It's a Kwazy Life: Analyzing the Sanity in Politics That Control Our Lives

Herman Cain is Right: You Can’t Take the Texas Democrat out of Governor Rick Perry

2011-10-03T02:55:00.000-07:00

There is a big brouhaha setting up over Governor Perry’s family leasing some land that was used as a hunting reservation. The reason for the brouhaha is the land being leased had a name assigned to it.

The name was Niggerhead.

The name Niggerhead came to light because evidently there was a rock at the entrance to the hunting reservation that was painted with the name Niggerhead

In the reports, it sounds like the Perry family along with some others, leased a parcel of acreage within a 42,000 acre ranch that is owned by the Hendrick Home for Children. So the question has to be asked, who painted the word Niggerhead on the rock?

Did the owners of the Hendrick Home for Children put the name there or was it done by someone within the group associated with Perry’s family who leased the acreage from the owners of the ranch?

The argument on whether or not you could see the name is a red herring. The point is; it was put there by someone.

So the question is: who put the name on the rock and why? And if the rock with the name Niggerhead was there prior to the Perry family leasing the acreage, why would Perry’s family lease land from a group that would have the racist name on the rock displayed?

According to reports from Perry’s camp, the father of Governor Perry covered the rock with the name and hiding a name could have any agenda.

Interestingly, when the leasing of the property took place back in the 80’s, Perry was a Democrat who was lending his support to Al Gore and Al Gore praised Perry for his support and history shows Al Gore’s father was embroiled in a sensitive issue that dealt with race and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Back when the Civil Rights Act was being crafted, Gore Sr. opposed the Act and having grown up in a family of Democrats in Michigan, I saw my mother push the political ranks in the Michigan Democratic Party to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And knowing Michigan Democrat Representative James O’Hara was a proponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I find it common to see Southern Democrats who opposed their political brethren in the North over the Civil Rights Act.

This brouhaha over the rock reached presidential candidate Herman Cain and he answered with calling Perry’s actions insensitive.

Now there are Perry supporters crying foul and there are supposed conservatives attacking presidential candidate Herman Cain over his response to the news that Perry’s family was involved with leasing a hunting reservation that was named Niggerhead.

Cain called out Perry as being insensitive is correct.

Remember, it was Perry who called people who opposed his policy of school tuition for illegal immigrants as having no heart and it was Governor Perry who called Tom Tancredo a racist because he opposed Perry’s immigration policies.

From supporting Al Gore in 1988, to lending support in 1994 to Hillarycare, calling people who don’t support his immigration policies racist or not having a heart and now having his name embroiled in an insensitive leasing agreement with individuals who seem to have a history of having a racist view, it can be said Herman Cain is right and you can’t take the Texas Democrat out of Governor Perry.

The Herman Cain Proves the Pundits Wrong

2011-09-25T16:14:00.000-07:00

There is something special that happened at the highly promoted GOP Florida straw poll that should leave egg on the faces of many political pundits who said the Herman Cain was washed up with only having a 50% name ID.

And contrary to pundits like Tony Lee at the Human Events, the Herman Cain won the straw poll because it was Herman Cain.

There were GOP delegates that bolted from Governor Perry so they decided to listen to a speech given by the Herman Cain and they became hooked. And laughably, Palin’s people are pimping on the conservative boards that Palin supporters voted for Cain.

That’s a joke, the Palinistas would go to their grave before voting for someone else. But hey if they want to portray themselves as gaming the system, have at it. Then there was the rumor that Romney instructed his supporters to vote for Cain. That too is a joke because it would put Romney further back and it doesn’t explain the huge turnout of people that showed up to see Herman Cain speak.

Having watched many speeches given by Cain, his speech before the folks in Florida was his best.

There is no other candidate or potential candidate that can come close to Cain and his ability to pull at the political heartstrings of voters.

The Herman Cain is a rare candidate in that he is not a politician but is a candidate that combines the speaking skills of Dr. King and President Reagan. In other words, Herman Cain is a presidential candidate like no other presidential candidate.

While pundits cast doubt on a Cain candidacy because he lacks political experience, tell that to Ross Perot who was pulling within striking distance until he went on how Bush et. al, was going to take pot shots at his family.

And then there is the famous loud mouth with the bad hair, Donald Trump who when he went public with a possible run, jumped ahead in the polls until his foul-mouth speech in Nevada pushed him out of contention.

The fact of the matter is, there is a double standard among pundits when it comes to Cain.

What will decide the GOP primary is who has the best solutions and doesn’t have the baggage of poor policy making. When you look at the current GOP field and potential list of candidates, Cain comes out on top.

Is this to say Cain will win? No. He still shows signs of not reading the political landscape and that was best displayed with a missed opportunity to hit back at president Obama and Romney by ignoring Michigan.

The primary in Michigan will be key in this election and as of yet, I have not seen Cain spending time there. If he had setup a deep infrastructure there early on, he could have followed on the heels of Obama’s visit to Detroit and would have garnered some press there. That in turn would have helped him in the recent straw poll where Romney came in first and Perry second.

The Cain campaign has now entered the Big Leagues and his staff need to study the political landscape so they can be better positioned to seize on opportunities that played out in Detroit. And they need to come up with some better answers on foreign policy like how do you deal with Russia and their support with Iran’s nuclear expansion.

As for Perry, he owns the comment on having no heart with school tuition for illegal immigrants and Cain can point to Perry and just say if that is how he and the citizens of Texas want to spend their tax dollars, so be it, but the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing the higher education of illegal immigrants.

For the pundits who discounted Herman Cain and pointed to Perry as the second coming of Reagan, you have been punk’d by the delegates in Florida.

The Tale of One Typhoon in the Philippines

2011-08-28T01:32:00.000-07:00

While most of the attention has been placed on Hurricane Irene, Typhoon Nanmadol hit the Philippines.

Having worked as a weather forecaster in the Air Force, using computer progs is fool hardy.

The headlines speak to this.

Typhoon Nanmadol expected to miss northern Philippines

8 dead as typhoon slams northern Philippines

There is no excuse for this.

The Lords of the Tea Party: Sarah Palin Ignores Senator Gollum aka McCain

2011-07-28T23:51:00.001-07:00

Ohhhh – ohhhhh, the Hobbits are screaming mad at Senator Gollum aka McCain.

(note: I found the photo on the internet)

Senator Gollum has called the Tea party members Hobbits and Sarah Palin who helped put Senator Gollum in office had this to say to the Freshman legislators.

