Foreign AffairsMarch April issue 2011 Essay on the Tea Party
The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy.By Prof. Walter Russell Mead, (CFR) Prof. of Foreign Affairs & Humanities at Bard College.
Commentary on Russell’s essay by Dr. A. H. Krieg CMFGE Part one One would really think that a professor would at least be scrupulous in his research before writing for such an academic publication as “Foreign Affairs”. Apparently not the case here! Who is the editor? Why has this essay not been edited? To writ:
The Boston Tea Party was organized on Oct 23 1773 and carried out on December 16 of that year by the “Sons of Liberty” who were an outgrowth of a Masonic organization that called themselves “Caucus Pro Bono Publico” Their spokesman was William Molineux. All participants were members of the Lodge of St. John of Boston Massachusetts who for this occasion dressed up as Mohawk Indians. Sam Adams was one of the leaders and a member of the Lodge of St. John There is nothing ambiguous about these facts.
The Edenton Tea Party that was organized by women on Oct 25 1774 was essentially a boycott of English produced cloth. Its leader was Penelope Barker who has recently been brought to the forefront by the gender equality movement (The Feminists) as the great heroin of the Revolution, before 1970 she was totally unknown. (We must be PC)
The statement made in paragraph 3 relating to the Tea party (backed by wealthy sympathizers) is second-rate propaganda. Making such an unfounded accusation is not even good propaganda, especially if it is not backed up by naming any of them. . The then anticipated attack on FOX news simply places the author on the far left political spectrum. FOX is the only network that employs commentators identifying with the political left, as well as right and Democrats as well as Republicans. A situation that is most certainly not applicable to MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, (who just fired Juan Williams for not toting the progressive line) or NBC.
Paragraph four states that “The Tea Party has been the most controversial…” Pray, please; tell us exactly what is controversial about the Tea Party. Then the slander begins again naming the source as “opponents” Please, Please you are supposed to be a professor, you claim the mantle of academia, give us a break, if you have no source shut your loud mouth, “racist” where did that come from Nancy Pelosi? Reactionary, really (one who favors reaction, esp. in politics and policy) [Miriam Webster] I must assume that you are using the term in the light of the communist interpretation, [Russian Revolution Lenin] which would mean opposition to the established cabal? “In a futile protest against the emerging reality of multicultural, multiracial United States and a new era of government activism”. [Government activism = socialist progressivism] Really, did you perhaps miss the black entertainers and speakers, on the podium? Did you notice the last mid term election? So according to your academic views it’s all over, America is to become a multicultural socialist progressive crime infested cesspool just like the southern part of Africa. I hope not to be around to witness it, but you being younger will see your wish come true if not in reality, then in your liberal mind.
In paragraph five you continue your slanderous attack, I’m just sorry not to be a member of the Tea Party, because it would give me grounds for one hell of a slander suite. According to you the Tea Party is made up of: “unreconstructed racists” name one! “Fiscally conservative housewives”, well let’s just slander everyone including our mothers; also please do tell us what and why you don’t like housewives. My mother was one, as is my wife, and both are a lot smarter than you judging from this article.
In Paragraph six we are informed that Glen Beck is the most visible spokesperson (well we could not possibly call him a spokesman that would not fit into your little PC [Cultural Marxist world], now would it. Beck is an opinion jockey and is a damn sight brighter then you are sir, but he is most certainly not the spokesman for the Tea Party. By Ayn Rand, I assume you mean the author Alice Rosenbaum of Libertarian and Atlas Shrugged fame. Then we learn that Glen Beck has an audience of only 2.6 million average, too bad you could not put that in light with the time and with other hosts, say on MSNBC that have a listener ship of substantially less than half a million. I’m getting to the point here that I hope you can visualize, that your article is not exactly an objective piece of journalism, but then you are not a jaded journalist are you, more like a CFR propagandist.
