Media is doing the World a Disservice by ignoring Trump's substantive issues

Courtesy of The Atlantic

Hat tip to Real Clear Politics who published an article called "Russian Expert Stephen Cohen: Trump Wants To Stop The New Cold War, But The American Media Just Doesn't Understand."

Stephen F. Cohen is a contributing editor at the progressive publication The Nation, which also ran the story.

The premise of the story is that Trump's substantive issues get totally ignored because the media focuses on Trump's more colorful sayings.

From the Real Clear Politics article:

Cohen says the media at large is doing a huge disservice to the American people by ignoring the substance of Trump's arguments about NATO and Russia, and buying the Clinton campaign's simplistic smear that Trump is a Russian "Manchurian candidate."

"That reckless branding of Trump as a Russian agent, most of it is coming from the Clinton campaign," Cohen said. "And they really need to stop."

"We're approaching a Cuban Missile Crisis level nuclear confrontation with Russia," he explained. "And there is absolutely no discussion, no debate, about this in the American media."

"Then along comes, unexpectedly, Donald Trump," he continued, "Who says he wants to end the New Cold War, and cooperate with Russia in various places... and --astonishingly-- the media is full of what only can be called neo-McCarthyite charges that he is a Russian agent, that he is a Manchurian candidate, and that he is Putin's client."

What Cohen is saying about the media is true.

For instance, as I sit here, less than an hour ago CNN ran a story on television on the fact that Donald Trump eats KFC with a knife and a fork. This is a story that shouldn't make the Food Network. But here we have a channel -- remember, a CNN executive declared that they are "no longer a news network" -- that spends most of the day covering political happenings talking about how Donald eats fast food in his private jet. This is ridiculous.

As I visit Yahoo minutes ago, there the editors published a story called "Trump at rally: ‘Get the baby out of here’" -- and it's the top story when you first get on the page.

It took three words for the mainstream media to use a buzzword to try to scare voters away from Trump. It begins: "In a bizarre..." -- there's really no need to finish the rest of the article, because it focuses on the least serious part of the speech, which I listened to most of, if not its entirety. The Yahoo News article doesn't even focus on any thing else said in the speech.

One hundred and fifty words wasted...

...one hundred and fifty words-sized bullet to try to take down Trump.

Yahoo News leading story. This is serious journalism, folks.

Here's a more serious part of the August 2, 2016 speech in Ashburn, Virginia, that aligns with the topic at hand:

TRUMP:  I want to get along with China. By the way wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia? Wouldn't that be great?

(APPLAUSE)

If we actually had a relationship with Russia, instead of all the fighting and money and the problems and if we could get Russia and others to partner up and go and knock the hell out of ISIS, wouldn't that be a good thing? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Now, I don't think we should even be getting involved with ISIS in that way. But here we have Donald Trump saying that he wants to get along with China and he wants to restore relations with Russia. "Wouldn't that be great?"

At the August 2 rally in Ashburn, Virginia, Trump also said of Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton will be worse. She'll be worse. OK? Hillary Clinton will be worse.

She has bad relationships with people like Putin. I'll give you an example. She has terrible relationships with Putin. This is a nuclear country we're talking about. Russia, strong nuclear country.

And so are we. But their stuff is newer. Their stuff is newer. So she's looking at -- they have more -- I don't even want to say it -- they have a lot more, OK? So you know, she wants to play the tough one. She's not tough. She's not tough.

I know tough people, she's not tough. I mean she's -- she's just -- she's doing the handlers, they push her from place to place that's all it is. You saw her speech the other night. 

I mean they talk about presidential, do you think she looks presidential? I don't think so.

I don't think so. So -- so you know, she wants to play the role of the tough guy against Putin and Russia and she wants to play not tough, not tough. She should be tough on trade, OK?

Meanwhile, can you guess which Democrat said this about Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump last week at the 2016 Democratic National Convention?

"We cannot elect a man who belittles our closest allies while embracing dictators like Vladimir Putin."