Out here in proverbial politico flyover country, we little folk are watching the debt ceiling debate with great interest and concern. Today I re-read the open letter I wrote to Republican Freshman Members of Congress in November 2010, just days after they were ushered into office in an historic landslide victory due in large part to the activism of commonsense patriots who are considered part of the Tea Party movement. I respectfully ask these GOP Freshman to re-read this letter and remember us “little people” who believed in them, donated to their campaigns, spent hours tirelessly volunteering for them, and trusted them with our votes. This new wave of public servants may recall that they were sent to D.C. for such a time as this.

The original letter is pasted below, with added emphasis to certain passages that I feel are especially relevant to the current discussion.

All my best to you, GOP Freshmen, from up here in the Last Frontier.

Sincerely,

Sarah Palin

P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.

No word to Senator Gollum. Sharron Angle sent word to the Gollum, Palin didn’t.

I don’t want to hear the B.S. that she had to be loyal to McCain when she endorsed him.

The Tea Party has become fractured into factions that support candidates, it will be interesting to see how the GOP primaries play out and how the Tea Party survives.

Is Herman Cain a Bigot?

2011-07-24T17:34:00.000-07:00

The press is having a field day with Herman Cain’s statements on banning a Mosque in Tennessee.

They are calling him a bigot.

Is he?

No.

The bigots are those who call Herman Cain a bigot.

Those in the press who espouse tolerance of the teachings in the Koran are the same who hold a bigotry against Christianity and the New Testament.

The bigots who call out Herman Cain as being a bigot, should look in the mirror, their attacks are based on their own hypocrisy.

Having grown up as a Catholic, I have seen the same bigotry aimed at Herman Cain, aimed at the Catholic faith for its teachings based on the New Testament.

Arguably those who attack the Church, are trying to shift focus from their own bigotry and intolerance.

Moreover, why is it that the bigots attack the Church (who is lenient when compared to the teachings found in the Koran), hold the Nation of Islam to a different standard?

Answer – the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

When it comes to Islam, Herman Cain is right.

He understands how Shariah law is part of Islam and Islam is not compatible with the teachings found within the United States Constitution.

And contrary to what the bigots say, Shariah finds its way into the United States courts and ultimately most cases are thrown out on appeal.

The appellate courts and their rulings in effect, prove Herman Cain right and in effect, our courts ban the actual worship of Islam via the Koran.

I found it interesting that when it came to burning the Koran, the press lauded President Obama’s decision to criticize the pastor by saying this:

President Obama was certainly right to be disgusted by "Reverend" Terry Jones's threat to stage a public burning of the Koran, a plan that was mean, stupid, intolerant, and spookily evocative of Hitlerian book bonfires. But I am also troubled by Obama's efforts to hector Jones into changing his mind. Everyone should worry when presidents invoke wartime security, or similar arguments, against constitutionally protected free speech, even -- or especially -- when the speech is offensive, outrageous and unpopular.

Strictly speaking, there was nothing unconstitutional about Obama's campaign, abetted by an all-star cast of national security officials, to get Jones to back off. Presidents have free speech, too. But when was the last time an American citizen got a phone call from the Secretary of Defense urging him to call off a political demonstration? Invoking his status as commander-in-chief, Obama accused Jones of, in effect, abetting America's enemies: "This kind of behavior or threats of action put our young men and women in harm's way. And it's also the best imaginable recruiting tool for al-Qaeda."

So burning the Koran according to the bigot is stupid, intolerant and spookily evocative of Hitlerian book bonfires?

What about burning bibles?

Just as has happened with the Florida church that promises to burn the Quran, Grizzard was warned by local officials that his church could be slapped with a huge fine, in his case as high as $25,000, because book burning would violate local ordinances.

So Grizzard and his people reconsidered; they had a non-book burning party, instead shredding the Bibles and other books that drew their ire if not their fire.

The few media who showed up had to take their word for it since it all happened inside the little church. Grizzard proclaimed the event a great success. And it was. A church with a membership of 14 got world-wide publicity.

Did the president come out against the burning of the bibles because it could become a National Security Issue? And where was the press calling out how stupid, intolerant and spookily evocative of Hitlerian book bonfires.

Did a majority of Christians condemn the killing of bin Laden?

There is a reason why you can burn a bible and not worry about a National Security Issue.

It’s because true Christians are tolerant and understand freedom. And when a group’s ideology goes against this, instinctively a true Christian knows when to act accordingly.

Unfortunately, the bigots have taken a tragic event in Norway and have started to lay the ground work to attack Cain.

What the bigots forget is: the terrorist in Norway, was a Freemason, a group criticized by the Catholic Church:

The most persistent critic of Freemasonry has been the Catholic Church.^[1] Since the early 18th century, the Vatican has issued several papal bulls banning membership of Catholics from Freemasonry under threat of excommunication. Currently, as reiterated in 1983, Catholics who become Masons are in a state of Grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion,^[2][3] but the penalty of excommunication is not formally declared in the current code of canon law.

Moreover, the terrorist did not pray and found no support from the Catholic Church.

WASHINGTON – A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a "Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.

Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

Discover how both totalitarianism and terrorism will wilt in the face of true freedom with "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror."

The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas.

Given the terrorist was a member of a Swedish Nazi forum, his humanist and pagan ideology is a direct contradiction to the press labeling him a Christian.

What is interesting is how bigots like to point to the terrorist as a “right wing” Freemason when his beliefs fit religious bigots like the KKK.

And it has clouded their own objectivity to ask who was the other gunman (according to witnesses) and who were his connections in Prague.

Throughout his manifesto of half –truths and contradictions, he thought about obtaining a nuclear weapon, studied the Oklahoma terrorist who according to witnesses had an accomplice and was just plain nuts.

It seems the thing the bigots calling out Cain have in common with the terrorist is, their bigotry of Christianity.

If the terrorist’s objective was to stop the Nation of Islam’s holding Norway's government hostage, he failed.

He killed the innocent.

As a Catholic, I was taught vengeance is a forbidden fruit and to know them by their works.

And this I know, Herman Cain is no bigot.

Herman Cain Wants to Ban KKK Centers or Something Like That

2011-07-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

I hope the headline got your attention because I have a question for you: What does the KKK and the Nation of Islam have in common?

Intolerance.

In fact, when it comes to Jews and Catholics, you will find the enemy of my enemy is my friend motto used within the ranks of the KKK.

So when you see the Left screaming at Herman Cain with headlines here, here, here and The Herman Cain Doesn’t Believe in the First Amendment, keep in mind what they were saying when a pastor wanted to exercise his First Amendment rights by burning a Quran.

