ABOUT THE INFLUENCE OF DOMESTIC POLITICS ON THE POLICY TO RETRENCH-AND-INFLATE BY THE ISRAEL-ANCHORED IDIOTS

d r a f t

You feign to forget
The bite of the Wolf
Clutching onto your face
[The face of a woman] of the Bekaa
[That Wolf]
Whose teeth are grinding away at your heart
So you smile - -
[And] so shines the blueness of my country’s sky

From a poem by al-Ghafari, “The Nile in J3iita” (J3iita is a town in Kesrouan, Lebanon.) My translation from Arabic.

d r a f t

I was listening this morning to Texas Governor Rick Perry on C-Span, as he gave his victory speech in the Republican Senatorial primary in Texas. He touted Texas to the point of declaring independence; but, too he touted fiscal conservatism.

It has struck me for a time now that the fiscal conservative pressure has gathered quite a bit of momentum. Unless the economy revives fast enough, and tax proceeds rise, I suspect the Obama Administration should increasingly find itself encircled by that movement and that ideology.

d r a f t


Add to Perry’s speech the phenomenon of Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky) blocking an extension of unemployment benefits and health insurance payments for hundreds of thousands of out-work-Americans; that he would even dare tells me that he isn’t running for re-election but that, too, he’s voicing the concern of an increasingly mobilized sector of the population. (Not running for re-election should make you more compassionate, I would think, not less.)

Both - - Perry and Bunning - - are motivated (Perry did say it more than once in his speech) in good part by fiscal conservatism. By that, both are referring to the federal government spending way too much money and sinking us deeper into debt, albeit at a relatively low interest rate, and albeit that this same government likely would try to inflate away a decent part of the debt. (God forbid any politician should consider straightforward taxation and less beloved expansion.)

(That power-to-borrow-and-inflate is also a power over the states, and Secessionist Texas wouldn’t like it until a member of the Texas Ruling Elite is at the White House with an agenda to bankrupt the federal government, that government of-and-for minorities and the poor.)

d r a f t

How is this relevant to foreign policy?

The answer is that fiscal conservatism as an ideology and a movement could not be limited - -as many conservatives likely would want - - to domestic programs. (For conservatives: that’s the spending on minorities.) I believe that, as an ideology-and-a-movemen,t fiscal conservatism should be expected to affect both: domestic programs AND “wars.”

Here’s my stab at the dynamics.

Do you remember the Highway Project to Central Asia, passing through Plantation Iraq - - the one which had been started as a by-product of the Israel-Anchored Idiots not seeing a systemic power-vacuum trap and falling (us, not they) into that trap? This (fiscal conservatism) encirclement of the Obama Administration should hasten the retrenchment in spending on that Highway Project to Central Asia - - even with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf protectorates likely sharing the financial burden in the construction of that Highway. Here’s how: For argument sake, say that many of these fiscal conservatives would want to spend on guns only, and not on butter. If the movement succeeds and gathers up even more momentum, Mr. Obama would have to give up his domestic programs. But that would be unthinkable for Mr. Obama. Unable to force the issue on social programs with the conservatives, Mr. Obama, in response, may have no choice but to retrench on both - - guns and butter - - if only to remain faithful to his constituency. In other words, it would be difficult for him to justify to his constituency his failure to spend on them while spending profligately on a mostly Republican constituency - - that of the military-industrial complex; that is: spending on “wars.” (Mr. Obama’s constituency doesn’t know - - and no one with “credibility” would dare tell it - - that likely a part of the Highway is being funded by Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf protectorates - -the bank for the Israel-Anchored Idiots - - from the amazing proceeds of the oil boom which was generated by Crusader for them.)

d r a f t

Should Mr. Obama fail to read the headlines - - and nurse false hopes that he can attract the one-half among the military-industrial constituency that needs a job - - Mr. Obama would do better to forget a second term. (That, by the way, may not be a bad thing since we now know, after Crusader, that gunning for a second term, come what may, can be a prescription for disaster.)

It matters little to these Republicans (Mr. Perry and Mr. Bunning) that one of their own had intentionally bankrupted the federal government. I submit that he had launched onto various trillion-dollar projects with the intent to bankrupt the federal government. Crusader’s trillion-dollar projects: The Plantation Iraq Project (which we had been told would pay for itself via that Plantation’s oil proceeds,) the humongous tax cut, and the expansion of the Medicare prescription program. Crusader, as a good member of the Secessionist and Reactionary Texas Ruling Elite, succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

d r a f t

For now, these Republicans (Perry and Bunning) seem to be responding as much to their own as to the Independents, some members of the Tea Party movement, some not. But, don’t you mistake it: Fiscal conservatism is One Ideology and, by necessity, One Movement, even if not officially declared. During Mr. Perry’s speech, the loudest uproar I noted was when Perry thanked the Tea Party people (a wing of the Independents) for his victory.