Look who's shooting from the hip now: the man one spot away from the presidency, the #2 man in the Obama administration, Joe Biden, is here recklessly calling "world leaders" dictators, even though his administration won't confirm that designation. Again, if Hillary Clinton is going to "continue Obama's agenda," then we can expect more "fool rush in" status quo foreign policy from Hillary Clinton.

As Donald says in many rallies, the media is totally corrupt. He said it today in Ashburn, Virginia.

I agree with Cohen. As I wrote to a friend recently:

That said, Trump definitely says a lot of interesting and agreeable things on foreign policy. He raises very serious questions about our priorities that gets drowned out because of the media. The media is good at shutting off serious debate whenever they find something disagreeable about him...and there is a lot to disagree.

Additionally, I wrote:

I like the idea of an "America first" foreign policy because we haven't had an America first foreign policy for about 50 years, even though it was our policy at least 150 years, according to one expert .

I meant 60 years, per Ivan Eland's numbers.

Read the article and transcript here

Confirmed: Ted Cruz surrounds himself with neocons

Back in February, I shared my concerns with readers about GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

Recently, my suspicions were confirmed: Ted Cruz really surrounds himself with neoconservative foreign policy advisers. ThinkProgress has the story.

The New American, an old paleo-conservative publication, ran a story in late 2015 called Ted Cruz's Closest Counselors Are Neocons.

Believing at first that the journalism was shaky, I wrote just two months ago:

It goes on to mention Chad Sweet, Victoria Coates, James Woolsey, and Elliot Abrams (although I think that Abrams is no longer on the campaign, if he ever was; in fact, RedState called him a Rubio mentor), all of which have neocon bona fides. Daily Caller has a story saying Cruz consulted Abrams, but this doesn't mean he was on the campaign.

Abrams doesn't appear to be an adviser in any official capacity, or ever have been. But there is reporting that says Cruz has consulted him. Part of me believes he's a Rand Paul 2.0 just trying to ride the waves of whatever will gain him support.
This is journalism that stretches the facts.

But according to the ThinkProgress story, Elliot Abrams is absolutely is on Ted Cruz's foreign policy team -- and he has two more alarming people on the team.

The Nation has an excellent story about Ted Cruz's dangerous foreign policy views in more detail. Peep the headline and subheadline:

Ted Cruz Embodies the Degeneration of Foreign-Policy Conservatism

Think nothing could be worse than a Trump presidency? Think again

Honest thoughts on Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz looks undeniably good on paper, especially from a libertarian perspective.

He wants to shut down the IRS and 4 other federal agencies, all of which were created in the 20th century.

Ironically, I agree with a lot of his platform except for his foreign policy -- which is exactly what a lot of conservatives said about Ron Paul in 2012.

What concerns me the most is that he surrounds himself, or did surround himself, with the neocons.

As The New American reported in October 2015:

Recently, Infogram published brief but illuminating biographies of several of Cruz’s key foreign policy advisors. The information disclosed in these revelations could trouble many constitutionalists otherwise keen on the senator and who rely on him to restore the rule of law to the White House.

It goes on to mention Chad Sweet, Victoria Coates, James Woolsey, and Elliot Abrams (although I think that Abrams is no longer on the campaign, if he ever was; in fact, RedState called him a Rubio mentor), all of which have neocon bona fides. Daily Caller has a story saying Cruz consulted Abrams, but this doesn't mean he was on the campaign.

Abrams doesn't appear to be an adviser in any official capacity, or ever have been. But there is reporting that says Cruz has consulted him. Part of me believes he's a Rand Paul 2.0 just trying to ride the waves of whatever will gain him support.

This is journalism that stretches the facts.

My problem is this:  I know how the deep state works, or at least read about it, and I don't want him to be systematically presented with bad information. A former Reagan official recently wrote about the deep state:

"Many Americans regard the White House as the lair of a powerful being who can snap his fingers and make things happen. The fact of the matter is that presidents have little idea of what is transpiring in the vast cabinet departments and federal agencies that constitute “their” administration. 