The headlines: Obama weighs in as plan to burn Qurans sparks debate and this one: Obama and the right to burn the Koran:

Strictly speaking, there was nothing unconstitutional about Obama's campaign, abetted by an all-star cast of national security officials, to get Jones to back off. Presidents have free speech, too. But when was the last time an American citizen got a phone call from the Secretary of Defense urging him to call off a political demonstration? Invoking his status as commander-in-chief, Obama accused Jones of, in effect, abetting America's enemies: "This kind of behavior or threats of action put our young men and women in harm's way. And it's also the best imaginable recruiting tool for al-Qaeda."

(emphasis added)

Okay so burning the Quran is a recruiting tool for the al-Qaeda.

How about Mosques being a recruiting tool for terrorism?

It seems there is a double standard there.

Moreover, which is more a national security risk, burning a book or having home-grown terrorist?

The hypocrisy of the Left is not surprising: to make banning something, just insert the KKK over Mosques and you will get the drift.

It seems Herman Cain is right about the Left and their intolerance.

Sarah Palin in Newsweek Says She Can: Zogby Poll Says She Can’t

2011-07-12T17:13:00.000-07:00

I will keep this blog short: Sarah Palin supposedly stated in a Newsweek article she can beat Obama.

I went to her diehard supporters on Conservatives4Palin to get their version on the Newsweek story.

Then I went to see how they viewed Zogby and I found Romney standing still. And while the folks at Conservatves4Palin were citing Zogby to attack Romney, I found the Boston Herald citing Zogby according to C4P as being hilarious because the Herald was desperate.

So when Zogby said Sarah Palin was the person of the year, what did the folks at Palin-walks-on-water say?

Was citing Zogby when it had good news about Palin an act of desperation when the Newsmax-Zogby poll had Palin the leading contender in the GOP2012 race?

Sorry guys and gals at Conservatives4Palin and PalinTV, you don’t get to pick and choose when Zogby is good and bad and cite Hot Air polls.

For the time being, Sarah Palin is not doing well with her negatives.

Monday Open Thread | Conservatives4Palin

conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/monday-open-thread-26.html

May 23, 2011 – Zogby propping up the Moron Herman Cain. Herman Cain is alway so freaking ...... 2011 Conservatives4Palin. Follow us on twitter @C4Palin ...

You have to take the good and bad so Zogby has Palin losing against Obama.

Match-Ups With Barack Obama

If the election for President were held today and the candidates were Democrat Barack Obama and each of the following Republicans, for whom would you vote?

GOP Candidate

Obama

Opponent

Someone else

Not Sure

Chris Christie

41%

45%

6%

8%

Mitt Romney

42%

43%

12%

3%

Rick Perry

42%

43%

8%

7%

Tim Pawlenty

41%

41%

11%

8%

Herman Cain

42%

42%

11%

6%

Ron Paul

40%

40%

14%

6%

Michele Bachmann

44%

42%

9%

6%

Rick Santorum

44%

39%

12%

6%

Jon Huntsman Jr.

39%

31%

18%

12%

Sarah Palin

47%

37%

13%

3%

Newt Gingrich

45%

33%

19%

4%

And then you have Zogby stating that majority wants cuts instead of new taxes.

What Do The Somos Republicans and Jon Stewart Have in Common? Alligators and 3 Page Bills

2011-07-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

A huge group of Iowans showed up at Herman Cain's opening his HQ in Davenport Iowa (try finding a story on it) today:

Meanwhile, the Iowa Independent posted a story on a special interest group getting upset about a comment Herman Cain made about the Wall of China, electric fences and moats filled with alligators.

Behold the special interest group’s tweets:

I liked the one that stated “Herman Cain Faces Backlash Over Alligator-Filled Moat Border Security Solution” via the @huffingtonpost .

Now you would think that by now, people like Jon Stewart would get Herman Cain’s appeal and his ability to get under-the-skin of the Left and quite frankly, special interest groups who have an agenda.

Here you have so-called conservative Republicans calling out Herman Cain for a dig Herman Cain made at Obama for Obama using a metaphor on moats and alligators to diminish the seriousness of our border security along the U.S. Mexican border.

So what is okay for Obama is not okay for Herman Cain? Did the Somos Republican group attack Obama for that?

What the Somos Republican group did do is join with the N.A.A.C.P on blasting the Arizona Law on immigration.

In Arizona, many Hispanic voters have socially conservative values that put them squarely in the Republican camp. But the state’s controversial new immigration law now has them at odds with their party. Host Michel Martin speaks with DeeDee Blase, founder of Somos Republicans, an organization of Hispanic Republicans in Arizona, who supports securing the U.S.-Mexico border and overhauling the country’s immigration system. Also joining the program is Wilbert Nelson, president of the Arizona State Conference of the NAACP.

Many times special interest groups don’t represent the majority in a group they claim to represent.

However, Frank Luntz has the proof when it comes to Herman Cain’s policy on immigration and how people feel about Cain’s real position.

Thank You Sarah Palin: The Undefeated; And Some Republicans and Alaska Democrats

2011-07-09T01:43:00.000-07:00

I would like to take this time and thank Sarah Palin; The Undefeated and some Alaska Republicans and all of the Alaska Democrats in the Alaska legislature.

The legislation called ACES is having a booming effect on the business climate in Alaska and the United States.

Alaska has moved from 50^th (among the 57 Obama United States) to 49^th when it comes to states that promote a healthy business climate.

I guess you could attribute the rise to 49th with Sarah Palin leaving and Sean Parnell taking over, but he still has to deal with a bunch of idiots in the legislature.

Some may point to Alaska’s economy is 3^rd but that is because the government spends billions of dollars to sustain it.

Think of it like Obama’s federal stimulus plan on steroids.

And what about the workforce?

It is ranked 48^th and that hire Alaskan plan a.k.a Project Labor Agreement Palin and her union brothers and sisters partied over, it was about bringing up union workers from the Lower 48 because there is not enough skilled labor in Alaska.

So while the oil companies are drilling a gazillion wells in North Dakota, Texas and every other place except Alaska, I finally figured out what Sarah Palin The Undefeated meant when she said Drill Baby Drill and Drill Here, Drill Now.

When she secretly had her eye on the V.P. slot, she had it all planned out; help Mr. Anti-ANWR McCain become president and come up with some asinine tax plan that would drive oil development to other parts of the world.

And one more thing: screw those American “Big Oil” companies in Alaska - while nationalized “Big Oil” companies like Russia’s Gazprom chants Drill Cuba Drill and China’s Sinopec chants Drill Canada Drill , they both snicker at American “Big Oil” 6.2% profits.