As I could have predicted in paragraph 7 you then “target” (ups sorry) Ron Paul, and his Senator Son Rand Paul and claim them to be “resurrecting isolationism” Say you would not just want to put up or shut up, would you? I have known Ron Paul for many years and have never once heard him espouse any isolationist rhetoric. (Is that the very same Ron Paul who won the C-PAC annual get together presidential poll by a huge margin for the second time)? Perhaps you should simply stop listening to the pundits and academics and simply listen to the facts as espoused by the speakers, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and Glen Beck, Bill O'Reiley rather than repeating the same tired progressive propaganda arising from pundits who also did not listen to their programs. Your comment relating to Sarah Palin having an Israeli flag in her Alaska governors office is a low blow, considering that the CFR and AIPAC have more in common that a pair of Siamese-twins (sorry again).
I’m truly crushed that you also dislike Christine O’Donnell, what can I say, I do know it’s hard for you lefties after all your women are dogs, think of Bella Abzug, Betty Freedman, Gloria Steinem, Germane Greer, Gloria Anred, Naomi Wolf, I’m sorry just the thought of waking up next to one of those mavens of the left the morning after, could be cause to chew your arm off before seeking out the door. .
To then claim in paragraph nine that the Murkowski win in Alaska is reason to disqualify Palin’s picks, when her chosen for supporters won almost all electoral contests, as well as disqualification for the Tea Party is so blatantly stupid I won’t even comment on it. Especially since the Alaska election was very close and there is ample reason to suspect considerable vote rigging. The additional fact that Tea Party candidates virtually swept the House in the biggest upset election since 1938 appears to not have impressed you at all.
Propaganda peaks in paragraph ten where we learn that the Tea Party is the party of “NO”. And furthermore is an evil populist and nationalist political insurgency. Gee-whiz, I was not aware that being a populist [member of the people’s party, or doctrine of the people (Merriam again)] carried some derogatory connotations, but then I’m not an academic progressive all of whom look down their disjointed noses at the people. I was under the impression that being a nationalist was a good thing, but of course all those people are simply hateful opposer’s of the 24 million illegal’s we now have due to government policies that cost us billions in additional taxes. And I thought that an insurgency was from the outside, so how could a populist (peoples) nationalist (of America) be an insurgency? Oh, and just by the way, if you think of the Tea Party as the party of “No”, then let me put that into an idealogic perspective for you; No to more spending, No to larger government, No to higher pay for academicians, No to tenure, No to sabbaticals, No to more and higher taxes, No to more fees, No to new taxes, and No to you!
Getting to the nitty gritty, we learn in paragraph eleven, that the Tea Party has a crude understanding of the politics of the American Revolution. Well, in all probability as we learned from the first paragraph in this response probably less crude than your own understanding. By the way I was not aware that the American Revolution was part of the discussions held by Tea Party members at any of their functions, do you perhaps have some new insight into this, and would you be willing to share that with us? You know, instead of just making vague and unsupported statements, how about some meat and potatoes of real facts. And a huge yes to “resentment” of the people to an “overpaid, well-connected” not so well bred, [CFR, TC, The Order, Bilderbergers, Bohemian Grove, WEF cabal] who is lording it over the people that frankly have just about had enough of it.
In paragraph 12 we learn that one of the true heroes of America, Andrew Jackson (Old Hickory) was an evil man for shutting down the second attempt by the Rothschild’s with aid of their American counterparts [Nicolas Biddle of Philadelphia] to take over the American economy, The Second Bank of the United States. [Might I suggest that you read up on the three attempts on Jackson’s life by these “Bankster Ponzigonifs”]? But I fully understand that in your mind the FRS instituted by Wilson, under the tutelage of his alter ego and agent of the Rothschild Banks of Europe, Colonel House, the ultimate progressive socialist was a windfall for our nation. After all they have since February 1913 manipulated one financial disaster after another and have personally come out on top every single time, while that hateful mob the people of America got the shaft each time. Perhaps you have not noticed that the rich are getting richer and the rest of us poorer. Being somewhat insulated in your academic cocoon, you were probably not be apprised of this. Then we learn from your abundant knowledge of history that populists engaged in lynchings, just as a favor could you please site some examples, especially in this century?