Many parts of government are empires unto themselves. The “Deep State,” about which Mike Lofgren, formerly a senior member of the Congressional staff has written, is unaccountable to anyone. But even the accountable part of the government isn’t. For example, the information flows from the cabinet departments, such as defense, state, and treasury, are reported to Assistant Secretaries, who control the flow of information to the Secretaries, who inform the President. The civil service professionals can massage the information one way, the Assistant Secretaries another, and the Secretaries yet another. If the Secretaries report the information to the White House Chief of Staff, the information can be massaged yet again." ~Paul Craig Roberts || Presidential Crimes Then and Now

This is why the very presence of the neocons in a Cruz administration is so dangerous to liberty.

I'm not sure how many times Senator Paul can filibuster the commander-in-chief's foreign policy. Hopefully, the presence of the neocons awaken the sleeping Democrat Anti-war movement, which was really the anti-Bush war movement, as they've been quiet about Obama's illegal use of force. But maybe it's a dead movement, in which Cruz may have to resurrect it?

But other than that Ted Cruz, on paper, would probably be my #2 preference. I couldn't vote for him because of his carpet bombing comments.

Read the rest of The New American report here

Steve Jobs on Human Nature: Right or Wrong?

I can't source this quote, but someone attributes it to the deceased Apple CEO Steve Jobs:

"Technology is nothing.  What is important is that you have faith in people that are basically good and smart.  And you should give them the tools.  They'll do wonderful things with them."  

Whether Steve Jobs actually said this is of little importance. I hope no one goes around making memes of this quote (it came from a trustworthy source). But what is important is the content.

How can Steve Jobs say such things -- that people are basically good and smart -- when the U.S. government during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations have, through its use of technology, it's military technology, destabilized the Middle East?

The United States has used all kinds of technological advancements to bomb, shoot, snipe, kill it's alleged enemies in the Middle East. Not only that, but that same technology has ended up in one of the hands of the worst terrorist organizations in the world, ISIS. They aren't using it as farming equipment.

Note that Jobs didn't limit it to computer technology. He said "technology." But even if he did limit the meaning to computer technology, the U.S. military is in the business of using that too.

One can't exempt non-government employees from these implications.

One can not say that only they -- the U.S. government -- is evil but the rest of us are "basically good and smart."

No, we are all fallen (Romans 3:23).

And this is evidenced not only on the daily but by the fact that we vote the people that make these decisions into office.

Gospel people don't put in power people who believe in the gospel of nation-building or salvation through bombing other nations.

...or any other gospel.

But that kind of politics aside...

...our fallen nature is showcased in our ability to use technology in Planned Parenthood clinics to tear babies apart ISIS-style. 

And of aborted babies that aren't killed in that way, their organs can potentially be sold.

Sometimes, the eyeballs of these aborted children fall into the laps of their murderers, and then they coldly laugh at it.

"Basically good and smart" people use internet technology to visit websites like Ashley Madison to arrange affairs, so they can discretely commit adultery on their spouses.

We use medical technology to mutilate our God-given organs. And if that's not enough, we use another kind of medical technology, or medical advancement (hormone pills), to "help" the same people "transition" away from their God-given gender.

We drug young boys who are perfectly fine or misdiagnose them and call their "condition" ADHD,

And how could I forget, we use the power of the computer to create digits in bank accounts and create money that have no corresponding token or bills in the real world. Modern central banking is nothing more than ancient coin-clipping. It is counterfeiting writ large. It is theft.

And in many of these cases, we are in agreement with them.

We rationalize them.

We intellectualize.

We philosophize.

"...They'll do wonderful things with them" we are told.

Yes, the possibilities are endless.

How many of these instances of "giving them tools" have to be listed before we lose faith in the assertion that "people are basically good and smart"?

We have technology, and we have shown that we are barbaric.

The cure to the barbarism expressed in our human nature is our ongoing sanctification and salvation in Jesus Christ.

Thoughts and notes on Occupy Peace

On September 20, 2015, the Occupy Peace movement was underway in Kingston, NY. The Occupy Peace movement is an anti-war movement started by trends forecaster Gerald Celente.

There were a lot of good spoken gems.

I will not distinguish between speakers, but here are a few excerpts from an Occupy Peace article:

"Where do you start occupying peace? You have to start in your heart and soul. Even those bad guys who bomb and do horrible things — they're just unhappy and frustrated and confused . . . they're misguided and so they continue doing bad stuff."

