RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Gab@StFerdinandIII -

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Back     Printer Friendly Version  

Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 7, 2007

Giuliani should be the next US President

He understands Islam's threat; economics; and empire stability and he is not even a Jew ! [gasp]

by StFerdIII

Giuliani is the only Republican who can win a general election. He far outpaces in gravitas, constancy and policy setting, the Democratic challengers. Clinton is as unprincipled as Obama is light. Giuliani’s policy team have correctly identified the key issues of the coming generation: winning the long war against the fascistic elements of the Islamic ideology [it is not a religion]; limiting government spend; lowering tax rates; and ensuring the survival of the current international system which is benefitting not just the Jews [or Joos]; and the red in the neck Americans; but alas [sadly for the screaming Marxists], the entire globe, including the ever-smiling and benign mother Earth. Giuliani should be the GOP nominee and if the American electorate has any common sense – its next President. Here is why.

Giuliani’s platform, given in speeches, on his website, and in interviews has been remarkably consistent [with the minor exception of abortion, going from laissez-faire to believing in strict limitations on the procedure]. Here are some highlights gleaned from recent statements, articles and speeches encapsulated in a wonderful article in the last Foreign Affairs Magazine. This platform if maintained, is more than enough to push Giuliani into the White House in November 2008.

Giuliani’s overarching theme is: ‘...three key foreign policy challenges. First and foremost will be to set a course for victory in the terrorist’s war on global order. The second will be to strengthen the international system that the terrorists seeks to destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the international system in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across the globe’ This all sounds pretty mundane and commonsensical – except that Giuliani actually believes in using power – military, economic, and cultural - to match reality with rhetoric, ‘The most effective means are....a stronger defence, developing a determined diplomacy [i.e. not a State department, liberal driven foreign policy but one that mirrors what the US in total wants to achieve], and expanding our economic and cultural influence.’ Power then will be used to maintain the peace and destroy radical Islam. How nice to be so clear-eyed.

More than any other candidate Giuliani understands the threat that Islam poses to the West even naming the menace, which until recently only Bush has done, ‘They follow a violent ideology: radical Islamic fascism, which uses the mask of religion to further totalitarian goals...’ Wonderful. This is about as concise a summary as one can hope to garner from a politician. It remains to be seen however, when if in office, the same terminology would be used. I would guess that it would be. No other presidential contender with the exception of Romney has been so bold as to affix a clear name and description to our enemy. Certainly the cauterwauling Democrats never would. For Obama, a one-time Muslim, raised by a wealthy Chicago couple, Islam is one more minority group vote to placate and buy. Clinton knows better but would be forced to appease Islamic doctrinaires by the extreme Marxist elements of the socialist party she represents. The US has little need of such dissimilative nonsense at this juncture in history. The Democrats are not a viable alternative when it comes to security, peace and the long war against fascistic Islam.

This is also underscored by Giuliani’s historical memory and the lessons derived from past failures. Giuliani understands that appeasement, doing nothing or withdrawal only emboldens the enemy. The Democrats believe in the mutually exclusive idea of running away and hiding but remaining ‘strong’. You don’t win wars with Clintonian ‘dialogue’ or State-department discussions and moralising; or with Obama’s insipid observations that terror is an emergency service operation, or that hypocritically, a nuclear armed Pakistan should be invaded. These are ideas that no serious presidential contender should ever make. Giuliani has a different viewpoint and one that would destroy any Democratic contender in a debate on foreign policy, security and the Islamic threat.

