Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Kissinger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kissinger. Show all posts

Friday, February 5, 2016

Does Jeb Not Understand What His Father Meant By "New World Order" Or Is He Hiding Something?



image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/12/george_hw_bush.jpg
George Herbert Walker Bush was the first president to popularize the idea of creating a multinational 'new world order' following the first invasion of Iraq in 1991.
George Herbert Walker Bush was the first president to popularize the idea of creating a multinational ‘new world order’ following the first invasion of Iraq in 1991.
Jeb Bush found himself in the awkward position of having to answer for his father’s legendary statements on the need to create a “new world order.”
The topic was raised by a questioner at a town-hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire, Wednesday where Bush was campaigning for next week’s GOP primary.
A man stood up and asked the former Florida governor: “Your father spoke of a new world order. If elected, specifically, how will you continue to move the country toward this goal?”
Bush seemed taken aback, stumbling over his words and, at first, refusing to answer the question.
“I don’t know. I don’t have any intention to, uh, lead… I don’t know what that means to you so I’m not going to answer it. It makes me nervous to… It might mean something different to you than it means to me.”
But he quickly found his footing and provided a long, rambling explanation of national security and the importance of the United States staying “engaged” in the world.
“I believe that the priority of the president of the United States is to keep us safe. Period. Over and out,” he said. “And the way you do that is by leading in the world, by engaging the world.”
Watch Jeb Bush answer a New Hampshire voter’s question about the “new world order’:
"We can't build walls around to protect us from all the goings on around the world," he continued. "We have to engage. And today in America, today in the world, our friends no longer think we have their back. And our enemies no longer fear us. And so we have more insecurity than we had before. I think if you look at the lessons of history, when the United States is engaged, building alliances, like NATO, building the support through the OCEAN countries for example. Making sure people know that it's in our security interests, for our engagement, that we're doing this for our security but we're going to be there consistently.
"If that's the new world order, I'm all for it. I don't know. Tell me what you mean by it."
The man restated his question about Bush's father but his words cannot be heard on the video because he was not given a microphone.
Jeb Bush responded:
"Well what he (the first President Bush) said was the end of, the fall of, the Soviet Union, which he managed magnificently, created this new world order where the United States needed to stay engaged, needed to stay involved. And when we're involved we create more security. I'm for that. That means, for example, that the next president needs to re-establish the iron-clad relationship with Israel. Iron clad. Take it to the bank. No gap between us. Shoulder to shoulder. Why is that important for us? It's important because Israel is our strongest ally of course, in the Middle East. It's also important because the Arab world, when they see the disruption of the Israel-U.S. relationship, they say, 'We're not going to be able to get a deal. If Israel can't get a deal, you know, with the U.S., how can we do it?'"
But a closer look at the first President Bush's famous "new world order" speech seems to go well beyond his son's understanding of the term, or at least his recollection or willingness to repeat the terms of this new international order.
So, what exactly did Jeb's father say about this controversial topic?
Here is President George Herbert Walker Bush speaking from the Oval Office on Jan. 16, 1991, about his now-famous "new world order."
"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations, a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order. An order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."
Watch video of President George H.W. Bush defining his vision of the coveted "new world order."
President Clinton also spoke repeatedly of the new world order, and even Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush, referred to it. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has talked incessantly of creating a new world order.
But for Jeb Bush, the term made him "nervous" and he proceeded to give a long-winded answer that avoided difficult issues like how much sway the United Nations should be given over U.S. foreign and domestic policy.
He focused instead on the need to cultivate close relations with allies and to rebuke enemies like Iran but avoided the sticky issue of which entity should serve as the primary mechanism for implementing the new world order – the U.S., the U.N. or some other body?
Jeb never mentioned the U.N., its founders or financial backers. If he had, it would have required him to talk about some questionable characters, such as the globalist Rockefeller family that donated the real estate for the United Nations in New York City, or British eugenicist and Planned Parenthood supporter Julian Huxley, who was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization or UNESCO.
It is this organization, UNESCO, that provided the bedrock principles for the Common Core educational standards that Jeb Bush has enthusiastically supported.
He might have also mentioned the United Nations' Agenda 2030 manifesto that was approved by world leaders in September. This document goes into great detail on the importance of open borders and the rights of migrants, which Jeb has also enthusiastically supported.
The Agenda 2030 document lists 17 goals that are to be met by 2030.
Goal No. 10 is to “reduce inequality within and among countries,” with the buzzword “inequality” being a euphemism for wealth redistribution.
The document states that one of the ways to achieve the U.N.’s desired equality is to, “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.”
In other words, every impoverished person living in an undeveloped Third World country has the right under this U.N. document to migrate to a developed country.
Goal No. 16 goes a step further calling for “peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development” and providing access to justice for all. One of the methods listed as critical for the achievement of this goal is to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration” of all babies.
Jeb Bush did mention Russia's "invasion of Ukraine" and the allowing of ISIS to create a caliphate as events that would have been dealt with "quietly" with a "big stick," under his leadership, as opposed to with Obama's "grandiose language" and then doing nothing.
"When we don't confront the ambitions of Iran but give the perception that we're changing teams and now are supportive more of Iran than we are of the Sunni Arab nations, that creates massive instability in the world," Jeb Bush said in New Hampshire Wednesday. "We need to get back in the game to say, 'We have your back. We're not the world's policemen but we have your back, because it's in our security interests that you have stability.' "
Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/nervous-jeb-defends-poppy-bushs-new-world-order/#4k6OZbMSwmvM9PXx.99