"We should not be like them. We shouldn't hate them. We can be angry with them and forcefully oppose them, but not with hatred in our hearts."

"We should not be like them. We shouldn't hate them. We can be angry with them and forcefully oppose them, but not with hatred in our hearts."

One of the most dangerous positions a person can find themselves in is in a hospital bed, he said.

"The number one cause of death in America is American medicine," he said. Between 560,000 and 700,000 people die every year of preventable illnesses and conditions. Ten million more a year are injured.

The trouble is, anti-war sentiment and activities have become partisan.
Sheehan said she'd been "harassed" and criticized by a fellow leftist for attending the Occupy Peace rally and somehow undermining the anti-war movement "by consorting with libertarians and with Ron Paul people." 

"First of all, I told this guy "what anti-war movement are you talking about?"
I'll go anywhere, I'll speak to anybody, as long as they are saying crush the empire." 

She, like Null, was critical of liberal Democrats in power:

"I can guarantee you, if Romney had won, if McCain had won, and they were doing what Obama is doing, there would be millions of people in the streets."
She said she agreed with Gerald Celente that the country needs a peace movement "with teeth," but one that remains non-violent. 

"It's been really lonely since Obama became president," she said. "It's because the anti-war movement is mostly partisan. They make excuses for their leaders instead of demands. So they're not comfortable with me, because I make the same demands on the Obama regime that I made on the Bush regime. And I'll do the same to the next regime until people of good conscience, revolutionaries like us, take over our communities."

"Less than one percent can turn this country around," he said. It was a point he made repeatedly throughout his hour-long presentation.

When it comes to modern weaponry, Nader said "enough is never enough" for the country's major armaments contractors.

He gave as an example a single Trident submarine, armed with multiple warhead missiles, could vaporize within 35 minutes 200 cities in a nuclear strike.

And when it comes to fighting terrorism, the U. S. is recruiting more converts to the Taliban and ISIS than they can convert themselves. What started off as a handful of men in Northeastern Afghanistan has grown to tens of thousands of fighters after the U.S.'s relentless insistence on bombing suspected terrorists, which have included thousands of innocent civilians.

"They call it 'blowback," Nader said. 

Nader urged the crowd to follow up on the rally by doing what earlier war resisters did — gather in living rooms and talk about what could be done.

Read the rest here

Judging from the footage, what was lacking from this crowd was youth. Not one speaker was young.

Yet this is supposed to gain ground as a national movement.

Judging by the photos and video, a lot of grey hairs were in attendance. This is concerning because a long-lasting movement usually has a lot of youth involved. The people in attendance at this rally don't have that many years. They are going to have to pass on their values to their adult children or else the movement suffers. In contrast, Black Lives Matters is filled with the youth. It will be around for a long time; at least as long as it needs to exist to accomplish its goal.

Luckily for Occupy Peace, people are more anti-war than ever before.

Let's call it, "social empiricism." Or "foreign policy empiricism."

We've seen war presented as a solution before and it doesn't work. The high mark of this anti-war sentiment was the Obama election, which was an outright rejection of the Bush presidency, foreign policy, and all. Apparently, this turned out to be only a rejection of Republican foreign policy, as evidenced by Obama supporters silence on the president's current agitations overseas.

However, because Americans loved him, and trusted him, Barack Obama successfully furthered the Bush agenda in many ways, and did what George Bush could not do on the foreign policy front. But he also did at least one thing that I couldn't imagine the neoconservatives let happen under a Bush Presidency: Obama made the Iran Deal. But now he is putting  "boots on the ground" in Syria to fight ISIS.

I see no crowds in the streets.

So for the most part, at the time, the same people who opposed the Iraq War are largely the same people who supported Barack Obama -- and he pacified their anti-war sentiments.

I hope that the election of a Democrat won't do the same next time around.

We know that the election of any Republican minus Rand Paul would continue to Bush foreign policy, even if having an improved economic policy.

So as Celente plans on having Occupy Peace chapters in each state, or something to that effect, then maybe we will see more youth join, because people are generally desire peace now (there's a poll on Reason.com waiting to be cited and inserted here).