We have now learned that the Tea Party is to be called the Jacksonians. Thanks, I think just based on the name, I’m inclined to join. Unfortunately your very next issue of paragraph 13 (you must be beginning to think this was an unlucky effort) I found out another new fact that seems to have been overlooked by the Tea Party members, I refer to their lack of enthusiasm in cutting middle-class entitlements. See here; I have some serious problems with all you academics. I’m on Social Security and while the economy is crashing all about me and inflation is at over 10% I have not seen an increase of my payments for the past two years and have been told there will be none through 2012. Oh, and just so that you understand, I paid into the system for 37 years, my wife for 22 years, I was self employed all that time so I paid double, none of us were paid interest on the monies that the government confiscated over the time and we get a lousy $1,800 between the two of us per month. Perhaps that’s because the SS Trust fund was raided by congress [now containing only IOU’s] to provide monies for among other things the outrageous salaries and benefits, sabbaticals and teniure granted to academics. And don’t try to counter that, I lived in Woodbridge, CT outside New Haven for 19 years.
Jacksonians we learn in paragraph 14 regard “supposed experts” with suspicion. Brother you finally got something right. You go on to say that the populace (us) believes that these people are on an agenda to advance their own class. Right again. After all what is the purpose of all those secret and semi-secret organizations that periodically meet keeping us out through their close relationships with police agencies that they control. You know you are a member of the guys on 68th street in NYC just one of those agencies. You also know the others, the Bilderbergers, The Bohemian Groove (probably above your finacial ability to apply for membership to) The Trilateral Commission, and of course The Order (but then even you did not possess the connections to be granted membership at your Alma Mater) if you can afford a trip to Davos the WEF might have you. I hear it already, “Conspiracy Theorist”, OK, I don’t mind, because by this time all the intelligent populace (us) fully understands that there is a conspiracy and it is headed up by the banking cabal monopoly and supported by their academic and media toadies. Just check out the leadership of the CFR and their memberships in other clandestine operations, and in banking.
I’m sorry to be so critical, but your economics understanding is rather weak, not to worry, you can still teach it, after all our president taught Constitutional law for years and knows next to nothing about it. Your assertion that, “the federal deficit produces economic growth” is the assumption made by John Maynard Keynes the Fabian socialist who introduced his false and since then proven failing economic theory in July 1944 at the Bretton Woods conference in The Mt. Washington Inn in NH. The American Delegate to that meeting was Harry Dexter White a Soviet communist agent. [i.e. a socialist]. The falsely propagated in academia and distributed by the media, theory that spending money you don’t have, borrowing it from Banksters at inordinate interest rates (The National Debt now consumes over a quarter of all collected taxes) and shipping all your manufacturing enterprises to foreign shores, [Free Trade] is best explained by a quote from Thomas Jefferson. “Those who do not manufacture will become the colonies of those that do!” The theory, and its not even worthy of that epitaph, that exporting manufacturing jobs raises the standard of living can only be labeled ludicrous! It is as we understand a viable belief in academia, but then, none of you have ever met a payroll, had to pay your quarterly federal payroll deduction taxes, had to make a profit while facing enormous competition, or manage anything but a simple classroom full of students, while being overpaid for the effort.
In paragraph 15 we learn that Jacksonians reduce the abilities of the elites to make policy and shape national debates. Well thank God (sorry) that we the people still have voice. The unparalleled incompetence and arrogance of the elites has led this nation to near collapse. Your comment that, “the rejection of the scientific consensus (is that in your mind, or is it just academics in Sodom on the Potomac) on climate change…” (Say last week it was global warming) which is not a consensus anyplace but at the UN and has been disputed by over 1,000 real scientists, not lecturers, readers, or teachers of humanities. You bet, and if you also tell us that this has been one of the coldest winters in four decades and the reason for that is global warming, then I’m sorry for the students that have to suffer listening to your drivel. The high time for the academics, elites and members of the self appointed intellectuals has arrived, it would be nice if you all could just sit down and shut up, there is no way that the people of this nation could screw up things any worse than what your clique” has accomplished in the last five decades.
In 16 we learn that our notion that Washington is corrupted beyond a realistic comprehension and that Washington’s acts and means are not misguided or corrupt must be news to every reader that has any common sense. What you seem not to grasp from your ivory towers is that the people have had it with you and your toadies. You teach our kids stupid, failing, socialist crap. You walk around with your noses in the air, faintly looking down on Americans. You are a bunch of arrogant ner-do-wells who without tenure would probably be cleaning out stables. Not one of your ilk could run a two person candy store and make a profit. And you’re right you had better see about the consequences because if we win and any of my sons or I are in charge you will all be looking for new employment, one in which you will have to actually work.
