last night’s debate, the choice for the Republican nominee is as clear to me as the day I endorsed him.

I was proud of Newt for making a supremely important point in the debate over contraception.  The issue isn’t a debate between someone who wants to keep birth control pills legal and someone who wants to ban all contraception and chain women to the kitchen sink.  The debate is between someone who voted to make it legal for doctors to kill babies after they are born and the eventual GOP candidate who simply wants to protect religious organizations from having to pay for abortion pills.  The radical here is most definitely Obama and both Newt and Mitt pointed that out.

Santorum struck out more than once.  He came across as arrogant, angry and mean.  He has already taken a great deal of heat for dismissing unprincipled votes as “taking one for the team”.  This is the opposite of what anti-establishment Republicans are looking for.  I will give Santorum one very good mark though for making clear that when he talks about what is wrong with the family in America, he id not proposing that we use the government to solve it.  I mentioned that a couple days ago as something Santorum has not done a good job making clear.

Romney did a poor job connecting.  He has put up a conservative facade, but his opponents consistently poked holes in it.  In the end, he will keep his diehard supporters and establishment Republican allies, but he continues to disappoint.

Ron Paul continues to live in a time machine fantasy world where we supposedly can ignore what Iran is doing because we made them do it in the first place and ignoring them will make them go away.  Ron Paul does not seem to understand that on a scale of rationality, radical Islamic terrorists make the communists and fascists seem like Locke and Des Cartes.  Mutual guaranteed destruction is no great incentive for peace when offered to suicide bombers.

Unfortunately, Newt does not have the ground organization to convince Santorum voters to switch back.  But after last night’s debate, we may be kicking ourselves for a long time for overlooking him in 2012.

Ron Paul finally gets airtime in the debates

Saturday night, Paul got caught.  Santorum flushed him out, but Perry nailed it.  Ron Paul was mid-attack against Santorum for adding earmarks when the subject of Paul’s own earmarks came up.  Paul then gleefully announced that sure he added earmarks, but he never voted yes on any of the appropriation bills.  Dr. Paul, that is a smoke screen.  You put everything you wanted in bills that you knew would pass anyway, and then voted against those bills to pad your record?  Sorry, not impressed.

Things got even worse when Paul attacked Gingrich again, apparently for not being eligible for the draft.  Paul referred to deferments insinuating that Gingrich received deferments in Vietnam, and Gingrich had to set the record straight that his father was in Vietnam and Newt himself was not eligible for the draft.

While continuing unfair attacks on fellow candidates, Paul once again defended his newsletter by saying he never wrote the ones he signed or read the ones he edited.  Paul did repeat a common liberal racist claim that illegal drugs  and wars adversely affect African Americans and perpetuated the stereotype that blacks are inherently poor.  His solution seemed to be to end wars and make drugs legal, but using the racism angle is a dishonest argument.

Paul made a gaffe when he talked about the US picking up Iranian seamen, which Santorum picked up on pointing out that if Paul was in charge our men wouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Paul’s answers on economics amount to vague elitism.  Something many of us on the TEA Party side have been hungry for in Paul’s rhetoric is the what and how of what he wants to do with the economy.  Yeah we get it.  Paul is a constitutionalist.  He is the doctor of democracy and champion of freedom.  But what does that mean?  Paul’s answer, liquidate debt and cut spending.    I suppose we could all just go read his website to see what exactly he wants to cut, but I’m not convinced Paul even wrote whats on his website.  I’m sure if something objectionable was found on there, Paul would have plausible deniability.

Fortunately, Paul did basically rule out a third party run.

 

The Huntsman-Gingrich debate verdict: Take a second look at Huntsman

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and former Speaker Newt Gingrich met Monday in a one-on-one debate in a Lincoln-Douglas style format where each candidate was given five uninterrupted minutes on each topic related to foreign policy and national security during the 90-minute debate at the St. Anselm Institute of Politics, in New Hampshire. 