I can imagine old Vladimir Putin standing at the shore of Big Diomede waving to Sarah Palin on Little Diomede, while Putin’s oligarch buddies at Gazprom nudge each other as they laugh at how they sand-bagged Wally Hickel when he went to visit Russia and Hickel tried to tell the Russians how to develop their resources.

Alaska was a model don’t you know…

Since Gazprom is a nationalized company, the Russian government can tax the hell out of Gazprom and pass the tax increase on to the market or consumers in the U.K..

And the tax increases, they are usually done through promises made during an upcoming election:

Russia relies on oil and gas for most of its budget revenue. “First of all, in Russia if we want to increase taxes, we are thinking about all and gas business,” Konstantin Simonov, the General Director of the National Energy Security Fund in Moscow, told New Europe on 15 June.

Gas production in Russia is subject to much lower rates of extraction tax than crude oil production. “Taxes on oil companies are higher than gas companies and oil companies are usually asking for decreasing of taxes because, according to their position, there is no money for new investment. That is why in this case Minister of Finance is proposing idea to think of gas companies,” Simonov said.

Simonov said that Kudrin expects an increase in state expenditures due to the upcoming elections and wants to increase taxes because there is not enough money in the state budget. The proposals to increase gas taxes are still under discussion. So far, Gazprom, with the support of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, has been able to avoid any increases in the rate between 2006 and 2010. But now, due to the upcoming elections, Putin may have no choice but agree to raise mining taxes on the gas industry, Simonov said.

Gazprom has warned that an increase in its tax burden would discourage new output. Gazprom, which has seen a decline in Brownfield production, has said that there has been no serious investment in Greenfields for a long time. The Russian company needs cash to develop its Bovanenkovo field, to construct a pipeline system from Bovanenkovo to Ukhta, and to develop other Yamal projects. Next year, Gazprom plans to increase its investment program. The annual shareholder meeting of Gazprom will be on 30 June. Kudrin said that the Finance Ministry doesn’t plan to raise next year’s rates for independent gas producers, such as OAO Novatek. Next year, Novatek and other independent producers will pay 251 rubles (€6.28) per 1000 cubic meters and only slightly more, 265 rubles, (€6.63) in 2013.

It seems Mr. Putin wants another try at being at the forefront instead of the guy who pulls Medvedev’s strings.

Once he gets elected, he will have to lower the rates.

That is because the free-market principles dictate this; principles that Palin likes to point to but are contrary to her actions taken when she took the helm of Alaska’s economy and implemented and signed ACES.

But there was an election and bad advice was followed.

Now the brilliant bunch in the Alaska legislature want to spend over $8 billion on a “bullet” pipeline to bring natural gas to a state where it was second to Puerto Rico with the highest insured unemployment rate; it spends over $10 billion on a state budget with a population of 698,473 and ignores the fact that coal methane gas can be extracted from coal deposits and be brought to market at the fraction of the cost.

Moreover, what about Alaska’s unemployment? It seems Russia and Alaska have a lot in common when it comes to taxing oil companies and government spending to keep unemployment figures from tanking.

May figures – seasonally adjusted 7.4%

Alaska’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for May was 7.4 percent, up slightly from April’s unchanged rate of 7.3%. the comparable national rate in May was 9.1 percent, up from the revised rate of 9.0 percent in April.

The trend in unemployment has been up since April and that is an Obama trend that is directly related to a tax policy set by Palin and the Alaska legislature.

Like I said before: ACES would drive Alaska to become a Really Big Detroit and it is starting.

So I would like to say Thanks Sarah Palin, I hope you enjoy your undefeated status.

BTW, Putin is undefeated too.

How Will Sarah Palin’s Actions on Same Sex Benefits Play in Iowa?

2011-07-07T16:06:00.000-07:00

The whoopla over the docu-drama The Undefeated continues and with the release of the movie, there is talk that Sarah Palin is getting in the presidential race. And it looks like Iowa is the focus in the speculation.

But when you consider Iowan’s had seen their state supreme court over-turn a law banning same-sex marriage in 2009 and having to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, how will social conservatives in Iowa feel about Sarah Palin’s handling of same-sex benefits?

Respondents described as ‘very conservative’ The biggest minefield among the 10 issues is civil unions. Fifty-eight percent would outright reject a candidate who favors them. Thirteen percent would consider a candidate who supports civil unions, and 27 percent say it’s no real problem. Two percent aren’t sure.

(…)

Iowans have been deeply divided over rights for same-sex couples since a unanimous 2009 Iowa Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriage.

Evangelical Christians last year led a successful campaign to oust the three justices who participated in the ruling who were up for a retention vote last fall. This year, a small group of Republicans in the Iowa House wanted to impeach the remaining four justices who handed down the decision, but didn’t have enough support from their fellow representatives. Republican legislators continue to seek a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

For Romney supporters, civil unions are far less of a deal-killer (35 percent) than for supporters of Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman (80 percent).

Here in Alaska, we know what effect a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage can have.

In a civil lawsuit against the Municipality of Anchorage, the Alaska Supreme Court stated the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, justified unmarried same-sex couples getting benefits from public employers:

ANCHORAGE (AP) — The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday it is unconstitutional to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, a victory for gay rights advocates in one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

(…)

But Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski was "outraged" by the ruling and directed the attorney general's office to determine the best way to overturn it, said his spokeswoman, Becky Hultberg.

The high court said the disputed benefits plans will stand until a remedy is reached in future court hearings. Nine gay or lesbian government workers and their partners in 2002 joined the Alaska American Civil Liberties Union in appealing the lower court ruling.

The case stems from a 1999 lawsuit filed against the state and the Municipality of Anchorage after voters passed a constitutional amendment blocking state recognition of gay marriage.

In the 2001 Superior Court ruling overturned Friday, Judge Stephanie Joannides said the state and city did not have to extend benefits to same-sex couples, equating them with unmarried heterosexual couples who also are not eligible. The high court said that comparison failed to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual couples can choose to get married, while homosexual couples cannot.

In response to the Alaska Supreme Court, the Alaska Legislature crafted a bill that would have banned benefits going to same-sex couples but the bill was vetoed by Governor Palin:

The Legislature passed a bill in a November special session that would have barred the commissioner of administration from taking action on the new benefits plan.

Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole, sponsored the bill. In a phone interview Thursday, he said Palin faced a constitutional dilemma but that he’s still disappointed by her veto.

“I would have like to have seen her stand up to the courts,” Coghill said.

The statement from the Palin administration said the veto doesn’t mean Palin suddenly agrees with the Supreme Court, which ruled that the state has to offer the benefits starting Jan. 1.

