Michele Bachmann and End Times Foreign Policy

[GostHacked]

You know, there was a warning in this morning's paper, either from the IMF or the G20, that a US default could plunge the world into a deep recession.

This warning has been going on since the housing bubble in 2008. Interest rates are still low and the Fed is still doling out money to whoever needs it. The US is printing money like crazy. The value is going down. There are external factors too. Some countries are starting to dump the greenback. I had predicted this.

http://www.examiner.com/article/dollar-no-longer-primary-oil-currency-as-china-begins-to-sell-oil-using-yuan

On Sept. 11, Pastor Lindsey Williams, former minister to the global oil companies during the building of the Alaskan pipeline, announced the most significant event to affect the U.S. dollar since its inception as a currency. For the first time since the 1970's, when Henry Kissenger forged a trade agreement with the Royal house of Saud to sell oil using only U.S. dollars, China announced its intention to bypass the dollar for global oil customers and began selling the commodity using their own currency.

Lindsey Williams: "The most significant day in the history of the American dollar, since its inception, happened on Thursday, Sept. 6. On that day, something took place that is going to affect your life, your family, your dinner table more than you can possibly imagine."

"On Thursday, Sept. 6... just a few days ago, China made the official announcement. China said on that day, our banking system is ready, all of our communication systems are ready, all of the transfer systems are ready, and as of that day, Thursday, Sept. 6, any nation in the world that wishes from this point on, to buy, sell, or trade crude oil, can do using the Chinese currency, not the American dollar. - Interview with Natty Bumpo on the Just Measures Radio network, Sept. 11

Financial collapse in the USA has a high probability of happening.

http://rt.com/news/iran-attack-us-allegations-243/

The world now knows the truth about the US and how they conduct their affairs. US hostilities toward Iran have nothing to do with nuclear weapons development. If that were the case, then North Korea and Pakistan would be facing similar sanctions and threats, but they aren’t. The difference of course is in what lies beneath the ground – oil. Iran has it and the other guys don’t.

At the heart of the issue is not Iran’s dubious attempt to build nuclear weapons, or even oil, but how that oil is paid for.....

2001, enter Saddam Hussein. He floated a plan to sell oil for European currencies in lieu of petrodollars. Shortly after Iraq was ‘suddenly’ found to be seeking and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction – allegations spearheaded by the US. The world knows what happened, suffice it to say that Saddam is dead and Iraq is ‘back on track’, selling its oil for petrodollars once again.

...

Seeking nukes and harboring terrorists is one thing, but threatening the petrodollar is quite another. Gaddafi made a fatal error when he decided to move away from the petrodollar in favor of other currencies. This simply was not tolerated by the US. Having already played the WMD card in Iraq, something new was pulled from the US ‘regime change’ grab bag. Within a year, ‘internal’ elements rose up in rebellion against Gaddafi and now he is dead. Long live the petrodollar.

The warning signs are there, and the bells have been going off for some years now.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm still confused why that would be a reason to be uncritical of her views or any comment she might make.

No reason not to be critical, but no more than any other "extremist". Religion matters to Americans, as do free speech rights. Rep. Bachmann represents both of these constitutionally protected rights.

[dickwhitman]

No reason not to be critical, but no more than any other "extremist". Religion matters to Americans, as do free speech rights. Rep. Bachmann represents both of these constitutionally protected rights.

I agree on all of these points, except that I'd rather say Mrs. Bachmann shows that both freedom of speech and exercise of religion are allowed. Am I correct in saying that we don't disagree with each other on anything either of us has said in this thread?

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree on all of these points, except that I'd rather say Mrs. Bachmann shows that both freedom of speech and exercise of religion are allowed. Am I correct in saying that we don't disagree with each other on anything either of us has said in this thread?

I think we agree on the point of religion and speech rights being protected regardless of the political leanings of any particular candidate or elected office holder. This idea transcends American political partisanship. Rep. Bachmann knew exactly what she was doing for a niche political market that, until recently, served her purposes for state and national ambition. It was a good run.....

[Argus]

By any measure Rep. Bachmann has completed a very successful political career with strong support from a majority of constituents in her district. On balance, the national spotlight on her extreme rhetoric has only served to enhance her name recognition/profile and fund raising from like minded individuals (far more than Rep. Ellison). As long as Tea Party supporters need such leadership and visibility, Bachmann types will be there to fill that role.

It says nothing good about America that people like this can complete 'very succesful political careers', especially when there's so many of her type on the poiltical stage these days. Your quote from Ellison is an absurd comparison.

