World Affairs Brief, October 7, 2011
Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.
Source: Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief
For some reason the presidential kingmakers don’t want Mitt Romney to be the Republican front-runner, let alone president of the USA. It doesn’t even take a particularly astute observer to notice the media manipulation when the controlled news suddenly starts pushing some new Republican star to knock Romney off his front-runner pedestal. This is happening frequently in this race as one newspaper after another starts raving about some new face in the race, almost as if someone is calling the shots. It’s not quite that obvious, but almost.
First it was Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and then neocon Rick Santorum —both of which went nowhere. They weren’t really interested in Michelle Bachmann, a mushy conservative who can be manipulated in taking neocon positions. She might still be useful to them as a Palin-style VP.
In perhaps the biggest show of prior planning they brought in Rick Perry to dazzle the Christian conservative crowd. His name was introduced in various polls even before he had announced, so as to prime people into thinking about him. If ever there was proof of the pollster’s ability to manipulate the numbers, it was Perry’s almost instant front-runner status—way too good to be true. He just wasn’t that well known to merit the kind of instant success they created.
When Perry stumbled badly in the first two debates, despite having been given the first and most flattering questions, and the most microphone time, Republican kingmakers thought they had better start preparing a backup. Despite the clear advantage Romney had shown as a debater, the press was busy spinning the results to “none of the above” — as I said, anyone but Romney!
Perry’s true polling numbers started to show up and they were so low that the best they could do was manipulate him upward to a distant second or third in the race. That put Ron Paul in the running, and they couldn’t have that! Another wave of poison pen articles emerged attacking or besmirching Paul’s chances. Paul is the only candidate who gets constantly introduced in a story as, “Ron Paul, who will never be elected…” or “a principled crank running for president.” Even the faux Right-wing National Review couldn’t resist adding to the attacks — to make sure that America’s only candidate who would actually change things doesn’t get elected. Despite all the non-coverage and slashing attacks, Paul’s popularity keeps growing, slowly. For the first time, even establishment polls show him breaking out of single digits into 11% and rising fast enough to worry.
As for Perry’s declining poll numbers, these were the highest the pollsters could tweak them, and they don’t look good. This is precisely what happened in 2008 with Rudolph Giuliani. The pollsters artificially boosted his polling numbers too high at first, and the first primaries were going to expose all that as a lie—a single digit fraud—so they had Rudy pull out to avoid embarrassment. They were hoping for time to resurrect him in Florida, which failed. Before Florida came around, the establishment kingmakers in the press gave John McCain a round of six endorsements just to make sure they had a controlled candidate waiting to take over when Giuliani failed. Even in 2008, it was “Stop Romney at all costs!”
We are seeing the same kind of manipulation going on now. Last week there was suddenly a miraculous push, seemingly out of nowhere, for New Jersey governor Chris Christie to enter the race. Daniel Larison of The American Conservative notes that Christie even had somehow gathered parts of the political machine from Giuliani.
“A Politico story on the obstacles facing a possible Christie campaign contained this unintentionally hilarious line: ‘The governor has aides with presidential experience — both his communications director Maria Comella and top political adviser Mike DuHaime were on Rudy Giuliani’s campaign.’
“Except for the last 20 months, Christie has been a prosecutor and a mostly unsuccessful local politician with brief stints as a corporate lobbyist and a fundraiser for George W. Bush. Were it not for enormous amounts of flattering coverage, Christie would not be regarded as a national figure or plausible presidential candidate, and very much like the Giuliani buzz the enthusiasm for a Christie bid is one shared mainly by party elites and is something almost completely driven by the media.”
Well said. The NY Post [article] revealed some big names behind the push: “The renewed consideration about a White House run came after prodding this week from some Republicans he idolizes [telling in and of itself], including former First Lady Nancy Reagan [a know-nothing liberal], former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger [a top globalist insider], and former President George W. Bush, sources said.”
With the exception of Kissinger, none of these backers had anything to offer but ego-stroking encouragement. But the fact that Kissinger was one of those pushing Christie tells us that Christie is not as anti-big government as he appears.
Joe Farah of Wnd.com asks indignantly, [article] “Just what has Christie done? Has New Jersey been transformed under his leadership? Is it now a great place to live and work and start a business? Is it on its way to becoming one? …His budget included new taxes, new fees, federal stimulus funds and none of the across-the-board tax cuts he promised. His budget is actually 6 percent bigger than his predecessor’s, and the budget for the governor’s office increased tenfold.