The debate flew along in terms of time and was brilliantly insightful.  I was extremely impressed with Huntsman’s grasp of the major threats facing the United States and his interpretation on how to deal with the challenges. The format enabled both men to explore each topic headline in depth and it was centred on substance no cheap shots were dealt by either man during the entire debate. The discussion points allowed both men to demonstrate a remarkable depth of knowledge on matters from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Iran to China.

Huntsman who wasn’t involved in the ABC debate at the weekend and has recently been involved in a spat over deciding not to be involved in the Donald Trump debate excelled throughout.  Huntsman jokingly said, “I can’t wait to compare and contrast this format with the Donald Trump debate,” Huntsman said. Huntsman was relaxed, natural, and humourous but displayed a knowledge and vision which even the most partisan onlooker could not help but admire. There can be no doubt, the former Utah Governor came off looking like one of the most intelligent, experienced people running for office possibly with the exception of Gingrich himself.

Huntsman said Iran posed a bigger problem than any other country right now, calling it the “transcendent threat” and saying all options are on the table in dealing with the regime there. He continued saying a nuclear Iran would lead Turkey and other nations to build nuclear programs. “I think all options are on the table, and I do believe we’re going to have a conversation with Israel” when Iran goes nuclear. Huntsman also said the Obama Administration missed a huge opportunity to get a foothold in the region with the Arab Spring.

Gingrich put on another masterful professorial display, he managed to speak in clear and simple terms about all the issues showing the audience the vast amount of knowledge he’s picked up and retained over decades of foreign policy work. He controversially said that the next president would most likely be put in a position to choose between assisting Israel in a ground war against Iran or standing by as nukes were unleashed from one side or the other (if not both) which could result in a “second holocaust” for the Jewish people.  One thing you have to admire about the former speaker and his campaign is that he is prepared to speak on the controversial topics that most people think privately but avoid speaking publicly on. It is refreshing to see a presidential candidate being prepared and willing to discuss them on the campaign trail

On the topic of China, Gingrich said the Chinese will be the United States’ most important relationship for decades to come. “The most important relationship of the next 50 years is the American people and the Chinese people,” Gingrich said, differentiating that from the relationship between the governments. “If you don’t fundamentally rethink what we’re doing here, you cannot compete with China,” Gingrich added. “If we do the right thing here, China can’t compete with us.” This was well received by the attentive audience.

On Afghanistan Huntsman said the United States has had success in Afghanistan, and that it should bring the troops home. “I think we’ve done the best that we could do, but I think we’ve done all we could do,” he said, repeating his past statements on the topic, which differ from his GOP opponents. Huntsman said the time has passed for nation-building and counter-insurgency, and that the new mission should be focused on counter-terrorism.

Huntsman went on to say that the United States’ relationship with Pakistan is too “transactional.” “Pakistan, sadly, is nothing more than a transactional relationship with the United States,” Huntsman said. “For all the money we put into Pakistan, are we in a better situation? The answer is no.”

During his closing remarks, Gingrich highlighted how important it was for the public to see meaningful, in-depth discussions of the policy matters which will shape the future. “This is not a reality show. This is reality.

As the moderator was wrapping up he joked with both of the candidates and the subject of doing a two person format with Mitt Romney came up. He said, “I’ll bet you ten thousand dollars he doesn’t show up.”

Following the event, Huntsman said he’d consider Gingrich as a running mate, and added that he’d like to participate in other similarly-structured debates and challenged other candidates, specifically Mitt Romney, to one-on-one issues-focused discussions.

“Based on Speaker Gingrich’s excellent performance, he is now definitely, on my short list for people to consider for vice-president of the United States,” said Huntsman, immediately following the debate.

“We’re always looking for winners and losers in these things, but I think the winners might be the American people because they actually got a sense of the world views on display by these candidates,” said Huntsman. “I think that’s a good thing and a rare opportunity in these formats … as opposed to always defining things by who is up, who is down, who wins, who loses, they actually get a little good information, which they can use to assess and analyze what the candidates are made up of, and what they may then pursue in terms of policies.”

Overall, it was a brilliant format and anyone watching cannot help but notice the quality and depth of knowledge of both men. Both men were winners merely by their participation in the debate and the quality uninterrupted time afforded by the format. Huntsman was perhaps the winner in terms of debate result, as it allowed anyone watching to see how intelligent this man actually is; he articulated his points throughout in a very polished and accomplished fashion.