Part two. The Populist Cold War
In paragraph one of the second part of your essay I have learned that I am a Westphalian in my worldview. I’m perfectly happy with that. I think we should mind our own business, and as TR said, “carry a big stick “ and frankly beat the hell out of anyone who tries to do us harm. I do not believe in limited wars as in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyplace, the reason for war is that when diplomacy has failed you beat the crap out of whoever did something to you and then you go home and forget all abut it. The concept of bringing democracy (and just by the way America is a Republic not a Democracy) to any third world hellhole is a waste of our time and resources.) Vietnam and Korea was the failure of the elites in the 20th, and Afghanistan is the failure of the elites in this century, Iraq we don’t yet know. So long as your policies of limited wars continues we will have one after another of these fiascos. Didn’t Geroge Vidal say something about that? Oh, yes, “Perpetual war for Perpetual Peace”, you should read it.
In paragraph two I was surprised to learn that your knowledge of WWII is even more vacuous that that of the American Revolution. “The Japanese solved Roosevelt’s problem by attacking Pearl Harbor” Well, they did do that, but only after FDR made it impossible for them to continue living without doing so. Have you, per chance, read the over 20 points as presented to Japan for the continuation of peace? Are you aware that the Nazis had the transatlantic cable bugged and listened in to Churchill telling Roosevelt on November 28th that the empire of Japan would attack Pearl Harbor in the beginning of December? [Read Gestapo Chief East by Gregory Douglas] Roosevelt whose entire administration by its second term was run by and controlled by the CFR forced the war in the Atlantic as well as the Pacific. [Read Prof. Carroll Quigley’s book Tragedy & Hope) Are you aware that the Diaspora declared war on Germany in 1933 one year before Hitler’s election to the Reichstag? Did you know that FDR’s VP Henry A. Wallace was forced from office because he was a friend of Stalin (Uncle Joe to you leftists) one of the greatest mass murderers of all time, and was a card caring communist. The thought that a ueberleft like FDR would even consider a harder line with Stalin is silly, Churchill, yes Stalin no. FDR was literally in love with Stalin, consider the fact that he supported England and France against Germany based on the German invasion of Poland that was invaded at the same time by the Soviets, why didn’t they declare war on Russia at the same time? . Could it have been because the Diaspora was located in London and was in the midst of moving to NY?
In the third and fourth paragraphs we are finally treated (oh, but Prof. Quigley (CFR) would be so pleased) to the “Great Revelation” no—admission of the ever-present desire as outlined in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s (CFR, TC, Bild. BG) “The Anglo American Establishment” of the yearning by the elites of England and America to rule the world. None other than Dean Atchison (CFR) is the assumed bearer of those tidings, which you so aptly phrased. Thank you for confirming the reasons for our very deepest distrust of the CFR. Arthur Vandenberg’s (CFR) incursion later resulted in the dubious CIA (The agency that took over the OSS because Truman had to disband it due to the fact that most of its agents were card caring members of the communist party) practice of inflating Soviet abilities thereby scaring the poop out of Joe citizen, so that the military industrial complex could continue to reap maximum profit from the American middle class for the entire duration of the “Cold War”. The middle Class has always been the sucker in the end. Then came the Marshall Plan out of a secret study group at the Pratt House, all this may be verified by a series of CFR reports beginning in 1941 with P-B23 to E-B34 that you may verify through (minutes S-3 6 May 1942 Notter File) The CFR boys of this venture were Bowman, Davis, Hull, Pasvolosky, Tailor and Wells all of whom reported directly to FDR.
As we now learn all of these machinations worked very well for you guys until the “Sleeping Dogs” began to awake. Most of us now fully understand the variance between the Soviet Empire that has been traded for Terrorism (Fourth Generation Warfare) so as to keep yourselves in power, maintain the production capacity of the “Military Industrial Complex” and the middle class at the brink of poverty, dumbed down by a worthless education system, and a spiraling debt to your banker associates. Very good reality, the Soviet fabrication was a nation that could be defeated; terrorism on the other hand is an idea, which is self perpetuating thus having an almost infinite life. You guys must have read Geroge Orwell’s 1984 and I suspect even Eric Hofer’s, The True Believer.