I would like to see some Christian speakers at these rallies. Someone with some Christian bona fides. Someone mainstream opposing the American Empire. But a large number of conservative Christian twenty and thirty somethings would do the trick as well. It ought not be just one person. But an exegetical case against the war will have to be made.  The ultimate authority for the Christian is God's word, and it ought to be shown that 21st century foreign policy has been godless.

If this happens, if someone from the Christian right -- because conservative Christians are generally known to have a high view of scripture -- makes a solid case against war, then perhaps the Christian right, as awful as it is to write those words, should reach out to the Christian left, which certainly still exists. Whether the Christian left grabs the right's hand is of concern, but what would matter more is that the Christian right are on the right side of history.

Christians could become chapter leaders. The doors are wide open.

My only concern would be Occupy Peace's plank to give troops jobs to rebuild America's infrastructure.

But I guess this is beating something (jobs abroad fighting unnecessary wars) with something (jobs at home), versus nothing (no jobs at all for troops).

Fine, but I hope this is isn't too costly (lol).

Christians could just start their own anti-unbiblical war movement if Occupy Peace planks cause too much friction.

But J. Gresham Machen was once asked what the Church should do about the Great Depression.

His response: Preach the Gospel.

Perhaps if he lived long enough to be asked the question of the what the Church should do about World War II, he would have answered the same.

New Horizons quotes Machen:

This, then, is the answer that I give to the question before us. The responsibility of the church in the new age is the same as its responsibility in every age. It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life—nay, all the length of human history—is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there is a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all, Upholder of all, infinitely beyond all; that He has revealed Himself to us in His Word and offered us communion with Himself through Jesus Christ the Lord; that there is no other salvation, for individuals or for nations, save this, but that this salvation is full and free, and that whosoever possesses it has for himself and for all others to whom he may be the instrument of bringing it a treasure compared with which all the kingdoms of the earth—nay, all the wonders of the starry heavens—are as the dust of the street.

An unpopular message it is—an impractical message, we are told. But it is the message of the Christian church. Neglect it, and you will have destruction; heed it, and you will have life.

The only person to come close to this kind of response in the Occupy Peace movement is the Buddhist scholar. Something deeper is at work here that the Buddhist scholar can't touch. And the solution is something that Buddha can't provide. It's the hearts of men that are out of whack. It's the gospel that brings peace. Christian nations don't place in power people who hate peace. Gospel people don't place in power people who believe the gospel of nation-building. It's just another form of collectivism.

So in light of Machen's comments, perhaps Christians should stay away from Celente's movement. I think they should.

As of right now, judging my Mr. Celente's flippant and religiously irreverent closing remarks, he doesn't care about who Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha are. But who they are certainly matters to the movement. Nothing -- not war, not the presidency, not science, not race, not peace -- is out of the scope of true religion.

Christianity is cosmic.

Visit the Occupy Peace website

Rand Paul: We should keep talking to Iran

On the September 16, 2015 CNN Republican Presidential Debate:

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says that we should keep talking to Iran.

His statement was in response to being asked whether President Obama's upcoming meeting with Chinese officials should be canceled.

He also noted that those who would have cut off dialogue with foreign leaders are isolating the U.S. from international discussion.  Paul's foreign policy has been called "isolationist," so he was, in fact, pointing out the irony of those who call him isolationist are themselves just that.

Paul also wondered what would have happened if Ronald Reagan stopped talking to Gorbachev during the Cold War.

He also said that every time the U.S. government topples a secular dictator in the Middle East that there is backlash and unintended consequences.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a liar

Via CounterPunch:

"...either Netanyahu doesn’t read the news, he is hoping that nobody else notices Israel’s de facto alliance with ISIS, or he is more concerned with poking Obama in the eye publicly than in the future of his country, a fact that would not surprise me. 

Instead Netanyahu has regaled us with tirade after tirade on the ramifications of an Iranian nuclear bomb and the existential threat it poses little Israel — ironic since Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has categorically stated that his country doesn’t want one.