“It is the Governor’s intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue,” the statement said.

Coghill said he’s interested in a new plan that would allow state employees to designate one person -- maybe a same-sex partner, but also possibly a family member or roommate -- who would be eligible for state-paid benefits. But the employee would have to pay to add that person to their benefits.

On Dec. 20, Palin signed a bill that calls for the public to vote on whether or not there should be a constitutional amendment denying benefits to same-sex couples.

The constitutional amendment denying same-sex benefits was an issue that the candidates were asked about in a voter's guide.

In answers to the question, Sarah Palin answered yes to a constitutional ban– in the same voter guide, I qualified my answer to the same question by pointing to the 8^th Circuit Court.

Because the lawsuit opened the federal claim door by including the United States Supreme Court Lawrence vs. Texas and Romer vs. Evans decisions in briefs, I indicated that the 8^th circuit had addressed the legal issues surrounding same sex issues and the Legislature was on sound legal ground to enact a law denying the benefits.

Arguably, Palin erroneously vetoed the law and as a result, the legislature could not test a faulty decision handed down by the Alaska Supreme Court.

Moreover, given Palin’s rationale behind her veto, the same rationale could have applied to her support of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex benefits.

Since the proposed constitutional amendment would go directly against the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling, Palin’s veto from a legal point, was illogical and poorly thought out.

And out of all of the legislative wrangling, an advisory vote was conducted in April 2007 and the vote supporting a constitutional amendment had a slight majority.

But with the help of Democrats like my opponent Mike Doogan, the constitutional amendment process died under the Palin administration.

Later when Palin became the V.P. nominee, news stories emerged stating she supported same-sex benefits. The stories were shot down by Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200808290025

SUMMARY: The Associated Press reported that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "opposes gay marriage -- constitutionally banned in Alaska before her time -- but exercised a veto that essentially granted benefits to gay state employees and their partners." However, the AP did not note that Palin stated that she vetoed the bill because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she believed same-sex partners of public employees should receive benefits.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200809010004

SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Debra Saunders and CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck both falsely claimed that Gov. Sarah Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, she stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that the bill was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples. She has also reportedly said that she would support a ballot question banning benefits for same-sex couples.

The Media Matters stories jumped-the-gun because Palin in a debate with Biden stated that she would not support the same sex benefits if it brought the definition of marriage closer to include same sex marriage, but she did follow Biden’s lead when Biden stated:

Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.

Palin:

But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.

But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.

(emphasis added)

Palin punted the legal issue surrounding same-sex benefits to the voters when she vetoed the law crafted by the legislature.

So how will Palin’s handling of the same-sex benefits issue be looked at by social conservatives in Iowa?

It remains to be seen if it becomes an issue.

Herman Cain’s Likability Factor = An Electable Candidate

2011-07-06T01:25:00.000-07:00

While the presidential primary races are still far off, it seems voters have decided for themselves that either Mitt Romney or Governor Perry are going to be the GOP presidential primary winners.

In a new poll conducted by Zogby, the numbers indicate that most voters think Romney will win.

Regardless of whom you intend to vote for, who do you think will get the nomination?

Candidate	GOP Primary Voters
Mitt Romney	37%
Rick Perry	17%
Michele Bachmann	10%
Ron Paul	3%
Tim Pawlenty	2%
Chris Christie	2%
Sarah Palin	2%
Herman Cain	1%
Jon Huntsman Jr.	1%
Newt Gingrich	<1%
Rick Santorum	<1%
Other	8%
Not sure	25%

Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding

The voters have fallen into a rut. Money and name recognition are playing into the equation right now.

When you look at the data, you see Michele Bachmann is in the lead with Herman Cain following.

If the Republican primary for President were held today, for whom would you vote?

Candidate	June 30	June 21
Michele Bachmann	34%	24%
Herman Cain	15%	15%
Mitt Romney	14%	15%
Ron Paul	11%	13%
Rick Santorum	7%	5%
Tim Pawlenty	4%	6%
Jon Huntsman Jr.	4%	2%
Newt Gingrich	2%	2%
Gary Johnson	<1%	2%
Fred Karger	0%	0%
Other	1%	4%
Not sure	8%	13%

Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding

There is clearly a disconnect between the voter’s choice and who they think will win.

When the respondents were asked who they would never vote for, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann have the least amount of voters who would not vote for them.

Which of the following candidates would you never vote for? (May choose more than one.)

Candidate	GOP Primary Voters
Newt Gingrich	46%
Jon Huntsman Jr.	43%
Ron Paul	38%
Fred Karger	33%
Gary Johnson	33%
Sarah Palin	29%
Mitt Romney	26%
Rick Santorum	23%
Tim Pawlenty	17%
Rick Perry	17%
Michele Bachmann	16%
Herman Cain	15%
Chris Christie	12%
Other	6%
Not sure	14%

Looking at the recent Gallup poll, you see a same pattern show up.

In the Gallup poll, Herman Cain while still having a low name recognition, he still remains at the top of the positive intensity score of all the listed GOP presidential candidates.

What is more impressive is his favorable and unfavorable numbers.

He has the best favorable numbers of all the GOP candidates.

The translation in the data is this: Likability = Electability.

The Herman Cain team has to make part of the Herman Cain brand, his likability makes him highly electable.

The issues on foreign policy fade and all Cain has to do is point to the other candidates with exception of Huntsman and show they lack any meaningful foreign policy leadership skills.

And that he is formulating opinions on the matter.

Where Cain excels, it is with business and problem solving.

And you get an idea that when he is ready to make a call on an issue, he will do so when he is ready.

He made the one gaffe on the right-of-return with Israel and owned up to the mistake.

That honesty is what is driving people to like him.

As the percentage in name recognition continues to increase, it seems the trend of Gallup’s positive intensity with Cain will continue with the same trend.

A Sequel to Sarah Palin’s The Undefeated: Vic Kohring’s Retrial

2011-07-03T16:16:00.000-07:00

There is a sequel about to start in Alaska.

While Sarah Palin’s legally disconnected surrogates are out promoting the Sarah Palin docu-drama The Undefeated, the recently Un-Defeated Vic Kohring is getting another trial.

The narrative Palin fought corruption and Big Oil by pointing to the corruption trials is old news.

The new narrative is: Bill Allen via VECO and the prosecution were involved in misconduct.

And as a side bar question: Is Judge Beistline crazy? : "Everyone in this room know more about this case than I do," Beistline said, then added, "but I read the papers."

So the Judge gets brought up to speed on a case by reading the Anchorage Daily News?

God Save the Queen, William Fulton and the Joe Millers of the world is all I have to say.