I’ll go on record now and say, if Romney & Gingrich destroy each other in the primaries. Voters looking for a capable, knowledgeable alternative to President Obama would do no harm giving Huntsman a second look regardless or whether people consider him too moderate, too liberal or too conservative at present. People should be elected on ability and have the confidence that their vote could be valued as an investment in America’s future. Jon Huntsman on the evidence would represent a very sound investment for any Republican, Democratic or Independent voter.

Definitely the most enjoying debate of the election season to date, it is a pity one of the networks don’t organise a head-to-head between two candidates each night in the lead up to the Iowa caucus. This would enable all ten candidates to be afford quality time talking about the issues and not throwing out cheap shots at each other.

Foreign Policy Reveals Different Strengths

Whether or not you think the GOP has a strong field, one thing is for sure.  Any of these candidates would be better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy.  That came across clearly from more moderate voices like Jon Huntsman in addition to the two front runners.  Overall it was a great performance by all the candidates.  The contrast between the GOP field, including Ron Paul, and Barack Obama was clear.  So, here are the winners and losers:

Mitt Romney won the debate because of his smooth ability to introduce ambiguity on some issues to give all Conservatives a cushion of comfort.  See Newt’s performance below.  Mitt also took on Ron Paul and I think Mitt won that debate.  It seems pretty clear that Al Qaida terrorists and Timothy McVeigh do not represent the same sort of threat.  In fact, I would argue that lumping McVeigh, a disgruntled anti-American government citizen attacking the system, in with the 9/11 hijackers, foreign terrorists attacking and targeting United States civilians, is a very dangerous way of looking at foreign and domestic terrorism.  I sure hope we would treat a foreign terrorist crossing our border illegally differently than a citizen radical trying to build a bomb in their basement because the IRS just sent them another tax notice.

Jon Huntsman demonstrated his firm control of foreign policy issues.  I think he overcame some fears when he affirmed our strong relationship with Israel.  Huntsman also expressed sentiments on Afghanistan that have been felt by many Conservatives who were mislabeled as “neo-cons” over the last decade.  Many Conservatives supported both wars, but do not support something for nothing nation building in nations that don’t respect us and don’t appreciate the sacrifices we have made.  Huntsman turned again and again to the economy and the failures of Obama and Congress to solve the problem.  Huntsman’s point on how we leave North Korea alone because they have a nuke, but invaded Libya after they gave up their nuclear ambitions is a great diagnosis of the inconsistency in America’s position towards nuclear ambitious countries.

Newt had a great, issue free performance.  Here is the problem.  Newt comes across hawkish, and he is far too honest.  In the end, Mitt agreed with him on long-time illegal immigrants, but Mitt said it in such a way that will be taken better by anti-illegal alien Conservatives.  Newt also hurt himself by endorsing and calling for an expansion of the Patriot act.  This could help guarantee that Ron Paulites stay home and let Obama get re-elected in 2012.  What Newt should have said was that he supported the Patriot Act, but recommends examining it for things that could be eliminated or added.  I think Newt is too straight forward on a subject that honestly Americans would prefer some ambiguity on.  Same with covert operations.  His answer regarding opening our oil resources is not new, but continues to be a very strong point for him.

Ron Paul continued to solidify his base and add some fringe Conservatives who are weary enough of the wars to want to radically change America’s relationship with the world.  For these people, Paul’s angry old man persona, scoffing and reacting to opponents’ answers, and idea that if we leave terrorists alone, they will realize the error of their ways and leave us alone, will not affect his support.  Still, Paul would make a better foreign policy President than Obama.  At least his disengagement would be total, not mixed with war hawkishness like Obama’s.

Rick Perry’s substance earned him a higher spot after this debate.  I still think his idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aid resonates with Americans.  His refusal to dabble in hypotheticals about illegals who have been here more than a quarter century is going to help him as people weed out Romney and Gingrich’s immigration comments and discover the softness there.