Iran would like to acquire nuclear technological know-how – not an atomic arsenal – the sanest possible acquisition in a ‘neighborhood’ where the only nuclear-armed power, Israel, threatens Iran’s destruction almost daily, and has wreaked havoc on the region routinely for nearly 7 decades. 

Why would he lie? A nuclear-armed Iran would be its country’s suicide note to the world before being “obliterated” (to use former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s, word) by the United States. Iran would like to acquire nuclear technological know-how – not an atomic arsenal – the sanest possible acquisition in a ‘neighborhood’ where the only nuclear-armed power, Israel, threatens Iran’s destruction almost daily, and has wreaked havoc on the region routinely for nearly 7 decades. How else might Iran succeed in deterring Israeli militarism, and how else might Iran – a country whose conventional armed forces barely allow a defensive capability – move forward into a future in which it is not bullied and brow-beaten into submission, preferring instead to seek the option of independent energy efficiency, and freedom from a regional hegemon whose godfather already enjoys unrivaled authority over most of that hemisphere."

Reject his call to war.

Video: Ron Paul gives trenchant foreign policy analysis in "The State of Liberty 2015"

If you are short on time, begin at the 30-minute mark. Dr. Paul gives an excellent analysis of foreign policy.

Near the beginning, he also touches on Ferguson and police militarization and police culture.

Foreign Policy: It's time to give up Washington Wizardry

Just two weeks ago, President Obama didn't have a plan for fighting the terrorist group ISIL. Now this evening at 9 P.M., on TV screens and live streams everywhere, he will be giving us a plan for how the U.S. Military will be involved for 3 more years in the Middle East.

This means that since last week the best and brightest witches, warlocks and wizards in the Cabinet have steadily been adding all sorts of ingredients to the White House kitchen cauldron, all of which have been in the White House fridge since the Bush years.

"Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and caldron bubble.

Fillet of a fenny snake,

In the caldron boil and bake;

Eye of newt and toe of frog,

Wool of bat and tongue of dog,

Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,

Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,

For a charm of powerful trouble,

Like a hell-broth boil and bubble." ~Macbeth, Act 4, Scene 1

But the lesson from the Obama presidency should be that politicians can't plan the outcomes of war anymore than they can plan the outcomes in the economy. The only person with intelligence that great is God.

Central planning, both in the realm of foreign policy and domestic policy, has evidently failed before our eyes these last 14 years. What hasn't been tried is freedom.

It's time to give Washington wonkery up.

The empire ain't loyal: The U.S. switch on ISIS

America is an empire in decline.

George Carlin was somewhat right when he said, "We like war, because we are good at it." Actually, we're only good at bombing random targets, as of late. We didn't win Iraq, for it's being taken over. We won't win in Syria. We won't win in Iran or any other country. We won't win against ISIS in whatever country they are in, at least not through the Empire's usual methods. And just think, ISIS was our partner just last year in the fight against Assad. One can only wonder when we are done with ISIS if we are going to then turn the gun on our potential partner Assad?

These bureaucrats ain't loyal.

To me Assad seems like another Saddam Hussein: if the U.S. Government ever decides to oust him again, which they did just last year, then something worse will come and fill the vacuum; and then soon we will be tempted to fight whatever comes to fill the vacuum -- just like we are tempted to fight ISIS in Syria now.

What seems to be occurring are modified versions of Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy," also referred to as the fallacy of the "seen and the unseen."

We see, for example, the bombs deployed, the targets in Israel hit, Osama Bin Laden killed, etc. That is, we fall victim to "the persistency of a given policy, or it's effects only on a special group, and neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences." 

But what we don't see are the those long-run effects: more hatred of America, more potential blowback, more leverage for the recruitment of Jihadists, all of which will be used to bomb more people and accelerate the cycle of violence.

And all of this attests to one thing: whether it's economic policy or foreign policy, which the economics should always be considered, the big wigs in Washington still have absolutely no clue what they're doing. 

Terence P. Jeffrey on the role of secular, messianic foreign policies in pushing Christians out of Middle East

Via Terry Jeffrey of CNSNews.com:

.....In our time, Christianity could be driven from some of the lands where it first took root.