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil...The New Obama Mantra In Regard To Muslims


A Matter of Courage and Wisdom


Author(s):  Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Source:  Special to UCI.     Article date: June 24th, 2015


There are many people in Israel, even in the Knesset, that regard Bibi as intelligent but timid. Caroline Click of the Jerusalem Post called him a “hack politician” when he released Arab terrorists in subservience to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry, in lock-step with President Barack Obama, is hardly an admirable personality. Any fool or coward can urge Israel to retreat to her 1967 Auschwitz lines. But there is some confusion here between moral and intellectual virtues.
As may be gleaned from Plato’s dialogue, the Apology, where Socrates is condemned to death for undermining the attachment of youth to the gods of democratic Athens, where the moral relativism of the Sophists reigned unchallenged, courage is a precondition of wisdom. People lacking courage tend to be “politically correct.”  They will not be inclined to think of some way of avoiding intellectually complex and life-threatening situations.
Israel’s situation is certainly complex and life-threatening. Not only is Israel threatened from afar by genocidal Iran; she is also assaulted close at hand by Palestinian Jew-killers – and both enemies are supported by a multicultural or cockamamie Muslim in the White House. Barak Obama is not likely to go down in history as a man of wisdom and courage.
Wisdom and courage represent, respectively, intellectual and moral virtues. What is not common knowledge is that courage is a precondition of wisdom, but by no means a sufficient precondition. Israel’s most highly decorated general, former PM Ehud Barak, a smiling clod, not only deserted Israel’s Christian friends in Lebanon, but also offered Yasser Arafat Judea and Samaria, Israel's heartland. Sadly, Bibi’s Osolovian predecessors are examples of buffoons if not poltroons. Calling any of them “hacks” is flattery.
What makes Bibi particularly unpalatable as Israel’s prime spokesman is that he knows, better than most, the utterly malicious and mendacious character of the Palestinian, the Arabs whom he appeases, and with whom he yearns to negotiate on the basis of “reciprocity.”
He also knows that that the idea of “reciprocity,” foreign to Islam, appears eminently reasonable and fair-minded to benighted Americans. Habituated to compromise at home, Americans still genuflect to “détente” abroad. Recall Kissinger’s morally neutral policy of “détente” with the Soviet Union, which Ronald Reagan, to the consternation of many academics, called the “Evil Empire.”
As for Barack Obama, he chokes on the term “Muslim terrorists” to describe members of another Evil Empire, Islam.
To be fair, however, Truth is out of fashion in post-modern America and in post-modern Israel, where political scientists have replaced the word “evil” with the “Three blind Mice” concept of “conflict resolution,” in consequence of which concept decision makers “See no Evil,” “Hear no Evil,” and “Speak no Evil” about the disciples of Mohammad.
Bearing this optical situaton in mind, let us now take cognizance of the recent eruption of racial violence in some American cities. How easy it is to trace the causes of that violence to unemployment. Who would hasten to say the upsurge of that evil is tacitly encouraged by the occupant of the White House: a post-American multicultural moral relativist, who often attended a church whose pastor preached “god damn America” without a murmur from the man so many “educated” Americans twice elected their President? To see and say this does not require much wisdom and courage.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

If General Keane Is Correct, Obama Has Been Playing The World For Chumps. Why Would He Be Doing This Unless He Wants The Western World Defeated?