Herman Cain did well not to hurt himself in this debate.  He has come across as unknowledgeable on foreign policy.  In this debate he showed he has a recognizable set of foreign policy principles, although he kept things pretty vague.  He didn’t hurt himself and that is a victory for him on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum comes across as a neo-con.   This debate didn’t really change that, and only a change in that perception would cause his status to change as a result of this debate.  No mistakes, but also no movement for him after this debate.  He continues to maintain that we should be paying Pakistan for friendship.

Michele Bachmann is either a career politician or has issues with comprehension.  On multiple occasions she seemed to not be able to grasp her opponent’s position.  A glaring example was when she interpreted Newt’s soft approach to long-time established illegals as some sort of call for general amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens.  She played the same role in Rick Perry’s demise, but now it seems more like a desperate cry for relevance.  Rising and falling as the Social Conservative choice at this point will require superiority on the issues, not loud misunderstanding of opponents, even though that usually produces success with the general electorate.

No matter who the nominee is, what is clear from last night is that we cannot afford four more years of Obama’s foreign policy.

And that’s time

In a short hour and a half, made up of minute responses and thirty second followups, the GOP candidates once again took the stage to answer questions from semi-respectful moderators.  In a debate most looked forward to by Ron Paul fans, Paul received very little time. We have seen pretty much all there is to be seen about candidate style, and many of these questions were repeats.  So here are the winners and losers:

The Good

Mitt Romney won this debate.  His answers were calming, yet clear and determined.  He portrayed the very stature Americans are looking for in a Commander in Chief, and he highlighted American Exceptionalism.  This area is a strong suit for Mitt, and one that does not involve any sort of past flip flops or policy changes.  His answers should give him a bump among social conservatives who are inspired by terms like American Exceptionalism.

Newt at one point had to school the moderators on war versus criminal law.  In some ways this debate seemed frustrating for Newt, but that is an aspect of him his followers often like to see.  Newt brings the fight to the moderators and to the left and usually wins.  Many of his answers were right on, but others were somewhat vague.  One thing that Newt will lose points for is how loosely he called for covert operations in countries like Iran and Syria.  This is something Newt has brought up as a policy in debates and speeches in the past, but is something better left unsaid.

Jon Huntsman did well in the debate.  The question on a tradewar with China is a favorite of most media moderators because it gives them a chance to toss Huntsman an easy softball.    Foreign policy hits many of Huntsman’s strong points without touching many of the issues that conservatives hate him for.  It won’t matter though, Huntsman is done.

The Bad

Santorum did pretty well.  He has the unfortunate bad luck of being a candidate on the back end of two long wars and sharing a policy that sounds eerily like Bush’s.  On the other hand, Santorum seemed to be saying that we need to keep funding Pakistan and being their friend because they have a Nuke.  True or not, Santorum is not going to win American hearts saying implying that we must borrow from China to pay off Pakistan to be our friend.

I have a feeling that media moderators purposefully cut Paul’s debate time short on debates like this to get his supporters riled up.  Get ready, we are going to hear about that for the next week or so.  Paul didn’t do bad for most of the debate, but some of his stances are really not correct.  The idea that the United States must capture a citizen who has declared war on the United States and bring them in to face civilian court, or that non-uniformed terrorists have any sort of rights under US law is wrong and violates precedent.  Gingrich and Perry were absolutely right on those counts.  Paul’s supporters were being their typical selves in the debate as well, to the point where the mods had to admonish them to be respectful.  They are another liability of Paul’s with the overall GOP.

Herman Cain reminded me a lot of Rick Perry in recent debates.  Without 9-9-9 to fall back on, Cain was slow in responses, vague, and seemed as though he would happily defer to a future self, surrounded by knowledgeable generals and advisers.  That’s great, but that is not leadership.  In that respect, Huntsman showed up Cain, and even Gingrich, when he said if a nuke was loose in Pakistan he would secure it.  Cain really did not give a performance that screamed “I am a leader”.  Instead, each response sounded like “How can I answer this without ruining my campaign”.