“Despite his popular anti-union rhetoric, he has yet to eliminate even one state employee. New Jersey conservatives say his Cabinet is filled with the kind of progressives that would be equally comfortable in a Barack Obama Cabinet. He has refused to join other states in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, but he accepts federal funds for the implementation of a program in New Jersey that will likely someday be called ‘Christie-care.’ He supports amnesty for illegal aliens, supports the construction of the Ground Zero mosque and favors strict gun control’”
“Among other problems with Chris Christie’s ideas – and this should be a disqualifier for any Republican officeholder, let along presidential contender – is that he is an enthusiastic, ardent supporter of cap-and-trade, which turns the biggest political hoax of the 21st century, catastrophic, man-made climate change, into a wealth-transfer scheme and regulatory nightmare unlike anything previously known. Christie loves cap-and-trade – and has actually instituted it with other neighboring states in a scheme known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, using some of the proceeds to pay off New Jersey’s deficits. He is also using state money to subsidize so-called ‘green’ technology much the way Barack Obama has.”
But, alas, Christie failed to take the bait. Tuesday, he announced he would not be running for President. I think he’s got a few skeletons in his closet that would probably come out were he to join the race. So, why bring up this negative background information if Christie is no longer an issue? It is because false conservatives like Perry and Christie, favored by globalist kingmakers, will be with us in one form or another. It’s important to learn how to detect a fraud. Principled conservatives never have to repent of so many bad positions.
What’s next? The establishment hasn’t given up on Rick Perry, but just for good measure they are starting to promote Herman Cain. The Christian Science Monitor blatantly trumpeted it’s skewed opinions: “The Herman Cain surge: why he rose (not Mitt Romney) as Rick Perry stumbled”. Notice how they had to show that Cain’s rise was at the expense of Romney. Actually, that wasn’t true. It was at the expense of Perry.
Cain got significant attention in the Florida debate because he’s kind of a favorite son in the region. He’s been a significant player in the past in Florida and Georgia, both as a high profile black CEO and as a talk show host. That, in part, explains the higher-than-normal polling numbers for Cain after the Florida debate, but it won’t translate into national popularity.
Fox News said, “A Washington Post/ABC News poll out Tuesday shows businessman Herman Cain has tied Perry for second place behind frontrunner Mitt Romney. Romney is at 25 percent while Cain and Perry each get 16 percent. The Texas governor has fallen 13 percentage points since the last poll while Cain has risen 12 in the last month.”
As with Perry, the jump in those numbers outside Florida was simply not real. The pollsters are fudging things in his favor. The PTB wouldn’t be promoting Cain in the least if he weren’t a reliable establishment candidate and a non-threat to their agenda. I’ve seen Cain interviewed when not putting on his patriotic smile. He was slouching in a chair and barely acknowledged the videographer posing questions to him. His answers were somewhat cocky and overconfident—almost dismissive that anyone would pose a “tough question” for him.
But that doesn’t hold for questions about his having served with the Federal Reserve Board. He gets downright irritated about those tough questions. You’ll never see Ron Paul acting arrogant and cocky before any interviewer, no matter how unimportant.
Activists from We Are Change in both Iowa and Minnesota confronted candidate Herman Cain with the quotes of the founders themselves on the danger of banking powers. He was dismissive of them and later denied even being familiar with the CFR and its agenda. I find that incredible that a former board member of a Federal Reserve Bank would claim ignorance about the globalist agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Alex Pappas of the The Daily Caller notes that in his newly released book, he shows significant irritation with the Ron Paul positions against the Federal Reserve. “Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain makes it clear in his new book that Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s supporters annoy him with their ‘stupid’ questions about the Federal Reserve.
“Cain, the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO, writes that Paul’s supporters are ‘threatened by me’ and are ‘trying to destroy me on the fact that I was once affiliated with the Federal Reserve.’ Cain was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1995 and 1996. [ Wikipedia]
“In ‘This is Herman Cain’ Cain claims Paul’s campaign ‘sends one of its ‘Paulites’ everywhere I show up.’ ‘I get the same stupid question at almost every one of these events,’ Cain writes. ‘I know it’s a deliberate strategy. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same stupid question to try to nail me on the Federal Reserve? It’s really becoming annoying more than anything else.’”
In fact it is not orchestrated at all. Ron Paul never plays guerrilla tactics in his campaigns, nor does he orchestrate what his followers do. Everything he promotes is openly stated at the Campaign for Liberty. Cain is being dogged by suspicious conservatives tired of being played the fool by false conservatives who aren’t really on our side. Every constitutional conservative wants to know how he can be on our side and not be an enemy of the FED.
Cain said Paul’s fans have stretched the truth by accusing him of not wanting to audit the fed. “I have never said that,” Cain wrote. “I have said: ‘I don’t think you’re going to find anything to audit on the Federal Reserve.’” That’s even worse. It means Cain actually believes the FED is not a problem and that it isn’t hiding anything.
The one time audit of the FED proved otherwise—that the FED had loaned $12T to other banks, mostly foreign, without Congressional knowledge—and that the audit wasn’t allowed to probe but only a few of the major transactions. It didn’t even scratch the surface. If Cain sees nothing wrong with that kind of unlawful power and lack of transparency, he certainly can’t be trusted to fix the economic problems we are in.