For Giuliani and those concerned to save civilisation the response to Islamic fascism is to use force to buttress diplomacy. Running from Iraq which would hand the region over to Iran, Syria and Sunni terrorists, and is thus a pretty bleak option; ‘..we can predict the consequences of failure: Afghanistan would revert to being a safe haven for terrorists, and Iraq would become another one – larger, richer and more strategically located. Parts of Iraq would undoubtedly fall under the sway of our enemies.’ Obviously so. But how many Democrats have said the same? Clinton to her credit acknowledges this argument but in the face of and the shrill Marxist elements of her party, would be unable to stop the untimely withdrawal of US troops from the Middle East. The results would be worse than the post 1975 disaster visited upon south-east Asia after the Democratic US congress cut off US troops and aid from South Vietnam, even though by that time a military victory was well within reach. Leaving the Middle East to pursue John Edwards’ ‘re-engagement’ plan with world opinion, does not stand up to any serious geo-political, military or even moral scrutiny [leaving millions to die and deserting allies is never a smart foreign policy option].

Giuliani recognises that in the long war with fascistic Islam a rebuilt military is a necessity. The US army according to Giuliani, ‘is too small to meet its current commitments or shoulder the burden of any additional challenges that might arise.’ Much to Democrat derision Bush wants to increase the US army by 92.000 men, by 2012. Giuliani supports this measure, but even that increase is too small. The Americans have about 500.000 fighting men and women of which 1/3 are in Iraq. To build protectorates, regime change key areas of the Middle East and safeguard the international system, the US will most certainly need another 250.000 deployable and highly trained soldiers.

Yet the Democrats, as one would expect, have proposed the opposite [with Clinton as the lone exception]. They want defence cuts, a reduced army and lighter deployments, and certainly no regime changing of failed states or the establishment of protectorates. Again the question is, how do you win a war, if you are unwilling to regime change failed states which support your enemies? As Giuliani states, ‘Rebuilding will not be cheap, but it is necessary. And the benefits will outweigh the costs.’ This is also true of Iraq. Sure Iraq will cost $1.5 Trillion before it becomes normalised and stabilised. But this is a reasonably cheap insurance policy [not to minimise the agony of 3.600 dead soldiers]. 9-11 wiped out $1 Trillion from the US economy and the Oil for food scam of the 1990s cost the US about $100 billion per annum. As with purchasing assets, so it goes with setting up a protectorate - it is better to own in some cases than to lease.

Giuliani also rightly supports the major tenets and continuation of the Patriot Act, a reformed and more effective Homeland Security, FBI and CIA overhauls, and a more focused State Department policy. It would be hard to accomplish any of these objectives in the teeth of bureaucratic, media and legal opposition but it certainly is worth a try. The Democrats under any of their candidates would of course oppose all of the above [excepting CIA reform], and would grant the State department more leniency and power to undermine US positions and make US foreign policy a confused mockery. Giuliani is also, thankfully, scornful of the United Nations – the Useless agglomeration of failed states and non-democratic regimes that actively in many ways, supports anti-Western and Islamic radicalism.

Giuliani is clear-headed when he mentions, ‘The UN has proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute in the last 50 years. Worse it has failed to combat terrorism and human rights abuses.’ Certainly true. The UN is anti-Jew, anti-American, and through various agencies has been supportive of our enemies with aid, money and technology transfers. The list of UN futility is long and meaningful and even apologists such as The Economist and the New York Times cannot possibly be blind to the fact that the UN is being used against the West by its membership.

In this vein Giuliani is also pro-Israel. He understands that the terror states of Syria, Palestine and Lebanon are as much a threat to US civilisation as Israeli. The Arabs have done nothing to deserve a Palestinian state. More aid has been given to the Arabs in Palestine than was spent during the Marshall plan rebuilding of post War Europe. All of this aid has been wasted and has only lubricated the anti-Jew, ‘Great-Satan’, machinery of aggression and hate. Giuliani puts it well, ‘Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terror and a willingness to live in peace with Israel.’ This is the polar opposite view expressed by the EU, the UN, and the US Democratic party.