The Ugly

Michele Bachmann continues to be unimpressive and unmemorable.  She scored some points rebutting Ron Paul, but seemed to spend most of the night trying to get the moderators to let her respond to other candidates.  She also seemed to get less time.  However, I will give her a great deal of credit for her answers on ways to trim military spending without hurting the military.

Rick Perry still doesn’t debate well.  And once again he found himself as the butt of several jokes, made both by the moderators, himself, and Senator Graham.  Perry’s idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aide is a great idea, but the only reason it’s his is because he got to say it first.  Gingrich and Romeny both articulated it better when Perry was done.

But allow me a Newt Gingrich moment to say this.  The real loser was Barack Obama.  The candidates made it clear, once again, that every single one of them would run foreign policy better than Obama.  Several drove home the point that Obama had a range of good choices and bad choices and made all the bad ones and none of the good ones.  The only ambivalent candidate who actually seemed to end up on Obama’s side for some things was Ron Paul.  This is one of the aspects of Newt Gingrich’s leadership because he has focused these debates on defeating Barack Obama, and when Newt sets the tone the other candidates usually follow.

Jon Huntsman Tries to Get Traction with His Foreign Affairs Credentials

Bookmark and Share   Ahead of his giving a major foreign policy address in New Hampshire today, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman released the following web ad.

Huntsman will draw contrasts between himself and the rest of the G.O.P. presidential field by making the case that his representation of the United States as Ambassador to China and Singapore and once as Deputy United States Trade Representative, give him the type of foreign affairs experience and knowledge that few others running for President in 2012, including President Obama, have.  His case is a good one.  However few seem to be concerned with that experience and even fewer seem to think Huntsman’s experience will equate to superior handling of foreign affairs as Commander-in-Chief.

But for Huntsman, foreign affairs is probably his greatest weapon in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.  His knowledge of China is unsurpassed and at a time when the greatest to threat to America’s economic survival and strength as a superpower comes from China, such knowhow should be quite valuable.  Yet Huntsman has not been able to get voters to draw that connection.   Nor has he seemed to try to do so with any great intensity.

In his remarks today, Huntsman is instead going to try to appeal to Republicans by tapping into the weariness of the War in Afghanistan, the longest war in our nation’s history.   In excerpts released in advance of his speech, the former Utah Governor will  call for a pull back from the war in Afghanistan and the need to  “right-size our current foreign entanglements.”  But while trying to sound dove-like on Afghanistan, Huntsman will be quite hawk-like concerning Iran when he states;

“I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that,” Huntsman will say in his remarks today.

The speech also includes an uncharacteristically hawkish note from Huntsman, who says he would be willing to use U.S. military tools to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The bulk of the Huntsman foreign affairs and defense speech will outline a path to a policy that is designed to utilize  “more agility, more intelligence, and more economic engagement” in U.S. foreign policy, rather than “simply advocating more ships, more troops, and more weapons.”  That last part is a swipe at Mitt Romney who last week, set foreign affairs up to be the main topic in the Republican over the next few days, when he delivered his own foreign policy speech.  Tomorrow, Texas Governor Rick Perry is expected to deliver his own major remarks on the issue.Bookmark and Share

Believe it or not…Ron Paul could win

Ron Paul is notorious for stacking and winning straw polls.  So his latest victory at the Republican Leadership Conference comes as no big surprise.  In fact, national front runner Mitt Romney came in fourth behind Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and John Huntsman, if that tells you anything.

But this time around it just may be too early to write off Ron Paul.  In the past he was rarely taken seriously as anything more than an ultra-libertarian issues candidate.  This time, his issues speak to America’s condition as an overbloated bureaucracy in debt up to our ears, in a new war with no meaning, a weakened currency, and a whole lot of social issues that would be a lot easier to live with if the government didn’t have to take a stand either way.

Third time a charm?

Unlike 2008, we are now wrapping up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are no longer playing such a perceived crucial role in America’s defense.  Instead, we are now bombing our allies in Libya and fighting both sides of a civil war at a cost of a million dollars a day.  Unlike 2008, we are living with an administration whose deficits every year have nearly matched the entire 8 years of the Bush administration.  We have a Federal Reserve that seems out of control, especially after printing $500 billion to buy US debt under QE2.  And lastly, we have a weakening dollar which is helping to drive up commodity prices and inflation.