As you state, the success of Mao Zedong’s revolution in China was the fault of Truman who stopped supplies to the Republic of China that was in fact winning the war until your favorite “Uncle Joe” came to Mao’s aid. No use crying over spilt milk. The then, in the 50’s appearance of the much-maligned Senator Joseph McCarthy whose every pronouncement was later supported by the Venona papers (Feb. 1 1965 FBI release) seems however to be missing from your dialogue.
I’m so sorry for yet another correction in paragraph seven. GATT (The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) had nothing to do with the Soviets or foreign policy. GATT was initiated as the first step in a series of moves to de-industrialize the West. Others were WTO, then NAFTA then CAFTA to destroy America’s ability to manufacture. In 1950 American industry (industrial manufacturing) accounted for 24.7% of American employment today when imported components are removed from the numbers American manufacturing is down to 10%. Soon we will only have lawyers, academics, and politicians, and we will be a colony of China. The Marshal Plan by the way had absolutely nothing to do with Latin America, Africa and Asia.
The last part of this section is infantile. To mention the collapse of the Soviet Empire without even mentioning the man responsible, President Ronald Reagan is a travesty. And to then claim that the Soviet Empire collapsed because of trade polices as instituted by the CFR is laughable. I at first though that this was an intellectual exercise but now understand that it is nothing but cheap propaganda. Your repeated dream of creating a New World Order, your words “liberal and cosmopolitan world order”, actually stems from speeches made by Mussolini, You can verify that by reading (sorry its only available in German) Mussolini Lebensgeschichte by Sarfatti (Hese & Becker Verlag Leibzig 1927.
Part three After the End of History
Paragraph one; Seems to me (again) that the Soviet empire did not collapse in 1991 due to some inexplicable reason, it collapsed because president Reagan forced them to spend themselves into bankruptcy. I fully understand that liberals hate Reagan, but rewriting history to meet your personal outcome goals is not a viable option. Your new name for the New World Order (Liberal World Order) will not wash any better than global warming and climate change, we all understand what you guys want and we are going to resist that to our last dying breath. It is now also common knowledge that you simply replaced the “Evil Empire” with Terrorism to allow you to manipulate society of the West, and stay in power.
I must say that in foreign policy the entire CFR and all its TC and other auxiliary organizations remain as clueless today as you have demonstrated being, for the immediate past. It seems to me, as an outsider, that policy is driven by factors that I would not even consider in reaching a decision. The entire concepts of U.S. CFR policymakers seems based on perception of world governance, world military strategies, and rather than initiating policy they operate on a reactionary footing. You cannot be a world leader as a reactionary; leaders don’t react to situation they cause the situations to happen. But I am remiss, we have no leadership in congress or the executive and that is our primary problem.
In paragraph 3 you indicate that there is much obstruction to CFR worldview indicating this to be an anomaly in CFR planning. You site Senator Jessie Helms (why did this wonderful man have to die? He was the ultimate nemesis of everything you guy’s stand for). Pay UN dues? Hell no! Get us out of the UN; it is a worthless debating society, whose principal purpose is the employment of scores of bureaucratic diplomats, whose primary function seems to be scofflaws in NYC for parking tickers. What has the UN accomplished since its foundation—well, if my calculations are right about 100 wars. The senate recoiling from the Kyoto Protocol was one of the only bright things of that year. (Ozone Al was dismayed, but hardly as much as when his phony climate exchange in Chicago and London went belly up) (I hope you were not one of the foolish investors) This then brings us to NAFTA.
NAFTA was the worst agreement that the United States engaged in, in the nations history. Clinton’s folly was only surpassed by the stupidity of G. W. Bush, in enacting CAFTA. So that you and you cohorts can become acquainted with unpublished but by me, facts relating to NAFTA, let me educate you.
• Before NAFTA was enacted the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of $5.7 billion per year.