Giuliani’s view of the world is realistic and in the best American tradition, idealistic. He is rightfully proud of country. It is refreshing to hear an American express Reagan-like optimism. He knows that security and peace depend on US military and economic strength. Tax cuts, non-essential spending cuts and a rebuilt military would be Giuliani priorities. He knows that the EU, Canada and the UN will not be much help in the struggle to overcome yet another pagan fascism – though diplomatic channels, smiling handshakes and jet-set conferences will undoubtedly be used to give the impression that the ‘allies’ are all-important brethren in the long war. Thankfully he understands that Islam is the problem – not a minority sect whose vote one must buy. Searching and far-reaching military, domestic and border reforms would be a priority for a Giuliani White House. Certainly the Democrats don’t offer such a coherent and realistic program of action and in fact would do the opposite of what is required. This is why a Clinton-Obama White House, so vapid, forlorn and apologetic, would be such a disaster.

As for Giuliani’s lack of social conservatism – who cares? You don’t win general elections being a social conservative. Giuliani needs to win some key ‘moderate’ or left-leaning states. Clutching a bible and thumping out morality is not going to do it. One should be a social conservative at home and mute about it in public. The more important issues are security; economic growth; reducing government size and winning the long war. On these issues Giuliani is the most intelligent, forceful and consistent candidate the Americans have. The US electorate should leave personal morality aside and put in a president and a congress that will do what needs to be done. Giuliani is the man for the times. Let’s hope that 50% or more of US voters agree.

Article Comments:

Related Articles:

USA - the state as God

11/27/2014:  Lincoln and the American Thanksgiving

1/1/2012:  The disappearing US Middle Class ?

11/8/2011:  Cain and Abel - trying to kill off the wrong 'kind' of Black Man.

6/27/2011:  Nation building in both Afghanistan and America.

4/3/2011:  The Americans have no choice but to cut spending - by 25%.

4/1/2011:  Statism and their Unions, bankrupting America.

1/21/2011:  The Leftist cult of demonization and hate

1/4/2011:  Unions and their political masters.

11/25/2010:  American 'Regressives', Marxists and US Thanksgiving

11/24/2010:  Lincoln and Thanksgiving.

10/14/2010:  The State as 'God' – or 'Statism'.

3/24/2010:  Going from 'America vs. Europe' to 'America and Europe'.

3/21/2010:  America does not have a free market in Health care.

1/15/2010:  Stock Fraud – ride the wave, but get out sooner, rather than later.

1/9/2010:  US Bankruptcy: Economic mumbo-jumbo and 'hiding the decline'.

1/7/2010:  Debt and inflation – the killers of empires.

12/28/2009:  US Health Care is not a market.

11/20/2009:  The next government created bubble is assured.

11/12/2009:  Another Housing Bubble on the way ?

10/18/2009:  The destruction of real US culture.

9/30/2009:  Destroying the US experiment.

9/13/2009:  2 million march on Washington to protest the Prophet.

7/5/2009:  The importance of Sarah Palin.

5/29/2009:  California and GM – welcome to America's future

7/15/2008:  US socialism and the surging nanny-state.

1/14/2008:  The hopelessness of political 'hope'

12/6/2007:  American politicians 'rescue' the economy

10/30/2007:  Socialist, State-managed education is not high quality?

9/7/2007:  Giuliani should be the next US President

8/27/2007:  ‘Sicko’ – Michael Moore’s Autobiography?

6/27/2007:  US Class Warfare – Euro Style

6/17/2007:  Bush a Conservative? The illegal amnesty [again] proves otherwise

6/15/2007:  Break US Immigration Law and get Amnesty!

4/22/2007:  Mass murder and the culture of passive fatalism.

4/17/2007:  Gun Control does not reduce crime, nor violence.

1/3/2007:  Gerald Ford - a mixed legacy with important lessons

7/4/2006:  Independence Day in the USA: Why the world should be grateful

6/5/2006:  New Orleans: Destroyed by Human and Government Incompetence

6/2/2006:  Illegal immigration and the further increase of the mommy-state

9/10/2005:  New Orleans – Feds were slow but not to blame