If that dark and epochal moment comes, some of the blame for it must be pinned on the messianic foreign policies pursued by our most recent two presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
.....[Bush] expressed his evangelical zeal for this secular cause in his second inaugural address.

Things President Obama Has Done Better Than Bush

President Obama is a lot better at drone strikes:

The London-based TBIJ reports that under President Obama CIA drones strikes in tribal parts of Pakistan have occurred at a rate six times faster than his predecessor George W. Bush in parts of Pakistan, as of December 2012. That rate was about once every five days during his first term.

From 2004 to 2013, there were 365 drone strikes. Out of those, 313 were under the Obama administration.

Under President Obama, 2,152 people were reported killed, of whom 290 were civilians. By contrast, 438 people were killed under President Bush, of whom 182 were civilians.

Under Bush, more children were killed by drone strikes (112) than under Obama (64) in his first term.

The 300th drone strike occurred under President Obama in early December 2012. The first drone strike to occur under his watch was just three days into his presidency, which is reported to have killed 12 civilians.

 President Obama is a lot better at deportation:

-Although President Obama supports setting a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants, his administration deported a record 1.5 million of them in his first term.

-In addition, the latest data released by the government in recent days show that an unprecedented 409,849 people were deported for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
The increase from the previous year occurred despite policy changes ordered by Obama to reduce the deportations of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants.

-Roughly 55 percent, or more than 225,000 people, deported in the past year were convicted of crimes such as drug offenses and driving under the influence. Immigration officials note that they deported nearly twice as many convicted criminals as in the year before Obama took office. That year, in 2008, criminals made up about a third of all deportations.

 President Obama is a lot better at running up the national debt:

-According to the treasury department’s count, the debt has grown $5.3 trillion since Obama took office in 2009, compared to $4.9 trillion in Bush’s eight years. (Politifact, September 2012)

-“Less Than Two Months Into President Obama’s Second Term, New Numbers Show The National Debt Increased By More Than $6 Trillion Since He Took Office. It’s The Largest Increase To Date Under Any U.S. President.” (Mark Knoller, “National Debt Up $6 Trillion Since Obama Took Office,” CBS News, 3/1/13) 

-Under Obama, The National Debt Has Increased By $6.1 Trillion, From $10.6 Trillion To $16.7 Trillion – An Increase Of 57 Percent. (US Department Of The Treasury, TreasuryDirect.gov, Accessed 3/13/13)

President Obama is a lot better at running trillion-dollar deficits:

-“All The Trillion-Dollar Deficits Have Taken Place Under President Obama.” “The federal government ran up a $293 billion deficit in the first quarter of fiscal 2013, which ended Dec. 31, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated Tuesday. The government’s fiscal year starts on Oct. 1st. At this pace, the deficit would be on pace to top $1 trillion for the fifth-straight year in 2013. All the trillion-dollar deficits have taken place under President Obama.” (Eric Wasson, “First-Quarter Deficit Was $293 Billion, CBO Says,” The Hill, 1/8/13) 

[Editor's Note: This list will be updated every once in a while until the end of President Obama's second term, and whenever some clever reporter reveals an interesting fact about the two presidents.]

My Interview with Gov. Gary Johnson - Libertarian Presidential Candidate - On Al-Qaida, Obamacare

We talked about Syria, al-Qaida, Medicare, Social Security, and Obama. Read about it by clicking the links below.

Libertarian Party Nominee Gary Johnson: ‘A Quarter of the Syrian Rebels are Al-Qaida’ || Politic365

Libertarian Nominee Gary Johnson on Obamacare: ‘A Torpedo in a Sinking Ship' || Politic365

Mr. Obama, Are you Really Christian?' Syrian Man after Criticizing U.S. Foreign Policy

Owen Jones: The US is Still a Bully

The problem is power, not presidents, columnist argues:

How easy it was to scrutinise US power when George W. Bush was in office. After all, it was difficult to defend an administration packed with such repulsive characters, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, whose attitude towards the rest of the world amounted to thuggish contempt.

