The Leadership We Deserve
By Tim Porter, CircumspectNews.com, January 9, 2012 (Links updated Jan. 19)
The most significant geopolitical event in world history since the “Tower of Babel” is occurring today, and most people – sadly, even most Christians – don’t even know or care about it. As Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, a year before he was deposed, said to his tunnel-visioned African Union comrades, “The world is changing into 7 or 10 countries, and we are not even aware of it.”
Without the knowledge and/or consent of populations, a “regionalization” of the world’s nations is well underway. Don’t let anyone deceive you that this development is “just about trade” or “just politics.” Regionalization is the ultimate in big-government central planning. It is an arrogant, sinister rebellion against God’s “law of nations,” the global “separation of powers” established at Babel.
Any attempt to describe today’s world events, including the Iran crisis, outside of this regionalization context is simply foolish. If you have reviewed the lead article at CircumspectNews.com, supported by the scores of recent mainstream news articles linked on the site, then you are aware that the U.S. military today is overstretched globally not so much in defense of America, but to build this regional framework. The evidence for this objective is overwhelming. The website only scratches the surface. Council of Europe illustration
Only one presidential candidate – Ron Paul – has vowed to resist this regionalization, by scrapping WTO and NAFTA, along with its multilateral trade agreements with the other regions, and replacing them with good old-fashioned bilateral trade agreements with each nation. This is the only way to reassert U.S. sovereignty in trade, as well as that of other nations. According to the U.S. Constitution, it is Congress – not NAFTA – that is “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” The world’s ten major geopolitical regions
ISOLATIONIST? This does not, by the way, make Paul an “isolationist.” He is for trade and dialogue with other nations, but not in the form of interdependent, multilateral, regional trade agreements. Paul is for independence – not interdependence – and, as any mother can attest about pregnancy, a nation cannot be a little bit independent. Either you is or you ain’t.
Neither is Paul an “isolationist” because of his desire to eliminate foreign aid, or draw back from a “globocop” military presence. U.S. foreign aid and military deployments are the main sources fueling globalist regionalization, either directly or through United Nations funding. For this reason, Paul wants to end all foreign aid – not just to Israel. Anyone who says or implies that Paul only wants to eliminate foreign aid to Israel is furthering a gross deception.
In reality, Paul’s position on foreign aid compliments that stated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he spoke to Congress last May. America, Netanyahu said, does not need to “nation-build Israel. We’re already built…. And you don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves.” Indeed they can. And the ability to maintain that defense can be furthered through trade, perhaps through an old-fashioned, bilateral “most-favored nation” trade relationship with the U.S., but not through foreign aid that creates dependence and, considering the foreign aid given to each of Israel’s enemies, places Israel in a worse position than if there were no foreign aid at all.
What should be encouraged is for private individuals, groups and churches to contribute to Israel directly if they wish, not through American big-government hand-outs. And that would be much easier for the private sector to do if it were not burdened by an oppressive tax system based upon massive deficit spending, borrowing and printing money to give away in welfare and foreign aid.
One other action that would be consistent with a Paul administration’s support of national sovereignty (and would send a message to those at the U.N. who don’t like it to take a hike) would be to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, because that is where the sovereign nation of Israel wants it. President Clinton signed the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 passed by Congress, but he then refused to administer it. George W. Bush promised the move, but, true to his globalist pedigree, reneged, and Obama has continued this violation of both U.S. law and Israel’s sovereignty.
In 1981, Paul was the only Republican congressman to defend Israel’s right to bomb Iraq’s Osirak nuclear power plant, even going against President Reagan’s opposition to the attack. Today, Paul is the only candidate that declares Israel’s right to defend its sovereignty when and where it decides without passing it by the U.S. for approval, and that includes any attack on Iran. What more support for Israel’s sovereignty could one ask for?
Bruce Fein, raised in an observant Jewish family and senior advisor for the Ron Paul campaign, explains Congressman Paul’s foreign policy.
When candidates like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum shriek that Paul’s foreign policy would allow Iran “to wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” they are just plain fear mongering. First of all, they do not know the Bible. Israel will never be destroyed, and under the present reality, Iran or any other Islamic nation, like Pakistan, attacking Israel with a nuke would be the one wiped off the map. Both they and Israel know this, and that is why they have been restrained from any such attack. Ezekiel 38 will occur only when Israel is not defending itself (and even then, God will not allow Israel to be destroyed). A disarmed Israel is not the reality today.
SANCTIONS What do Santorum and the other Republican neocons propose as a first step against Iran? Sanctions. But sanctions must also be enacted by other bastions of freedom and human rights like China and Russia, nuclear nations that are still repressive after having killed tens of millions of their own people in the past century. A Chinese military official even threatened Los Angeles with a nuke in 1995, and another general did so in 2005. Pakistan is an unstable Islamic nation with hundreds of nuclear weapons and a record of human rights abuse. So, must the U.S. partner with these nations to be the moral authority over Iran? Talk about “selective outrage.”
Sanctions are ineffective, and with Iran, they simply won’t work. Already, East Asian nations have asked for exemptions because they acquire needed amounts of oil from Iran. Stressed European Union nations Greece, Spain, and Italy are being coerced to comply – for now – with sanctions by receiving new U.S-backed IMF loans in return. China has indicated they will ignore sanctions and swoop in to buy Iran’s oil at a discount, so sanctions will be emasculated from the start.
American corporations have circumvented U.S. sanctions with impunity. G.E., Conoco-Phillips and Dick Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, through foreign subsidiaries, all have done business with Iran. Halliburton has even been accused of selling Iran nuclear technology and Donald Rumsfeld was on the ABB board of directors when it furnished North Korea with nuclear reactors in the ’90s. Arms dealers and demagogues profit greatly by enabling enemies, because they can create crises that allow draconian “solutions” to be enacted. Today that’s called the Hegelian Dialectic, and it’s one of the oldest tactics to consolidate power known to man.
With the failure of sanctions, the next step, to Santorum’s satisfaction, would be a blockade or some other belligerence toward war, not only with Iran, but also possibly with China when it goes calling for Iran’s oil. When the war drums start, Americans will then need to be reminded to act patriotic as they stand upon their country’s vast oil reserves while pumping $6.00/gallon gasoline, which will further diminish their economic ability to resist regionalization in North America.
The real motive behind the offensive toward Iran is region-building. The crisis has been a convenient means to motivate Persian Gulf nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council to integrate further into a political, economic, and military union to resist the Iranian threat, just as the European Union was pioneered to resist the Soviet bloc. Meanwhile, media reports focus on Iran’s blatantly anti-Israel rhetoric, but another characteristic of the Iranian mullahs is a resistance to compromising into globalism. We can’t have that, now, can we?
Santorum’s jaw-clenching zeal shows that he is either oblivious to, or supportive of the region-building motive behind the Iran crisis. Santorum is a big-government Republican, and big government loves war, because it allows government to become bigger, while silencing dissent. Congressman Ron Paul in his office. The trouble with too many American Christian brethren is that they often are advised not to bother with politics or world events, but then they emerge at election time to vote for whomever Fox News or some uninformed evangelical tells them to. When their elected candidate “disappoints” them, they then go back into their mental fetal position, claiming that it was God’s will all along, and denying their own responsibility in the process. But, like ancient Israel’s desire for King Saul, God’s will allows for the will of man to choose folly.
Truly, America will get the leadership it wants, and deserves.