• This trade surplus rapidly fell and after two years was in deficit.
• After six years the deficit was over $ 50 billion per year.
• Today the Mexican trade deficit runs between $60 and $70 billion annually.
What NAFTA did was to turn a positive situation of 5.7 billion dollars trade surplus with Mexico, in our pockets, to a catastrophe of an almost 80 billion dollar loss. Then to compound the stupidity the CFR they got gormless G. W. Bush to expand that failure with CAFTA. Yes I know you’re not finished, Obama another CFR controlled fool, is now in the act of expanding “Free Trade” you’re “Trojan Horse”, of America’s deindustrialization to South Korea. (Boy the auto industry especially Government Motors, of which we own 61%, will be delighted) All this leads me to a very relevant question; does anyone in your organization know how to add? Yes, Yes you succeeded with WTO and liberalized international trade. The problem is, that like all trade agreements it was written by lawyers employed by the NGO’s who are the only beneficiaries of it. WTO is a treaty made by and written by multinational corporations, for their benefit, and in order to freeze small business out of international markets. Since the enactment of WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA America has lost thousands manufacturing enterprises and about 10 million manufacturing jobs, the highest paid employment in the blue Collar trades. (You did well)
9-11 certainly did bring changes, but before we even continue, I think I should be up front and point out that I do not believe the government version of it, along with over 1,000 architects, engineers, and scientists. So, in my mind any discussion on this issue should be prefaced with a statement that we do not know who was actually responsible and that most of the reported information can be proven to be bogus. The fact that there is a large segment of the population (over 50%) that thinks this was a false flag operation cannot be overlooked. As Ronnie used to say “there you go again”! G.W. Bush (The Order) should have done what Truman did, (what he was told to do by the CFR). Energizing the American people to support a far-reaching program of building, yes, yes your “Liberal World Order”. Say, this is getting somewhat repetitive. Were you in a previous life, at one time in the Roman Senate? I seem to remember someone there who ended every paragraph with the same slogan. Ahh, now I also recall, someone who said “If you repeat the same lie often enough people will come to believe it” lets see, oh yes, it was Dr. Goebbels. To then claim it was the conservative right that wanted a war with Iraq is simply beyond the pale. It was the neo-cons, a bunch of rabid zionist CFR, TC, Bilderberger and Bohemian Grove members along with AIPAC and the entire Israeli lobby who wanted this war. You can’t possibly say that you don’t’ remember the New Jerusalem (New American Century) report, the documents from Richard Perle and the bizarre false accusing by your CFR chum Colon (well that’s what I think of him) Powell. (Half hour presentation to the UN general assembly, all lies) It was certainly not the political right or the political left (Ron Paul (R) and Denis Kucinich (D), both anti war, both presidential candidates 2008) that were vociferously opposed to the war. The war was the result of Mossad misinformation accepted by the CFR who then had their water boy Powell set the war up in the UN.
What you seem to think you know about the Obama administration is based solely on misinformation, propaganda, and second rate journalistic reporting. Obama is not a leftist he is a stalwart socialist if not communist. He unflinchingly wants to secede American predominance in military, political and social issues to an international cabal, as has been the policy of the CFR from day one of their inception. Wilson was without doubt one of America’s worst presidents. He was the dupe of his alter ego Colonel House, an agent of the Rothschild’s of Europe. (Read his book Philip Dru Administrator to understand that issue) It was Wilson who tried to get America into the League of Nations in Geneva that thank God (sorry) the Senate dumped. We were not so lucky the second time around, and the great useless debating society (full employment for diplomats) was joined, costing America billions in the bargain for no political gains or peace whatsoever. The Global War on Terror, i.e. Terrorism, (fourth generation war) is by the way, the direct response to American foreign policy as conceived by the CFR “Study Groups” which in the latter 20th century came to be under the control of the zionist neo-cons. Terrorism is caused solely by American foreign policy, which since 1948 has been so one sided in favor the zionist socialist theocracy of Israel, as to make one blush. Remember if you’re old enough that before 1948 America did not have one enemy in the entire Middle East, it took Truman’s acceptance of $ 500,000 for the DNC to recognize Israel to do that.