Tougher Sanctions Necessary to Force Iran to Change Its Terrorist Ways

Friday, 10 Apr 2015 07:19 PM


If recent news accounts are to be believed, the framework of agreement between the U.S. and Iran is on the rocks.

Iran’s top officials, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani, are saying economic sanctions must end immediately and that UN inspectors will not be granted unfettered access to military installations and nuclear construction sites.

But this may be nothing more than Iranian domestic political spin. And as long as there’s a potential deal, a critical point needs to be made: There is no provision for, or even discussion of, putting political restraints on Iran. That is, there is nothing in this deal that would force Iran to change its terrorist ways. Iran will continue to be the number-one state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, no matter what the deal.

How can this be?

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz make a crucial point: “Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony.” (Italics mine.)

Put another way, there could be a U.S.-Iran deal that postpones Iran’s nuclear weaponization for ten or more years.
Latest News Update

But tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that, Iran will continue to sponsor its terrorist proxies, like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, keep proxy troops in Syria, continue its efforts to take over Iraq, further its designs on Yemen, and confront Sunni Saudi Arabia.

And don’t forget, the U.S. has labeled Iran’s own Quds Force and Revolutionary Guard as terrorists.

Kissinger and Shultz write, “Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries . . . With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally.”

No one doubts these facts. Iran wants to dominate the Middle East. And it will not acknowledge the rights of the sovereign state of Israel. So the question is: Why is the U.S. not including political- and terrorist-restraint clauses in any Iran deal?

This is why economic sanctions are crucial. Western-nation sanctions are slowly but surely smashing the Iranian economy. We have effectively stopped the flow of money and oil for Iran. The Iranian budget, which dominates the state-run economy, needs $130 a barrel. Today’s $50 price is an economic killer.

So why doesn’t Team Obama directly link a removal of economic sanctions with a clear pullback of Iran’s terrorist activities and march to Middle East dominance? That’s a dailylinkage — one that is observable. And since we know Iran won’t agree to this, why aren’t President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry working to tighten sanctions on Iran rather than push through a bad nuke deal?

Make no mistake, the nanosecond sanctions are lifted U.S. and Western investment will pour into Iran. Looser financial sanctions will put an estimated $50 billion into Iran’s economy. And a number of European oil companies will jump to develop the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserve and second-biggest national-gas reserve.

Italy’s Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, France’s Total, Norway’s Statoil, German’s Siemens, and French car companies Peugeot and Citroën are ready to move. It’s reported that Boeing is looking to do business in Iran. HP and Google have been exploring contracts and licenses in Iran. Other major U.S. and European Internet companies have been approached by Iranian officials. And financial-service and credit card companies will move in quickly.

And if American officials really believe treaty violations can be countered by a “snap-back,” they’d better think again. These complex sanctions, which took so long to put together, will never be effectively revived.

General Jack Keane believes President Obama has had a grand-bargain vision for Iran since 2009. The nuclear deal is just one part of it. That’s why Obama gave no help to the million Iranian reformers who marched in protest of the phony 2009 elections. That’s why Obama didn’t help the Syrian rebels, why he’s had such a cold relationship with Israel, why he gave speeches blaming America for Arab unrest, and why until very recently he didn’t give any help to Egyptian president al-Sisi.

Obama believes in détente with Iran as a pathway to U.S. disengagement from the region. But Iran is our enemy, whether the president believes it or not. And if we cut deals that allow Iran to continue its terrorist and hegemonic activities, the Obama administration will have created an unbelievable Middle East powder keg, setting the stage for a conflict that could possibly dwarf any we’ve seen before.

This is the worst U.S. foreign policy of my lifetime. It may be the worst in America history.

To find out more about Lawrence Kudlow and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

© Creators Syndicate Inc.


Friday, March 13, 2015

Kerry Is A FOOL! His Anti-Vietnam War Escapades Combined With His Anti-Israel Rantings Make Him A Perfect Stooge For Obama!