That tells me that the Independents, among other things, want to rein in spending by the federal government and would use whomever - - Republican or Democrat - - to achieve that end. Now they’re using Mr. Perry. (Likely, there is an informal fiscal conservative movement that is independent of other issues.) They should use Republicans or conservative Democrats when it comes to rein in spending on domestic programs; and they should use non-conservative Democrats when it comes to reining in spending on “wars.”

d r a f t

It makes it easier to Perry and Bunning to play along (even possibly to the point of accepting SOME retrenching on “wars”) since so many among the constituency of the Republican Party already have made their money, so to speak, in the Highway-Project-to-Central-Asia-via- Plantation-Iraq. I’m talking about the huge constituency of the military-Industrial complex. We’ve made our money, we’ve profiteered - - enough spending then. We’ll wait for interest rates to go up and plunk our “wars” money into high-paying certificates of deposit.

But in adopting the Independents’ fiscal conservatism, the Republicans should find themselves at odds with that part of the constituency of the military-industrial complex that has not yet profiteered enough, or that doesn’t want to lose its job, come-what-may. I’d venture a guess (just a guess) that maybe half of that constituency - -those who aren’t troops, the contractors, including the mercenaries and the civil society mules, that is - - already have become millionaires (or billionaires) thanks to “wars” that have lasted nearly eight years. (Seven years times an average of $140,000 saving per year - - there’s not much to spend on in Plantations Iraq and Afghanistan - - equals: $980,000.00) You have one-half that did not become millionaires - -the enlisted troops and their families. But as the ideology of fiscal conservatism takes root, the one-half that did become millionaires and billionaires should buy into it believing it’ll mostly (just mostly) be limited to stop Mr. Obama and such social programs as national health care.

d r a f t

Still, the one-half who didn’t become millionaires/billionaires (the troops and their families) - -and the military industrial complex - - should stop the Republican Party from going all the way in adopting fiscal conservatism to the point of wanting to cut expenses on “wars.” In other words, it’ll be a stretch to see these Republicans adopt the ideology wholesale, though unavoidably some would: to rein in spending not only on domestic programs but on “wars,” too.

That should displease the Independents, as these would want all spending on “wars” reduced, including the so-called “war on terror” (evolving the Police State by snooping and intimidating) and the “war on drugs” (evolving the Police State by repressing those who refuse to buy into the dominant culture.) The Independents therefore should pick-and-choose between Republicans and Democrats while spreading the ideology of fiscal conservatism and buttressing their movement. (If they had learned anything, I would think, they should’ve learned not to want another Ross Perot experience. Instead, they should want to work from within the parties and play these one against the other.)

d r a f t

Since the Republicans might prove reluctant to pull back from all “wars,” Mr. Obama might find in this his chance to lure back to him the Independents. He should hardly want to spend money on a mostly Republican constituency (the one tied to the military-industrial complex) and have these block his spending on his reliable constituency - - e.g., the blue collar, the out-of-work people, and the elite owners of million dollar homes in the upper Northwest quadrant of Washington D.C. - - and like areas.

Here, Mr. Obama might once again become the Independents’ Man. He would need courage and the Politician’s Guile to pull out of the expensive trap that is the Highway-to-Central-Asia-Going-Through-Plantation-Iraq (and Plantation-to-be-Iran)-Project, rein in the expanding Police State (the “war on terror”) and the enduring Police State (the “war on drugs” - - by legalizing and taxing these and using the money for employment-generating rehabilitation programs.) He would be doing this - - if he doesn’t go into paralysis - - under the very banner of fiscal conservatism - - to save money for the nation.

d r a f t

It would be therefore that the Independents would have succeeded at forcing the issue - -fiscal retrenchment that requires pulling back from all “wars” (the tool: Mr. Obama and the non-conservative Democrats) and fiscal retrenchment that would require giving up (practically) on such domestic programs as national healthcare the tool: the Republicans and conservative Democrats.)

In short: Once fiscal conservatism gels as ideology and movement, and is adopted by both political parties, each for its own purpose (at first), it should later transpire that retrenchment across the board would be the call-of-the-day: Retrenchment on “wars” and retrenchment by limiting the expansion of the money supply to pay for such domestic programs as health reform.

It’ll be Retrenchment writ large.

d r a f t

But clear-cut results such as that rarely happen in politics. Here, the ruling elite should be expected to inflate the economy, which it should do in part by stealthily not pulling away all or part of the Quantitative Easing money it had printed. Still, even with inflation, a version of retrenchment should be the call of the day.