The nuts will come out of the woodwork for that asinine comment.

It will be interesting to see if Kohring’s defense can pick up on what looks to be a case of entrapment.

I said in 2007, the prosecution wouldn’t get the count of extortion, and there are red flags indicating entrapment.

Korhing
Submitted by tlamb775 on October 26, 2007 - 6:10pm.
has counts of extortion against him. It seems Allen's testimony just shut that down. Unless of course the prosecution can pull a rabbitt (sp) out of the hat to go along with the money for the Easter egg hunt.

Next...........

Allen's testimony is getting more dicey.... sounds like Allen liked to keep people on a leash with money and threatened them with I own your ass or other similar warm fuzzy words while feeling "real" bad for them.

Nice guy.

The prosecution didn't get their extortion conviction, Kohring was cleared of the extortion charge.

While Sarah Palin and the Left were shouting corruption, they missed the obvious.

The testimony of Bill Allen is contrived as well is the evidence that was submitted on Vic Kohring.

The prosecution has no credible lead witness to convict Kohring.

And Alaskans damned near didn’t convict Kohring in the first trial, so they won’t in this one because like the Judge, honest Alaskans (not the crazed ones) can read the headlines about Ted Stevens and know that the Anchorage Daily News had an agenda.

And just for a point of legal maneuvering, the defense would be smart to ask the Judge to clarify his remarks on he “reads the news” to get an understanding of a case.

Is Vic Kohring’s Entrapment, the sequel to Sarah Palin’s The Undefeated?

Poland, Dominos and Herman Cain

2011-07-02T01:23:00.000-07:00

I know Herman Cain has made plans to visit Israel, but an interesting set of events are taking place in Poland that merit a visit by Herman Cain.

In contrast to my above belief, a while back in a commentary for Red County, I said the same about Sarah Palin, but to this date, Palin has not visited Poland.

In the commentary I stated:

Moreover, it is becoming apparent the war in Afghanistan is lost because Afghanistan is geographically near all of the turmoil that is erupting in the Middle East. And as Turkey is establishing strong economic ties with Iran, Turkey’s army is going into Kyrgyzstan and going to offer support to the Kyrgyzstan army.

And for those who don’t know, the key operating base supporting our troops in Afghanistan is Manas A.B. in Kyrgyzstan and Turkey is looking at getting the refueling contract that supports our aircraft that support our troops in Afghanistan.

The moves taken by Turkey are all about control and a ruse for power.

We had an opportunity to pull our troops out of Afghanistan earlier and as I stated in an earlier commentary in March of 2010, we should have taken measures to shift our focus and place troops in the Baltics and bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Then I stated a nuclear Iran would become Obama’s Waterloo.

A nuclear Iran is becoming Obama’s Waterloo and while the political pundits suggested that sanctions would work against Iran and attempts of espionage failed, Iran is still on course to produce a nuclear weapon by 2012.

That should make the followers of the Mayan calendar happy.

I continued:

Enter Sarah Palin -

Now, I am not sure what Sarah Palin’s political aspirations are at this time but when she spoke against the START, she became the voice of strength and she is correct on the position she has taken.

And the latest revelation about the START in WikiLeaks -- that the US agreed to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets in order to get the Russians to sign the treaty -- should cause an outrage among all Americans.

What the Obama administration has done is put the U.S. at risk for the sake of political expediency, and those in the Senate who signed on to the START are enablers to a despicable act.

There was no need to provide Russia with information on what nuclear arsenal the British have. The START does not address the issue.

This latest revelation on the START should be a catalyst for Sarah Palin to visit Poland and the Baltics and do so to ensure that there are Americans who will not throw our allies under the bus like the Obama administration has consistently done.

It is time we put pressure on Russia to change its ways and show the people of Europe that the US stands with them.

Too bad for Palin she didn’t go to Poland because: All eyes are on Warsaw as Poland assumes E.U. presidency.

Cain the Pizza Man Deliver

For Herman Cain, an opportunity exists for Herman to learn from Ronald Reagan when it comes to foreign policy.

It was the Pope and Lech Walesa via the Polish trade unions that played a big part in ensuring the fall of the former U.S.S.R.

Today, Russia by selling its natural gas to Europe and Europe’s dependence on Russia’s natural gas reserves, a strong-arm relationship exists between Russia and Europe.

Russia maintains the muscle and uses it to control the political scene.

Russia also is using its muscle in places like Kyrgyzstan.

Mina Corp executives are reportedly unhappy with the terms of the new solicitation, under which the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) could opt to purchase just 10 percent of the total amount of fuel consumed at Manas, even if a supplier offered to meet requirements in full. US government sources say the new solicitation, issued in early May, is structured in a way that allows a Kyrgyz-Russian enterprise, Gazpromneft-Aero-Kyrgyzstan, to control 90 percent of the base’s fuel needs. With only 10 percent of supplies guaranteed to be in play, there’s not enough of a profit incentive for Mina Corp to stay in the bidding, according to one source.

(…)

One industry analyst said Mina Corp’s decision to pull out of the bidding, if accurate, would be a “major headache” for DLA. Despite being dogged by controversy and being the subject of USA congressional probe, Mina has maintained an unblemished record for reliable fuel deliveries.

Gazpromneft-Aero-Kyrgyzstan, the heir-apparent fuel supplier, is an unproven entity. Although the company currently makes deliveries of civil aviation fuel to Manas International Airport, it has no track record for supplying the military base. Gazpromneft-Aero-Kyrgyzstan is currently subject to DLA due diligence procedures, which are expected to be completed within weeks.

US government sources suggest that Gazpromneft-Aero-Kyrgyzstan is likely to be supplying a portion of the current fuel contract to Manas by early September. Gazpromneft-Aero-Kyrgyzstan is partly owned by a subsidiary of the Kremlin-controlled Russian energy giant, Gazprom. A Bishkek-based observer told EurasiaNet.org that Gazpromneft-Aero-Kyrgyzstan’s lack of performance to date was because the Russians subjected the Kyrgyz side to longer and tougher negotiations than expected.

For those who don’t know, Manas A.B. is a key military staging ground to transport troops and washing machines in Afghanistan.

In a commentary in 2009 titled: Putin Gets All of Eastern Europe and The U.S. Gets a Lousy Washing Machine, I stated:

Which brings me to my point on Obama's and Putin's horse trading business that I pointed to here.

On another point, on July 2nd, the New York Times ran an article that put a lot of spin on the efforts of the countries that broke away from Russia.