But in addition to the issues being more conducive to a Ron Paul candidacy, many of Paul’s liberal grass roots liberal supporters haven’t figured out yet where stands on the issues.  It never ceases to amaze me how many Obama voters would have made Ron Paul as their number one choice if given the opportunity.  My amazement stems from the fact that no two candidates could be further from each other when it comes to worldviews and ideologies.  Ron Paul’s anti-establishment, bring the troops home (something Obama promised and failed to deliver) and social libertarianism on issues like gay marriage seem to be his liberal aesthetic.  But this could give him the momentum he needs to be taken seriously.  Why?

Because there is no Democrat primary.  New Hampshire is a semi-open primary, meaning that the voters with no party affiliation can vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary.  This is sure to help Ron Paul this year as social liberals who would normally vote in the Democrat primary have the opportunity to use their vote to help decide the Republican nominee.  South Carolina is another early state with an open primary.

Many Republicans find Ron Paul to be abrasive, sometimes outright annoying, and he never seems to answer the question he was actually asked in a debate.  But with no Democrat primary this time around, it might not be Republicans who make the final decision on Ron Paul.

Potential Republican Presidential Candidate Runs Against DADT

Gary E. Johnson
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson
Bookmark and Share   While a lack of proper attention from the media prevents people from knowing the daily movements of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, he has nonetheless been crisscrossing the nation arguably more than other Republicans who, with the exception of making it official, are undoubtedly actively seeking the G.O.P. nomination.

At each of his events, and through each of his interviews, the Governor never fails to distinguish himself as the most unique Republicans thought to be seeking the presidency. He is a true Republican, who believes in the core principles of the Party and he always has. But within those beliefs exists a purity of heart that has not allowed politics to alter those beliefs and water them down.

That is why Governor Johnson recently came out in support of a court ruling which declared the military must put an end to its discriminatory policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

But the Governor suggested that President Obama‘s request to put a stay on that ruling so that all parties concerned can prepare for it is unnecessary. According to him:

“Let that ruling stand and move on,”

 Johnson added:

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has always been wrong and it is still wrong.”  “This policy is just not fair and it does not work — we need to get rid of it now.”

As a Republican, Johnson’s position on the issue puts him in the minority of the Party establishment but it reflects the purity of his interpretation of the core conservative principle which dictates that government stay out of our private lives.

His stand in defense of the rights of gays to not have to hide who they are, is just one of many breaks from the establishment of the G.O.P.. Johnson also is at odds with the mainstream of the Party establishment when it comes to his support of abortion rights and for the legalization of marijuana and prostitution. While he does not personally endorse abortion and does not encourage or participate in prostitution and pot smoking, he understands that government does not have the right to make those decisions for him.

Johnson’s stands on the issues, which include opposition to the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, will lead some to paint him as a liberal. Others will appreciate his libertarian Ron Paul-like streak. But like Ron Paul, will that appreciation be enough to overcome the Republican base in a race to be the standard-bearer of the Party?

The answer to that question relies upon two other questions.

Could the rise of TEA movement challenge the hold of the religious right enough to counter their influence over the G.O.P.? And at a time when social issues have taken a backseat to the economic crisis that we face, will Johnson’s untraditional positions on social issues be enough of a factor to dramatically hurt him after voters get to hear his commonsense conservative approach to limited, smaller government, states rights, fiscal responsibility and a free market based economy?  Afgter all, right now,  ‘it really IS the economy, stupid’.

Being one of the few libertarian thinking Republicans to be elected and reelected to govern an entire state, Johnson does bring to the table an advantage that others like Paul do not. He has proven that even with his unorthodox Republican positions, he can win widespread, popular support from the political mainstream. If he can do so on the national level is yet to be seen.  Competing for the Republican presidential nomination with these positions against an unusually large field of more traditional, well known, well financed Republican figure, will be a great challenge. But few have a better chance of facing that challenge than Johnson does.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: