World Affairs Brief, November 18, 2011
THIS WEEK’S ANALYSIS:
Politics: Kingmakers Turn to Gingrich, Again
US Pushing Phony Intel on American Jews
US Military Expansion in Australia Rattles China
Assad’s Days are Numbered
EU Power Center Starting To Form
Major Hit Piece Published Against Chuck Baldwin
POLITICS: KINGMAKERS TURN TO GINGRICH, AGAIN
After weeks of trying to artificially keep Herman Cain tied for first place despite the growing evidence of his sexual predation upon women and his inability to respond to even simple foreign policy questions, the establishment has finally given up and allowed his polling numbers to drop to their actual true ratings–below 15%. With Romney sounding like the supreme warmonger on Iran, surely the establishment would finally accept him as the Republican nominee–but no! There is now emerging the same mysterious surge in the polling data claiming that Newt Gingrich has rebounded into a tie with Romney. Obviously, the PTB are desperate to stop Romney–though not because he is a friend of liberty. Still, I have my doubts that conservatives will warm up to Gingrich, the womanizing globalist snake oil salesman that betrayed them as Speaker of the House in 1994.
CNN, a brazen political manipulator declared mid-week that "A new national survey of Republicans indicates that it’s basically all tied up between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Gingrich on the rise and businessman Herman Cain falling due to the sexual harassment allegations he’s been facing the past two weeks.
"According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday, 24% of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say Romney is their most likely choice for their party’s presidential nominee with Gingrich at 22%. Romney’s two-point advantage is well within the survey’s sampling error." This is bogus. Gingrich is no more tied with Romney than Cain was. It’s all about the power of media suggestion, and sadly people are stupid enough to be influenced by who the establishment says is the favorite. The average American has a herd mentality.
I started out this season’s political commentary showcasing the establishment’s very deliberate efforts to push Newt Gingrich. But it wouldn’t fly–then. There was just no enthusiasm for the pretend conservative and serial adulterer who had delivered divorce papers to his wife at her bedside in the hospital. He sold himself to the conservatives with his Contract With America and then betrayed them by pushing NAFTA and GATT as his first and main political agenda.
Prior to entering politics, Gingrich was a liberal economics professor who switched to the Republican Party in order to help the establishment control the opposition. He’s glib, smooth, and utterly unprincipled. I had thought the PTB had given up on "the Newt" after his political campaign staff imploded and his fund-raising and poll numbers had gone to pot a year ago. But apparently, they are desperate to give us anyone but Romney and will make one more attempt to get Gingrich to be accepted by Republicans.
All of these too-good-to-be-true polling maneuvers (fudging the numbers in behalf of their candidate of the week) are interesting because of the failure by the PTB to secure the nomination for any of these wolves in sheep’s clothing. The sudden rise and fall in numbers for Perry and Cain is barely believable and have made many Americans rightfully skeptical of polling, though, sadly, not enough to convince the establishment that it doesn’t work, because it still does.
The media is justifying the sudden surge in the polls by Gingrich as a reflection of his sharp speaking skills in the recent foreign policy debate. I agree that Gingrich always says things in an interesting way–all con men have that talent. And he is very slick. He prepares for debates with lots of catchy one-liners that get attention.
Still, he’s been performing that way since the beginning of these debates and none of that made any difference in the polls until now. That’s why the poll results are fishy. Newt’s performance wasn’t that much different than any previous showing, so now we are supposed to believe that the public has had a complete change of heart and suddenly become enamored with the "Gingrinch" of politics.
I guess the PTB had no choice but to go back to Gingrich. The public was fast losing confidence in Perry and Cain. Perhaps there was no other person in the wings that the kingmakers could believably boost in the same manner as they did with Perry and Cain. Cain’s absolute denials about even knowing his victims or accusers was beginning to make people angry. His polling numbers were way down and the media could only keep up that frontrunner lie so long.
But what really sealed his fate was this week’s interview on Foreign Policy which he flubbed badly. It looked like he was having a Rick Perry moment.
Even CNN, who loves Cain, couldn’t help but throw in the towel: "Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain took a moment Monday to clarify his position on Libya: He needs more information. After an uncomfortable eight-second pause to collect his thoughts, the GOP contender explained that he would need to know more before he could unequivocally agree or disagree with President Barack Obama’s actions in the conflicted country.
"Cain was meeting with the editorial board of the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel when Libya came up. ‘Okay, Libya,’ he responded when asked whether he agreed with President Obama’s actions in the region. Eight seconds later, after looking up, biting his lip and blinking repeatedly, Cain asked, ‘President Obama supported the uprising, correct?’ [Cain
wasn’t sure which side Obama was on!]
"’I just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘Yes, I agree’ or ‘No, I do not agree.’ But just as Cain, a former conservative talk radio host, started to respond to the question, he then changed his mind. ‘I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons – um, no, that’s a different one,’ he said, before uncrossing and crossing his legs, shifting position in his seat, and adjusting his jacket. ‘Let’s see, I’ve got to go back, see,’ he continues. ‘-got all this stuff twirling around in my head…. Are you asking me did I agree or not agree with Obama?’
"Cain finally settled on a response after hearing the question rephrased a second time. ‘It’s not a simple yes/no because there are different pieces and I would’ve gone about assessing the situation differently, which might have caused us to end up at the same place, but I think more could’ve been done was, what’s the nature of the opposition?’"
Everyone was embarrassed for him, just like Rick Perry when he couldn’t remember 3 simple federal agencies he was going to eliminate. Cain was stalling with a parade of verbiage, while desperately trying to think of something to say. That doesn’t inspired confidence.
However, the establishment attempt to resurrect Gingrich may not work. He’s got a lot of skeletons in the closet and one surfaced the next day after the falsified polls came out. The Associated Press said this about the story:
"Rising in national polls, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich found himself on the defensive Wednesday over huge payments he received over the past decade from the federally backed housing agency Freddie Mac.
"Gingrich said he didn’t remember exactly how much he was paid, but a former Freddie Mac official said it was at least $1.5 million for consulting contracts stretching from 1999 to 2007 [the
only way you get that kind of money is as a payoff for being an insider–not
for meaningful work]. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter.
"Speaking with reporters in Iowa, Gingrich said he provided ‘strategic advice for a long period of time [couldn’t
have been good advice considering the financial failure of Fannie and Freddie]’ after he resigned as House speaker following his party’s losses in the 1998 elections. He defended Freddie Mac’s role and said, ‘every American should be interested in expanding housing opportunities.’ Long unpopular among Republicans, the federally backed mortgage lender has become a focal point of anti-government sentiment because of the housing crisis [and the evil of Fannie and Freddie
is still going on as top executives at both mortgage firms under government
conservatorship pocketed more than $12 million in combined performance bonuses
But Bloomberg News had sources which told the real story behind the big money: "Freddie Mac acknowledged that his contract did not include lobbying work, but officials told Bloomberg he had been hired as a consultant specifically to convince Republicans who wanted to dismantle the mortgage giant to back off. Nobody had any memory of him warning about impending financial doom either. [He made that
up, and Freddie certainly wouldn’t have continued to pay for that kind of
advise] Meanwhile, lobbying watchdogs pointed out that his ‘consultant’ title was commonly used by ex-politicians to avoid having to register as lobbyists while performing highly similar functions."
According to Politico.com Gingrich was also paid as a consultant to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after he left Congress. "The Chamber, the largest lobbying organization in Washington, paid Mr. Gingrich about $840,000, according to people familiar with the arrangement, or about $120,000 a year for seven years beginning in 2001, to serve on an informal board of advisers to its president and senior staff. He served as a "fellow," along with about a dozen other former government officials."
"Informal advisor" is code for being on the payroll without any requirements to do anything. This only happens to government lackeys that are part of the "revolving door" program for insiders. Once certain congressmen or government officials who are known to the PTB as "reliable" lose an election or are displaced during a change of administration, they are given other employment as part of an informal promise to be "taken care of" once you join the insiders club. They are guaranteed a source of income (usually quite lavish) through various government connected corporations until they can be worked back into the public system–thus the "revolving door" moniker.
For example, Rodney Stich in his book Defrauding America told of one of the highly placed FBI agents who had a part in the Ruby Ridge fiasco that had to be terminated to avoid embarrassment to the Bureau. He showed up a month later hired at six figures by a big national insurance firm in Washington state even though he had no insurance background. This background on Gingrich points to him being deep inside the establishment protection racket.