To then imply that Obama has a foreign policy is ludicrous. His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s entire foreign policy experience is eight years as the wife of the president; she does not even to my knowledge speak one foreign language. There are in fact no policies in this administration save a concerted effort to destroy this nation and what it stands for. Foreign affairs, Energy, Domestic policy, Manufacture, Agrarian, Infrastructure, Education, every issue that confronts America has seen the appointment of Czars that have never worked in any of the fields, and if they did, like Amy Duncan, administered the greatest failures of America, resulting in nothing but disappointments. This administration is and has been running for office for the last four years, and has continued to run for office in its entire first term. The liberal left has made a shambles of America, a mess out of our nation, and is directing this nation into a socialist catastrophe. There is not one, NO, socialist system that has succeeded in world history, regardless, you and your brain-dead academics are at the forefront of pushing this failure on us.
Part three The Tea Party Challenge.
Attempts to forecast anything, even if a crystal ball is available are foolish exercises. But I can tell you that the rule of American Foreign Policy by academics and the CFR will become very limited if the Nationalists and Tea Party are successful. The accumulated failures of these elitists have reached the point of intolerance for the rest of us. Perpetual war for Perpetual Peace is no longer an acceptable means of managing America’s foreign policy. Stationing American soldiers in over a hundred nations and the costs this produces is not a continuing option. Placing American soldiers in Europe, and Japan which are more than capable of defending themselves is out. Wars of conquest are out and done with. And we are not the world’s police force. Attempts to clothe these issues in fancy language like Wilsonian, Jacksonians, and other anachronisms will not work either. The then brought in conclusion that Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and Bill O’Reilly represent some sort of uniform opinions relating to American foreign policy is so badly mistaken, that I won’t even comment on it. These three people are miles apart on the issue of foreign policy; in fact I don’t even think Sarah Palin has with the exception of unilateral support of Israel, a foreign policy position. It would appear to me that you listen to commentators and pundits that blather about the political opposition rather than listening to what that opposition is actually saying. Listening to the “lamestream” media is not particularly intellectually edifying.
The assumption that the political right is split on the issue of Middle East policy is accepted as fact. But, America’s relentless unflinching policy of supporting Israel regardless of what that nation does is running out of time. This charade that was begun in 1948 has seen unflinching support of Israel even after the USS Liberty, Pollard, Rosenberg, and an endless Mossad directed policy against America incidences, is in my opinion on its last leg. The principal issue is not related to foreign policy at all, as we all know, indeed it is the issue of the huge payola political contributions by Jews (AIPAC) to elect Jewish legislators, and to the CFR and TC. Over 40 legislators at this time in congress and over 70 in the executive, we won’t even address the judicial branch at this time. This in fact is not that un-similar with Germany in the 1920, and we see what the outcome of that was. Terrorism as stated before is not a real issue. Terrorism was instituted through clever political manipulations in order to replace the “Evil Empire” as the adversary so that the Hegelarian Dialectic can continue to be used to manipulate the Populi. (Shades of 1984)
The belief that the public will continue to support Middle East incursion is relenting. I do not think that the public will continue to support these wars in favor of Israel’s planned hegemony of the Middle East. (Greater Israel) Their and the CFR’s attempt to involve America in a war against Iran has to date failed, but not without extensive misinformation published by the Mossad and distributed by their media empire.
It seems to me that you confuse nationalism and self-preservation with isolationism. American foreign policy should be first about America, second about America, third about America and after that other considerations. The CFR has followed a policy of internationalism, globalism, and multiculturalism, for the last 60 years, certainly since after WWII. This has led us to near bankruptcy and economic collapse; we can do better by perusing a new and different direction, one that favors “America First”. The “Trojan Horse” of the CFR, TC and all the rest of the elites of the “Free Trade” scenario are gradually being exposed as the plan to de-industrialize the West, for the profit of multinational business, something you should be well aware of, as it is a CFR construct. The idea that this will lead to isolationism is wrong, what it is intended to lead to is honest trade policy (free trade without government interference) that is favorable to America rather than some foreign state. We all fully understand that WTO, GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA and all the rest of that garbage was written for and by NGO’s in order to eliminate their smaller and more nimble small business adversaries and has been incredibly successful in this endeavourer. Since the enactment of NAFTA we have lost thousands American manufacturing plants and well over 7.5 million blue-collar jobs. I well understand that as an academic with tenure you could care less about blue-collar labor, but as one who for 37 years employed over 100 of these fine Americans I can only say that I remain dismayed by your attitude.