Many will shudder remembering that dark era: the naked human pyramids accompanied by grinning US service personnel in Abu Ghraib; the orange-suited prisoners in Guantanamo, kneeling in submission at the feet of US soldiers; the murderous assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah. By the end of Bush's term in office, favourable opinion of the US had plummeted even in allied countries, and those desperate for a Republican rout in the presidential elections ranged from resolute socialists to committed Tories.

It was a bad dream that went on for eight years, and no wonder much of the world is still breathing a sigh of relief. But US foreign policy these days escapes scrutiny. In part, that is down a well-grounded terror of the only viable alternative to Barack Obama: the increasingly deranged US right. A deliberate shift to a softer, more diplomatic tone has helped, too. But it is also the consequence of a strategic failure on the part of many critics of US foreign policy in the Bush era. As protesters marched in European cities with placards of Bush underneath "World's No 1 Terrorist", the anti-war crusade became personalised. Bush seemed to be the problem, and an understanding of US power – the nature of which remains remarkably consistent from president to president – was lost.

Owen Jones: Getting rid of George W. Bush wasn't enough. The US remains a bully || The Independent (UK)

Ron Paul on Obama's 'Surprise' Visit to Afghanistan

We should ask ourselves why Obama's trip was a "surprise" visit rather than a normal state visit. The reason is that after ten years it is still far too dangerous to travel in or out of that country. Does that not speak much more loudly than the president's optimistic words about the amazing progress we have made in Afghanistan?

Enduring Commitments Abroad || Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk

Penn State Professor Evaluates Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Talking Points--And Doesn't Find Them Wanting

Professor Flynt Leverett of Penn State University and the New America foundation:

Dr. Paul does not miss a beat, pointing out that “the Senator is wrong on his history.  We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79.  We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the Shah, and the reaction—the blowback—came in 1979.  It’s been going on and on because we just don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem”.

CAN REP. RON PAUL INFLUENCE AMERICA’S IRAN DEBATE? || Race for Iran

What does it mean to 'support Israel'? Voddie Baucham Explains

Voddie Baucham, Pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas, explains what it means to "support Israel":

But there’s a more important question: “What does it mean to “support” Israel?” Does it mean that Israel remains God’s “Chosen People,” and we must stand with them in anticipation of the coming Armageddon? Is the President to act as “Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces” and “Supreme Defender of Israel”? Or are we simply to make sure the foreign aid dollars don’t stop flowing? Here are a few things I took into to consideration in evaluating Congressman Paul’s foreign policy.

Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East… BY A LONG SHOT! In fact, Israel could potentially defeat all the other military powers in the Middle East simultaneously if they had to.

We not only give money to Israel; we give money to their enemies as well. That is not supporting Israel! That is using money to buy influence in a region thousands of miles away from us in the name of oil, when we happen to have the largest repository of oil on planet earth right here in the US, but refuse to go and get it (in the name of Earth-worshipping environmentalism)!

Israel is a sovereign nation, and we have no right to treat her like a child. Our foreign aid has been a tool used to influence Israel’s domestic policy for far too long. If we are their friends, we should allow them to exercise their sovereignty without our interference, and certainly without our condemnation. Who do we think we are? No, I disagree with my Christian brothers and sisters who think a country who supports Israel’s enemies, interferes with Israel’s domestic policy, condemn’s Israel in efforts to keep ties with oil-rich countries in the region, and helps to destabilize and radicalize one of Israel’s historic foes lurking on her southern boarder is engaging in a foreign policy that supports Israel.

His other comments are just as important:

However, there is a deeper issue here. There is a sort of misplaced Dispensationalism that governs people’s sentimental attitude toward Israel. Let me state clearly that I do not believe the Bible demands that the U.S. support Israel. I do, however, believe that it is wise to do so for geopolitical reasons. To do so for theological reasons, I believe, is actually misguided, and quite dangerous. Nevertheless, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East, and that is important.

"I don’t believe in this right-wing humanism"

In response to an article I wrote on Iranian nuclear capabilities (or the lack thereof), a commenter attempted to take me to task, so I wrote the following (much more is in the link):

"I don’t believe in this right-wing humanism."

Read the rest of the comment here

John Glaser on RT on Iran and the IAEA « Antiwar.com Blog

John Glaser on RT on Iran and the IAEA « Antiwar.com Blog