Gingrich might have slid by on this Freddie compensation thing had he not been such a hypocrite about Obama taking contributions from Fannie and Freddie: "In 2008, Gingrich suggested in a Fox News interview that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama should have to return campaign contributions he had received from executives of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He said that in a debate with Obama, GOP presidential nominee John McCain ‘should have turned and said, ‘Senator Obama, are you prepared to give back all the money that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae gave you?’" Well, how about it Newt? Going to give back all that money?
Lew Rockwell puts Gingrich into clear perspective (and pseudo-conservative National Review as well) with this vignette: "Some years ago, I was invited to speak at a National Review conference in the government capital. In my talk, I praised our predecessors in the Old Right, who came together in opposition to FDR’s domestic fascism and drive to war. Afterwards, in the question period, up pops a furious Newt Gingrich to say, at length, that conservatives must love Roosevelt–he was Reagan’s hero, after all–and that to criticize Franklin or his New Deal was to risk being written out of the conservative movement. I responded that this is exactly what’s wrong with contemporary conservatism: its corporatism and militarism. I never saw Newt again, and I was not invited back.
"Newt is a neocon, i.e., a champion of the corporate state and perpetual war, and a corrupt DC lobbyist of the worst sort. He may talk a good game with Obama in power, but it is just a partisan trick." Indeed.
Debate Bias: It is interesting to note that whereas debates used to be sponsored by neutral civic organizations, they are all done by the mainstream media now and the bias is really showing through. I’ve covered this in bits and pieces before, but here’s a comprehensive look by a group called The American Dream:
"It should be evident to anyone with half a brain that the recent Republican presidential debates have been incredibly slanted in favor of certain candidates. The candidates that the mainstream media favor are receiving far more talking time than the other candidates during the debates. It is hard to defend the legitimacy of our political system after watching what a farce the race for the Republican nomination has become.
"First, the major news networks dedicate thousands of hours of ‘programming’ to telling us that candidates such as Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are ‘top tier’ and that nobody else has a legitimate chance. Then, once the poll numbers are skewed by that relentless coverage, they use those polls to justify giving the ‘favored candidates’ more questions during the debates.
"The funny thing is that even if support for a favored candidate drops off dramatically (such as with Rick Perry), that candidate will still be given extra time during the debates. What you are about to see is mathematical proof of dramatic media bias and favoritism during the Republican debates. After reading this information, it will be hard to keep believing that our political system is fair.
"It seems like the bigger the media outlet, the worse the bias and the favoritism becomes. For example, the Republican debate on CBS the other night was a total sham. During the nationally televised portion of the debate, Rick Perry got more than five times as much talking time as Ron Paul did.
"The funny thing is that according to Real Clear Politics, Rick Perry and Ron Paul are nearly tied in national polls. As I write this, Rick Perry is averaging 9.8 percent in national polls and Ron Paul is averaging 8.2 percent. You would think that both candidates should be treated at least somewhat equally.
"But instead, favored candidates such as Mitt Romney and Rick Perry were given huge amounts of talking time during the CBS debate and candidates that the mainstream media has disdain for such as Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann were virtually ignored. The following is the talking time for the Republican debate on CBS on Saturday night:
"Rick Perry 7:45; Mitt Romney 6:30; Newt Gingrich 6:00; Herman Cain 5:45; Rick Santorum 5:15; Jon Huntsman 3:30; Michele Bachmann 3:15; Ron Paul 1:30 [90 seconds]. Does that look fair to you?
"Even the candidates on the very bottom of the national polls were given more time than Paul and Bachmann. Rick Santorum is averaging 1.5 percent in national polls and John Huntsman is averaging 1.0 percent in national polls. Yet both of them were given more time than Bachmann and both of them were given more than twice as much time as Ron Paul.
"So why is Ron Paul on the bottom of the [time] list? Is it because he has been on the bottom of the national polls? No, the truth is that he has been bouncing around between 3rd place and 6th place in national polls. If his talking time truly reflected his poll numbers then he should be somewhere in the middle of the pack.
"The reality is that the big networks have their ‘favorites’ and the other candidates are going to be ignored as much as they can. On Saturday, proof of this was revealed to the world. An internal CBS News email got accidentally sent to an official with the Bachmann campaign on Saturday. It was an email that contained a discussion between CBS News senior producer Caroline Horn and CBS News political director John Dickerson about Michele Bachmann.