One example is the U.S. base in Kyrgyzstan:

Kyrgyzstan’s reversal on Manas is a case study in canny horse trading. Russian officials, including Mr. Medvedev, have said they blessed the decision, and that may be true, but President Kurmanbek S. Bakiyev is the one who walked away with what he wanted.

Moscow wanted the base, a key transit hub for the United States’ war in Afghanistan, shut down; Kyrgyzstan wanted more money. In February, Moscow seemed to have achieved a master stroke — at a news conference announcing the pledge of $2.15 billion in Russian aid, Mr. Bakiyev said the United States would have to leave Manas in six months.

The horse trading that took place between Obama and Russia has been pointed out on this website. It started at the G20 summit and what was the end result? The United States gets to move no military hardware, only supplies such as food and support equipment. And the movement of the supplies will be monitored by the Russians.

We pay more for the use of the base and the monitoring of the goods opens the door for theft and black market of the goods.

Russia got what it wanted.

The important question in all of this will be who wins? Russia or the United States?

At the time when I wrote the commentary on Manas A.B., Gallup conducted a poll that indicated that a majority of Americans felt the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans likely view President Barack Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan as unfortunate but necessary. Since mid-2008, a majority of Americans have perceived things in Afghanistan to be going very or moderately badly for the United States, and 70% currently think the Taliban will retake control if U.S. forces are withdrawn.

In 2009, I said we should have pulled our troops out of Afghanistan, stationed them in Poland and Baltics so pressure could be placed on Russia to stop enabling Iran in acquiring a nuclear weapon and strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Meanwhile using our Special Forces and drones to take out the al Qaeda.

Unfortunately as it turned out, Sec. of Defense Robert Gates was against attacking Iran.

Beginning in his Senate confirmation hearing in December 2006, Gates has repeatedly spoken out against attacking Iran. After President Obama decided to retain him as defense secretary, Gates declared that "a potential strike on the Iranian facilities is not something that we or anyone else should be pursuing at this time."

The position taken by Gates was wrong; Russia has been supplying Iran with nuclear fuel but has not been sanctioned once and Iran is nearing its goal of having nuclear weapons.

And as a nuclear Iran comes to fruition, Iran will have a stronger influence over Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and for that reason we will see our economy negatively impacted by instability in the region and because of our own dependence on foreign oil.

So who won in the region?

Russia, but that doesn’t matter to Obama, in a new Gallup poll, a majority of Americans agree with the president’s plan to pull troops out of Afghanistan.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans broadly support President Barack Obama's plan to begin withdrawing U.S. forces in Afghanistan this year, with additional troops scheduled to leave by the end of next summer and the remainder by 2014. Nearly three-quarters, 72%, are in favor, while 23% are opposed.

How do Americans view Iran?

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are most likely to mention Iran when asked which country they consider to be the United States' greatest enemy. China and North Korea tie for second, with Afghanistan and Iraq rounding out the top five.

I have stated that Iran will be Obama’s Waterloo and the polling data suggests bad news for the president.

Interestingly, Americans don’t view Russia as our enemy, but when you examine Russia’s role with Iran, it is clear that Russia has played a role with helping Iran in their attempts to build a nuclear weapon.

Herman Cain Knows Dominos.

Herman Cain knows pizza and self admittedly, he doesn’t know much about foreign policy.

So Cain should take a page out of the playbook of the Gipper and show solidarity with Poland by visiting Poland.

President Reagan understood how important Poland was in the region and while Americans don’t necessarily view Russia as our enemy, it is.

When you have a country treat our allies poorly, you support your allies as was done by Reagan.

When it came to the death of the Polish President Lech Kaczynski, it can be argued that Vladimir Putin lied about who was at fault.

But to be diplomatic, the evidence points to the Russian controllers calling out the incorrect glideslope.

You can draw your own conclusion on why the controllers called out the incorrect glideslope.

And then there was the Viktor Yuschenko from the Ukraine, who was poisoned.

Some wrote about Putin’s poison factory.

Then there is Putin telling Europe to mind its own business when it came to Gazprom.

What did Poland say about its allies in 2009 while Obama is our president?

It is time now for a mature look, stripped of illusions, at our possibilities and our future," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told Rzeczpospolita newspaper last week. "I think today we all know that if we are to look to somebody, we have to look to ourselves.

(emphasis added)

On a thread in 2009, I posted this:

Monday, April 13, 2009

Bad News for Poland April 27th if They Sign With Gazprom

April 27th

Polish gas supplier PGNiG PGNI.WA may on April 27 sign agreement with Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM) to pump additional 2.5 billion cubic metres of gas to Poland, daily Rzeczpospolita reports without quoting any sources.

If they were smart, they would hold off on signing with Gazprom...

The Baltics and Poland need to strength(en) their ties.

Happy Baltic shoppers show currency pain ahead

As people from the Baltics head to Poland to shop, the Baltic retailers are feeling the pinch. But given the downgrading by Fitch, there should be some stabilization in parity between Poland and the Baltics currency.

Poland needs to strengthen the common denominator between itself and the Baltics. It is not Gazprom.

And this idea of having President Valdis Zatlers go to Russia is insane.

The Poles understood what would happen if they became dependent on Gazprom, so they did the smart thing and decided to call on the evil “BIG OIL” American companies and establish partnerships in developing the shale gas in Poland.

While Sarah Palin was out there attacking “Big Oil”, Poland understood the need for a tax regime that would stimulate production.

What you have is: Poland understands that tax certainty is needed for both Poland and the oil companies. And there is no other candidate who understands this concept more than Herman Cain.

Energy independence for our allies like Poland is important and candidate Herman Cain has the business expertise to develop strong economic ties with our allies while being competitive.

The American press like to make light of Cain’s pizza business background but Herman Cain knows the pizza business and I find it ironic that a competitor of Godfather’s pizza, Domino's expanded in Poland.

Domino's entered two new markets earlier this year, Philippines and Poland, after adding five new markets in 2010. The stock, recently trading around $23.46, has risen about 90% over the past year.

As Reagan said in 1981, it was important that we established economic ties with Poland.

That same sentiment holds today and while others are out their vilifying “Big Oil”, our allies are establishing partnerships with private American oil companies like Exxon.

I believe Herman Cain understands the importance of our allies having a secured source of energy and not be held hostage to nationalized oil companies like Gazprom and countries like Russia and China.

Herman Cain is the one who has the expertise in business to develop economic ties with our allies and manipulate the ties in a manner that can bring a peaceful resolution in a crisis through our own strength and the strength of our allies.

How Would Herman Cain Handle a Nuclear Iran?