[dickwhitman]

I think we agree on the point of religion and speech rights being protected regardless of the political leanings of any particular candidate or elected office holder. This idea transcends American political partisanship. Rep. Bachmann knew exactly what she was doing for a niche political market that, until recently, served her purposes for state and national ambition. It was a good run.....

I agree with your first sentence.

I might rephrase the second one, "This idea ought to transcend American political partisanship, insofar as all politicians ought to be criticized for things like Farrakhan-supporting and apologizing to wrathful anti-American gods irrespective of their political affiliations. However, no law should ever demand that they refrain from speaking their mind when it comes to religious matters; that is to say, politicians enjoy protection from the first amendment." In other words, when running for election, their religious views aren't immune from scrutiny, but the law permits them to hold whatever view they like before and after their election to the legislature.

In the final sentence, are you meaning to say that you don't think her belief in her nutbaggery is sincere? I don't doubt that some politicians present themselves as more religious than they really are for the purposes of getting elected or reelected more easily, but you don't have to be "Michele Bachmann-religious" to get elected.

[bush_cheney2004]

It says nothing good about America that people like this can complete 'very succesful political careers', especially when there's so many of her type on the poiltical stage these days. Your quote from Ellison is an absurd comparison.

Americans will choose and reject their political leaders, same as Canadians choose/reject theirs. It says everything good about America that this is the case.... external opinions are largely irrelevant. And of course, most Americans don't waste their time worrying about Canadian politicians, regardless of their rhetoric or politics.

[Argus]

Americans will choose and reject their political leaders, same as Canadians choose/reject theirs. It says everything good about America that this is the case.... external opinions are largely irrelevant. And of course, most Americans don't waste their time worrying about Canadian politicians, regardless of their rhetoric or politics.

Canadians don't produce the sheer mass of crazies at the top level of politics as you do. The Republican primaries last time around threw up a series of laughable idiots and lunatics as serious prospective candidates.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In the final sentence, are you meaning to say that you don't think her belief in her nutbaggery is sincere? I don't doubt that some politicians present themselves as more religious than they really are for the purposes of getting elected or reelected more easily, but you don't have to be "Michele Bachmann-religious" to get elected.

Michele Bachmann exploited a growing evangelical backlash that matches her own belief system. She knows how to manipulate the media and bend it to her own purpose(s). She is a polarizing figure with name recognition that others would love to have.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canadians don't produce the sheer mass of crazies at the top level of politics as you do. The Republican primaries last time around threw up a series of laughable idiots and lunatics as serious prospective candidates.

Frankly, does the world care as much about "Canadian crazies" ? Would anybody even notice ?

[dickwhitman]

Michele Bachmann exploited a growing evangelical backlash that matches her own belief system.

So you do agree that she is a religious lunatic, it just also happens to make for good politics in your view?

[bush_cheney2004]

So you do agree that she is a religious lunatic, it just also happens to make for good politics in your view?

No, I agree that Rep. Bachmann is a very successful political opportunist, not a "religious lunatic". If so, then she is "crazy like a fox".

[dickwhitman]

No, I agree that Rep. Bachmann is a very successful political opportunist, not a "religious lunatic". If so, then she is "crazy like a fox".

You're giving her much more credit than she deserves, and if it isn't obvious why she doesn't deserve it then I don't know what to tell you. This is a matter of calling a spade a spade.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're giving her much more credit than she deserves, and if it isn't obvious why she doesn't deserve it then I don't know what to tell you. This is a matter of calling a spade a spade.

Rep. Bachmann has earned her "credit" where it counts come election time. She is a successful woman, candidate, House member, and Tea Party spokesmanwoman. Regardless of her politics, she is/was a formidable opponent.

[dickwhitman]

Rep. Bachmann has earned her "credit" where it counts come election time. She is a successful woman, candidate, House member, and Tea Party spokesmanwoman. Regardless of her politics, she is/was a formidable opponent.

We're obviously talking about two different things. I'm not questioning her success within her district. I'm questioning the soundness of her mind (rude as it might be to do so). You don't have to be smart to be a successful politician. Perhaps I'm being presumptuous of your politics, but surely you'd agree with the assertion that Joe Biden isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, regardless of how successful he is? The same is true (although I'd argue much more so) of Mrs. Bachmann.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Perhaps I'm being presumptuous of your politics, but surely you'd agree with the assertion that Joe Biden isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, regardless of how successful he is? The same is true (although I'd argue much more so) of Mrs. Bachmann.