John Kerry Loses It Over GOP Senators’ Letter to Iran… But Look What He Did During the Vietnam War

When news of the letter that Sen. Tom Cotton and 46 other Republicans sent to Iran hit the press, Secretary of State John Kerry lost his very tenuous uplink to reality and began spouting venom at the opposing party.
“This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,” Secretary of State Kerry said, conveniently ignoring the two centuries of constitutional precedent on treaties that the president was ignoring.
According to Politico, Secretary of State Kerry said that during 29 years in the Senate, he had “never heard of or even heard of being proposed anything comparable to this.”
Perhaps while he was in the Senate, no. However, as a young man who was the president of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Kerry had done almost the exact same thing.
Let’s flash back to 1971, when Kerry was at the helm of the influential anti-war group. President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger were trying to negotiate an end to the Vietnam War in France, talks which would eventually produce the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

During that time, Kerry travelled to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation, at that time an enemy combatant nation. He met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, one of Ho Chi Minh’s top negotiators, in sessions that were possibly illegal and not fully disclosed until Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.
According to WND, Binh had worked out a scheme where she would undermine the negotiations by painting the United States as being unreasonable. Kerry was deemed the appropriate vessel to carry this message back to the United States, and after their talks in Paris, he did just that.
Kerry threw the weight of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War behind trying to convince America that President Nixon should accept all of North Vietnam’s demands. Keep in mind that the North Vietnamese plan ordered America to withdraw and to pay the North Vietnamese government reparations.
This was all merely so that North Vietnam would, at some point in the future, maybe release our prisoners of war, or at least set a date in which they said they would do so.
Now, it’s possible in hindsight to have differing opinions about the rectitude and wisdom of the Vietnam War.
It isn’t possible, however, to have differing opinions about what John Kerry did. He undermined the position of the American government at the behest of one of its enemies.
And even if the wisdom of the war can be questioned, nobody could claim that the brutal communist regime of North Vietnam had any moral claim great enough for John Kerry to intervene on their behalf.
For John Kerry to whine about the intervention of 47 senators in his questionable negotiations with a pariah state that wants a nuclear weapon is the ultimate hypocrisy, especially when this is a man who spent years undermining the American government during wartime.
It’s that kind of hypocrisy that makes John Kerry the perfect Obama administration official. It’s also the kind of hypocrisy that makes America glad they didn’t vote for this man in 2004.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

If Obama Can Release Cuban Spies And Taliban From Gitmo, Why Can't He Release Pollard? One Reason He Loves Terrorists And Muslims And He Hates Israel! Pollard Will NOT Be Released.


Share This Post
 1
www.israel-commentary.org
Zionist Organization of America
News Release
One Freed Cuban Murdered An American!
NEW YORK, December 18, 2014
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is strongly declaring that President Barack Obama, who has this week freed three convicted spies who spied for an enemy regime, Cuba, must free Jonathan Pollard, who spied for an American ally, Israel.
The ZOA further notes that one of the convicted spies freed by President Obama was responsible for the murder of an American citizen and that all three have served only 13 years for their crimes on behalf of an enemy state, whereas Jonathan Pollard has been imprisoned for 29 years for spying for an American ally.
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “It is remarkable that President Obama, who has been repeatedly urged by U.S. officials who held responsibility at the time for national security and intelligence matters to free Jonathan Pollard, has refused to do so.”
“Conversely, he has shown himself, this week, to be willing to free three convicted men who spied for a long-term enemy state, Cuba, including one man who was responsible for death of an American national. Where is the logic and justice in that?
“Jonathan Pollard passed on classified information to Israel, a U.S. ally, not a U.S. enemy. There was, thus, no treason involved. Pollard pled guilty to the charges and apologized for his crimes. His crimes did not lead to the death of Americans, as was once claimed, but rather the espionage activities of Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, whose actions came to light only after the Pollard sentencing, were shown to be responsible for those results.”
“Despite, having pled guilty as part of a plea bargain, Pollard was shown no leniency and was given the maximum sentence, comparable to that of Aldrich Ames, the chief of CIA counterintelligence in Eastern Europe, who passed critical defense secrets to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and was found responsible for the deaths of at least 11 U.S. agents!”
“A host of senior past high U.S. government officials with responsibility for relevant national security, international and legal affairs, such as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Schultz, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, former National Security Advisor Robert C. “Bud” McFarlane, former Assistant Secretary for Defense Lawrence J. Korb, former Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, former Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman David Durenberger, former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann; former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, former Senate Judiciary Committee Member, Dennis DeConcini, and former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel Samuel Lewis and Thomas Pickering, have all publicly and in writing stated that Jonathan Pollard’s sentence has been disproportionate and urged President Obama to pardon him.”
“Jonathan Pollard has already served nearly three decades behind bars, which is by far the harshest sentence ever meted out for the offense he committed — the average term for which is a fine or two to four years’ imprisonment.”
“If President Obama can free three spies for a hostile state like Cuba, including a murderer, he can certainly pardon Jonathan Pollard. He should do so without further delay.”
- See more at: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10388#sthash.sT2IeBQ3.dpuf