Mid-week, another announcement seemed to narrow the field even further. Sarah Palin made it formal what everyone has suspected—that she won’t be running for president, ending months of speculation. Bloomberg said that in the aftermath of Palin’s departure, “It’s now a near-certainty that the Republican nominee to challenge Obama will be chosen from among the current competitors.
“Palin, whose unconventional tactics and star quality generated attention for her even from the sidelines of the presidential contest, will likely be a coveted endorsement for the Republican contenders. Her decision not to run could provide a boost to Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is competing with Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann and businessman Herman Cain for the backing of those Tea Party-aligned voters who favored Palin, as well as the fiscal and social conservatives who hold sway in the Iowa caucuses that start the nomination process.”
I doubt the tea party is so blind to still view Perry or Cain as true standard bearers, but if so, then there would be little hope for Ron Paul, the real emblem of the Tea Party revolt. The PTB are running out of options to boost Perry, but Palin could have some effect.
So far the establishment has failed to dump Romney. They aren’t finished trying yet but I can sense some begrudging sentiments that indicated they may have to “deal with him,” if he can’t be defeated. No one is more typical of the establishment’s voice than David Brooks of the NY Times, often interviewed on The News Hour of PBS. His latest comment about Romney is telling:
“Romney can be dull. Political activists like exciting candidates… It’s exciting to have charismatic leaders. But often the best leaders in business, in government and in life are not glittering saviors. They are professionals you hire to get a job done. The strongest case for Romney is that he’s nobody’s idea of a savior."
Brooks is giving Romney begrudging credit mixed with snide cutting remarks. Romney, in fact, is anything but dull and has a lot of charisma. That’s what bothers them. But what they most dislike is that he got into the political scene on his own dime and his own merits. A kingmaker’s biggest nightmare is someone who has the means to bypass establishment screening.
There was even a nastier piece by Michael Kinsley on the Bloomberg website, full of the same kind of vituperative and character-ripping slights. Even communists get better treatment by the establishment: “If Mitt Romney ever becomes president, it will be because his [mainstream] supporters are convinced that he’s a liar [about
cozying up to the Right wing]. The Republican Party elite isn’t convinced by his attempts to reinvent himself as a right-wing firebrand [which
Romney is not doing—he’s playing middle-of-the-road]. The establishment Republicans, business executives and independents who are Romney’s natural constituency believe he is lying when he strikes a conservative posture on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, and when he engages in fatuous Washington-bashing [Fatuous? Hardly].
“They believe that once in office, his true nature as an establishment, moderate, pro-business Republican will emerge. They believe he’s fundamentally sound [meaning, in their minds, liberal]. Meanwhile, the right-wingers who will soon be asked to bury their dreams and support Romney are not under any delusions about his true nature. But they’ll eventually prove willing to overlook it in their hunger to defeat President Barack Obama.”
These two mean-spirited establishment hacks demonstrates without question that the PTB are not going to like it one bit if they have to work overtime to control this guy. That’s why every commentary is laced with pejoratives and insults. So, why do they hate Romney so much? Why are the PTB so dead set against him, even as he does their bidding and surrounds himself with establishment advisors? Jon Huntsman, Ex-Ambassador to China and former Utah governor isn’t much different from Romney on policy and yet, the establishment loves him. What gives?
I think the difference is Romney has not committed to the globalist agenda as has Huntsman. As a result, the PTB don’t have confidence that they can control him if Romney happens to see some of the illegal operations going on in the White House should he be elected—and there is a lot of bad stuff (like gun running to Mexican cartels) going on.
While the establishment smothers Romney with CFR types and slick operators, they’re still nervous about how successful their control will be without leaning on him hard, as they did with Reagan (assassination attempt). Reagan succumbed and I think Romney will too. That is why I don’t think Romney would be a reliable opponent of the current government agenda. He has shown far too much compromise so far. My personal sources confirm that he is morally straight and faithful to his wife, but has far too much ambition to be trusted to fight against the establishment.
As further evidence that the establishment is fully engaged in the control-Romney agenda, his campaign just announced his foreign policy team and it is truly awful: Topping the list are Michael Chertoff (former corrupt head of Homeland Security), and Michael Hayden (national security advisor and CIA) and Coffer Black (former vice chairman of Blackwater). I consider Chertoff to be one of the great evil insiders of our day, and former CIA chief Hayden is a principal at the Chertoff Group. It looks like Romney got talked into letting Chertoff pick his entire foreign policy staff. Kissinger would be pleased.
There are dozens of others including such neoconservatives as Robert Kagan, Dan Senor, and Norm Coleman forming the new staff and they are aptly described by an enthused Nicholas Burns, globalist professor of international politics at Harvard, as an “impressive team…. serious people, [and gleefully] they’re internationalists.” That’s another admission that they are globalist just like Burns.
Copyright Joel Skousen.