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

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

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.

Is Herman Cain a Bigot?

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.

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

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.

Poland, Dominos and Herman Cain

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.