From a practical viewpoint, it doesn't matter what I think about how "sharp" either of them are. It is called "politics" for a reason, with winners and losers. Mrs. Bachmann has been a winner by any such measure. President Carter is/was a smart guy, but I sure don't agree with his politics...then or now.

[dickwhitman]

From a practical viewpoint, it doesn't matter what I think about how "sharp" either of them are. It is called "politics" for a reason, with winners and losers. Mrs. Bachmann has been a winner by any such measure. President Carter is/was a smart guy, but I sure don't agree with his politics...then or now.

Well I'm sorry to say I'm not as uninterested as you are in the personal lives or characteristics of politicians. Doing so, I think, would've saved our country some trouble in the 90s under Mr. Clinton. In his case it wasn't a question of intelligence, but rather one of moral character. The same could be said of other countries and their heads of state (e.g., Russia and Putin, France and Chirac). I'd delve into that, but we're here to discuss Mrs. Bachmann.

[bush_cheney2004]

Rep. Bachmann is bowing out of politics for now, so her detractors will get a break from all her "religious action". That she would get such attention from Canadians (this forum) in the first place speaks volumes.

[dickwhitman]

Rep. Bachmann is bowing out of politics for now, so her detractors will get a break from all her "religious action". That she would get such attention from Canadians (this forum) in the first place speaks volumes.

Well look at it this way, they're not wrong in recognizing that it matters who is in the government of the most important country in the world. (Not to sound like too much of a chauvinist.) Aren't you on here to because of your interest in the internal politics of a much less important country? (Again, not to sound too chauvinistic; I quite admire Canada.)

Edited November 2, 2013 by dickwhitman

[bush_cheney2004]

No, I am here to reflect on the Canadian obsession with U.S. politics and "America" in general. Most Americans don't know, don't care, and don't care that they don't know much about Canada. If you review threads in this Canadian forum, it is dominated by references to the U.S.

Even this web site is hosted in the USA...Texas to be exact.

[jacee]

No, I am here to reflect on the Canadian obsession with U.S. politics and "America" in general. Most Americans don't know, don't care, and don't care that they don't know much about Canada. If you review threads in this Canadian forum, it is dominated by references to the U.S.

When you're the mouse sharing space with the elephant, it's a good idea to keep tabs on the elephant's movements.

[dickwhitman]

No, I am here to reflect on the Canadian obsession with U.S. politics and "America" in general. Most Americans don't know, don't care, and don't care that they don't know much about Canada. If you review threads in this Canadian forum, it is dominated by references to the U.S.

Even this web site is hosted in the USA...Texas to be exact.

Well that's fine too. Either way, the US matters in the world of foreign affairs and Canadians recognize this. This thread was originally about Mrs. Bachmann's views on the policy of Mr. Obama with respect to al-Qaeda (i.e., Mrs. Bachmann's views on some aspect of US foreign policy). Now Canadian's ought to be interested in the anti-terror policies of the US (the west's only military superpower) or anyone looking to influence them, as Mrs. Bachmann seems to want to do.

Come to think of it, if you're interested in what Canadians think of you or your country, why doesn't that make you interested in Canadians and their country? Furthermore, I don't think most Americans don't care about the politics of their own country.

Edited November 2, 2013 by dickwhitman

[bush_cheney2004]

When you're the mouse sharing space with the elephant, it's a good idea to keep tabs on the elephant's movements.

Sorry...I don't buy that old excuse anymore. If the world has gone "global", why can't Canadians let go of the "elephant".

Edited November 2, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

....This thread was originally about Mrs. Bachmann's views on the policy of Mr. Obama with respect to al-Qaeda (i.e., Mrs. Bachmann's views on some aspect of US foreign policy). Now Canadian's ought to be interested in the anti-terror policies of the US (the west's only military superpower) or anyone looking to influence them, as Mrs. Bachmann seems to want to do.

But Rep. Bachmann is part of the larger U.S. domestic and international policy framework, regardless of her religious views. I don't really care how much more difficult it is for Canadians (or Americans) to cross the border to buy cheaper gas and cigarrettes compared to years ago because of changes in such policies. If Canadians don't like it, they should disengage from such close economic and military integration with the U.S.A.

[jacee]

Sorry...I don't buy that old excuse anymore. If the world has gone "global", why can't Canadians let go of the "elephant".

I guess because we're free to do what we choose.