The fact that Jews have been the predominate factor of American foreign policy does not come as news to anyone. They also control the media, banking, and in large part the political dialogue. As stated before, much as they did in Germany in the 1920’s. All this has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with zionism. Zionism contrary to commonly accepted opinion, not a religion, not a race but a nationalistic outlook with perseverance to Israel, a socialist theocracy. So long as the CFR refuses to acknowledge this fact no progress will be forthcoming in the Middle East. We see therefore, that contrary to your thesis, it is not Reagan Democrats, Roman Catholics, Tea Party, Jacksonians or anyone but the zionist that hold the key to resolution to this issue. The fact of the matter being, that so long as America continues to allow itself to be politically, in foreign affairs, be controlled by a foreign power which by revolving foreign aid funds (payola) to American politicians, controls the political process and therefore the aid, nothing will change. Notwithstanding the fact that we give Israel about $3 billion in foreign aid and $4 billion in military aid, and who knows how much in tax breaks for Israeli bonds, a country that can boast the 15th highest per capita income in the world. These people certainly have the ability to defend themselves. If necessary we could always guarantee their border integrity. But as you will come to learn as Americans become equated with these facts they will rebel against any further aid to such a poor ally.
We all know that the Iranian nuclear program is a red herring, at least those of us that study foreign affairs. It seems to me to be an exact repeat of the Iraq, has chemical bacteriological, nuclear, and what have you weapons, all of which proved to by Mossad concocted lies to get America to eliminate Israels prime Middle East adversary. More than 50% of American’s who believe that America should defend Israel against an Iranian attack is the brain dead portion of America. This is simply another effort by Israel, who has at latest count over 300 nuclear warheads and is the only power in the Middle East capable of delivering them to its opponents, to have us pick their coals out of the fire. Our policy regarding Israel should be completely re-vamped. We should tell them to make arrangement to get along with their neighbors forthwith. And if they refuse, cut all foreign and military aid and tax Israeli bonds. The Likud (War Party) would rapidly lose their now established superiority and control of the Knesset and as a collation of other parties comes to power that actually want peace; the direction of the Middle East would change for the better. Just so you know, a number of Israelis have proposed exactly that, an effort I heartily support.
I sincerely hope you are correct in your assumption relating to international globalist plans and the likelihood that the U.S. Senate will oppose any new treaties. The one’s we have are not in our best interest and any additions are most likely to be the same. I do hope you are right in your thesis that the power of the CFR and all its assailers will see their power waning; absolutely nothing would more please the public.
Your last paragraph of part three is the first item I wholeheartedly agree with, there may yet, still be hope for you.
Part Four Populism in Perspective
The use of the Hegelarian Dialectic in offering only two alternatives to the tricky problem of American foreign policy is duly noted. Unfortunately as all problems there are scores of solutions not just two as you indicate. Likewise the Nationalist/conservative/Tea Party wing of our political structure has many more options, or opinions on the table than just the two you address. If I were to sum up what I believe to be acceptable to most Tea Party members relating to foreign policy I would say the following things.
• Eliminate all foreign aid
• Mind your own business.
• Keep out of foreign entanglements.
• Mind American interests.
• Structure foreign policy to benefit American economic interests.
• Get out of the UN.
• Re-negotiate WTO, GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA so that the outcome will be beneficial to small as well as large business.
• Eliminate the 16th amendment and the IRS set up a flat tax.
• Cancel The American Patriot Act immediately.
• Eliminate Obamacare and replace it with a ten page healthcare act.
• Eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, and HHS.
• Disassemble the Department of Homeland security.
• A Balanced budget amendment to the Constitution
• Bring our troops home and put them on the Mexican border.
• End all military presence in Europe, Japan and Okinawa.
• Drastically reduce the size and scope of the government
• Produce a viable energy policy beneficial to America not to business.
This would be a fine start.