2011-06-23T19:39:00.000-07:00

With the announcement made by President Obama that he is going to start to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain came out with a press release stating the following:

President Obama’s statement tonight is a stark reminder that while one might campaign in poetry, one must govern in prose.

While all Americans hope and pray for a speedy, victorious resolution to the war in Afghanistan that prevents the continued loss of our national treasures— our men and women in uniform— and our national treasury, how we define an honorable exit remains to be seen.

The President suggested that we cannot become isolationist or engage in every international conflict, but instead, we must charter a “middle course.” How does he define this? It seems to be yet another foggy foreign policy coming from this administration.

Instead of providing the American people with clarity, President Obama proposes an abrupt withdrawal of our troops that could potentially compromise the legitimate gains we have made in Afghanistan. Sadly, I fear President Obama’s decision could embolden our enemy and endanger our troops.

President Obama is correct on one account: it is time for nation-building at home and high time the Afghan people take more responsibility in bringing peace and stability to their own country.

With the focus put on Afghanistan, All of the pundits are missing one thing when it comes to Afghanistan: A Nuclear Iran.

In October 2009, I had written in response to the troop build-up in Afghanistan:

This is a headline from ABC News: Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran?

Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?

The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes.

There are those who have been using the talking points that troop numbers in Afghanistan should be increased.

As has been written on this site, caution should be used when citing the need for an increase in troops in Afghanistan.

There are those in the Pentagon who believe there is an urgent need to strike at Iran.

As stated on this site, any retaliation by Israel or the U.S. against Iran should be done with minimal troops in Afghanistan.

To have them stationed in Afghanistan, would put them in harm’s way of Iran using chemical weapons against American and NATO troops and could cause an escalation in the war in the Middle East.

There is a time for Afghanistan, but that time isn't right now. It is with Iran.

And I would question Obama's change in willingness to put more troops in Afghanistan with knowing that there are some in the Pentagon who want to hit Iran's nuclear facilities.

Is this troop increase a delay tactic and an excuse being designed by Obama?

With more troops in Afghanistan, is there an excuse to not bomb Iran?

At the time when my commentary was written in 2009, a few months earlier, Iran’s nuclear facilities were being hit by the Stuxnet virus:

The Stuxnet software worm which infiltrated the Iranian nuclear program systems was introduced into the system in order to infect five industrial facilities in Iran between June 2009 and May 2010, the New York Times reported Sunday.

This virus was used to shut down the nuclear reactors and it would have enabled the U.S. to launch military strikes at Iran’s nuclear facilities.

While it is understandable to get the facts and intelligence with certain military engagements before making a call, Herman Cain if he becomes president, he most likely will have to address the issue of a nuclear Iran and he may have to do so with depending on his own instincts instead of what some military commanders may say.

The reason why I say this is because as I wrote in my commentary in October 2009, I felt General McChrystal was paving the road to hell in Afghanistan:

There is the saying the devil is in the details and the details are coming out on McChrystal's plan for troops in Afghanistan.

h/t to the Woodward Report

Most public attention has focused on the pending request by McChrystal for troop reinforcements. But more significant than the troop numbers is his blueprint for a radical shift in the way the United States and its allies intend to fight the war.

Key among his proposed changes: rather than trying to fight everywhere, shifting forces to "critical areas,'' where the Afghan population is most at risk. Another key change: getting American troops -- and increasing numbers of U.S. civilians -- out of their armored vehicles and fortified bases into Afghan communities, and getting them to shuck body armor and helmets and to walk among the population unprotected, like the Afghans themselves do.

To the conservatives who are championing McChrystal putting more troops in Afghanistan, read the last paragraph and think long and hard on what the details are in McChrystal's plan.

That is nation building, not fighting the enemy.

When you look at the bigger picture, you can see more details of McChrystal's plan of using more troops for nation building falls in line with Obama's horse trading.

There are good generals and there are bad generals and for Herman Cain, there will come a point when he will have to answer the question in a debate on how he will handle a nuclear Iran.

After I wrote the commentary on McChrystal, I wrote an “I-told-you-so” commentary:

Here is an I told you so moment...

TALIBAN commanders have revealed that hundreds of insurgents have been trained in Iran to kill Nato forces in Afghanistan.

The commanders said they had learnt to mount complex ambushes and lay improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have been responsible for most of the deaths of British troops in Helmand province.

The accounts of two commanders, in interviews with The Sunday Times, are the first descriptions of training of the Taliban in Iran.

According to the commanders, Iranian officials paid them to attend three-month courses during the winter.

Many had said the health care issue would be Obama's waterloo, it never was, it is with Iran....

To hear General Petraeus speak about Afghanistan, a question should be asked: what is the goal in Afghanistan when Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapon and has signed agreements with Afghanistan on conducting anti-terrorism operations?

Tehran, Jun 22 (FNA) Iranian and Afghan officials have agreed to carry out simultaneous and coordinated operations against terrorist and extremist groups in the region, an Iranian official has said. “According to the agreement, we exchange information to carry out simultaneous operations against terrorist and extremist groups," Iranian Deputy Interior Minister Ali Abdollahi told reporters at the end of a series of security meetings between the two countries here in Tehran today. Abdollahi also pointed to the sour increase in the number of terrorist and extremist groups in the region, and said during the security meetings between Tehran and Kabul officials, the two sides decided to boost their cooperation to better fight against these two dangerous phenomena. He described cooperation in campaign against drug-trafficking and also intensified control over the two countries' borders as among the other main issues touched and stressed during the Iran-Afghanistan Joint Security Workgroup meetings in Tehran. Abdollahi had announced yesterday that Tehran and Kabul plan to carry out joint operations against drug-traffickers.

It is well known that Iran will influence the region to include Afghanistan and once we leave, the Taliban will be used as Iran’s proxy in the Jihadist's goal of controlling the Middle East.

As it stands, with Iran gaining a foothold in obtaining a nuclear weapon, there will be no winning in Afghanistan and the question needs to be asked and answered by Herman Cain: How would you handle a nuclear Iran?

GOP Candidate	Obama	Opponent	Someone else	Not Sure
Chris Christie	41%	45%	6%	8%
Mitt Romney	42%	43%	12%	3%
Rick Perry	42%	43%	8%	7%
Tim Pawlenty	41%	41%	11%	8%
Herman Cain	42%	42%	11%	6%
Ron Paul	40%	40%	14%	6%
Michele Bachmann	44%	42%	9%	6%
Rick Santorum	44%	39%	12%	6%
Jon Huntsman Jr.	39%	31%	18%	12%
Sarah Palin	47%	37%	13%	3%
Newt Gingrich	45%	33%	19%	4%