"In the email chain which is reproduced below, Horn mentioned that there was a possibility that Dickerson may be able to interview Bachmann following the debate….In response, Dickerson made the following very revealing statement…. ‘Okay let’s keep it loose since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.’ The communications director for Bachmann’s campaign, Alice Stewart, believes that this email shows that there was a ‘planned effort to limit questions to Michele Bachmann at tonight’s CBS / National Journal Debate.’
"Now, whether you plan to vote for Michele Bachmann or not, the reality is that all of us should want a process that is fair and balanced and that gives the American people a legitimate opportunity to decide for themselves who they want the Republican nominee to be.
"But instead, the mainstream media relentlessly pushes some candidates in front of us at the expense of others. Why in the world should CBS News give Rick Perry more than twice as much talking time as Michele Bachmann and more than five times as much talking time as Ron Paul [because
he’s an insider vetted at the Bilderberg Meeting]?
"Support for Perry is dropping like a rock. A brand new NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows that support for Rick Perry has dropped to four percent in recent days. CBS News should be absolutely ashamed of how they handled that debate." But they aren’t. They view it as their prime goal to influence how people vote.
"Ron Paul campaign manager John Tate has written the following about the lack of time Ron Paul was given during the CBS News debate….
‘That’s how much of the first hour of tonight’s GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds. The remaining 3,510 seconds were spent with the other major candidates:
1) Declaring their desire to start wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Syria;
2) Rehashing their support for torture;
3) Agreeing that President Obama has the right to unilaterally assassinate an American citizen without a court conviction;
4) Explaining their plans to continue nation-building, policing, and occupying countries across the globe.
But, "Just check out what CBS News had to say about Ron Paul’s debate performance….
‘The polls suggest Paul’s brand of hardcore libertarianism has a limited appeal with GOP primary voters, and he remains a serious longshot for the Republican presidential nomination. But his goal is also to get his ideas into the public sphere, and on that front this debate was an unqualified success for him.’
"First, notice that they are once again reinforcing the notion that he is a ‘longshot’ to win the nomination. Secondly, they actually have the gall to claim that the debate was an ‘unqualified success’ as far as getting ‘his ideas into the public sphere’ when they only gave him 90 seconds to speak. What a joke." Paul is a success in spite of the time restrictions because his message is so unique from the pack.
Pushing Ron Paul to the outside of the discussion shows up once again in the Wall Street Journal. Here Danny Yadron eagerly explains why people are enthused by Newt Gingrich in Iowa where Ron Paul is the front runner in every straw poll and tied for first in even conventional polls. Yadron finds a few people eager to promote Gingrich–actually pretty hard to do, but fails to quote any of the thousands of ardent Ron Paul fans:
"Through the ups and downs of his presidential campaign, Newt Gingrich has cast himself as the candidate of ‘big ideas.’ Now, voters such as Maurice Villeneuve say the policy stumbles of other GOP contenders are giving them a new appreciation for Mr. Gingrich, who is enjoying a rise in public opinion surveys in Iowa and nationally.
"In a recent poll, 61% of Republicans said they held a favorable view of Newt Gingrich [a typical tactic
to ease people into saying something reportable and positive about a candidate
the media wants to promote]. Mr. Villeneuve, a retired accountant from Breda, Iowa, said he liked Rep. Michele Bachmann until she appeared uninformed on a medical issue. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been ‘talking faster than he was thinking,’ Mr. Villeneuve said. And he said he cringed at a video of Herman Cain stumbling Monday while talking about Libya, in an interview that became an Internet sensation.
"But of Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Villeneuve, age 66, said: ‘It’s pretty hard to stump him. He knows government. [The
same could be said for Ron Paul or Mitt Romney who have never been stumped by a
"A slate of polls suggests that many voters are taking a second look at Mr. Gingrich, the 68-year-old former House speaker. Among Republicans nationally, Mr. Gingrich placed a close second to Mitt Romney in CNN/Opinion Research and McClatchy/Marist surveys of recent days. In Iowa, a Bloomberg News survey released Tuesday suggested a four-way tie among Messrs. Cain, Romney and Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul."
There you have it–finally, a mention about Ron Paul being tied for first, but nothing more….no quotes from people considering switching to Paul, no mention of his 85% straw poll victories, and no mention of the fact that the establishment is really afraid Paul will come out with a win in Iowa. Then they’ll have to gear up the spin machine to explain how he is still unelectable. Paul is unelectable only because our system is rigged and the PTB won’t allow it, coupled with the fact that our electorate is still so manipulable by the media.
Copyright Joel Skousen. Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)