Editor’s Note: This is the first installment of a new series on the national strategies of today’s global power and other regional powers. This installment establishes a framework for understating the current state of the world.

“The evolution of geopolitics is cyclical. Powers rise, fall and shift. Changes occur in every generation in an unending ballet. However, the period between 1989 and 1991 was unique in that a long cycle of human history spanning hundreds of years ended, and with it a shorter cycle also came to a close. The world is still reverberating from the events of that period.

On Dec. 25, 1991, an epoch ended. On that day the Soviet Union collapsed, and for the first time in almost 500 years no European power was a global power, meaning no European state integrated economic, military and political power on a global scale. What began in 1492 with Europe smashing its way into the world and creating a global imperial system had ended. For five centuries, one European power or another had dominated the world, whether Portugal, Spain, France, England or the Soviet Union. Even the lesser European powers at the time had some degree of global influence.

After 1991 the only global power left was the United States, which produced about 25 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) each year and dominated the oceans. Never before had the United States been the dominant global power. Prior to World War II, American power had been growing from its place at the margins of the international system, but it was emerging on a multipolar stage. After World War II, it found itself in a bipolar world, facing off with the Soviet Union in a struggle in which American victory was hardly a foregone conclusion.

The United States has been the unchallenged global power for 20 years, but its ascendancy has left it off-balance for most of this time, and imbalance has been the fundamental characteristic of the global system in the past generation. Unprepared institutionally or psychologically for its position, the United States has swung from an excessive optimism in the 1990s that held that significant conflict was at an end to the wars against militant Islam after 9/11, wars that the United States could not avoid but also could not integrate into a multilayered global strategy. When the only global power becomes obsessed with a single region, the entire world is unbalanced. Imbalance remains the defining characteristic of the global system today.

While the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the European epoch, it also was the end of the era that began in 1945, and it was accompanied by a cluster of events that tend to accompany generational shifts. The 1989-1991 period marked the end of the Japanese economic miracle, the first time the world had marveled at an Asian power’s sustained growth rate as the same power’s financial system crumbled. The end of the Japanese miracle and the economic problem of integrating East and West Germany both changed the way the global economy worked. The 1991 Maastricht Treaty set the stage for Europe’s attempt at integration and was the framework for Europe in the post-Cold War world. Tiananmen Square set the course for China in the next 20 years and was the Chinese answer to a collapsing Soviet empire. It created a structure that allowed for economic development but assured the dominance of the Communist Party. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was designed to change the balance of power in the Persian Gulf after the Iraq-Iran war and tested the United States’ willingness to go to war after the Cold War.

In 1989-1991 the world changed the way it worked, whether measured in centuries or generations. It was an extraordinary period whose significance is only now emerging. It locked into place a long-term changing of the guard, where North America replaced Europe as the center of the international system. But generations come and go, and we are now in the middle of the first generational shift since the collapse of the European powers, a shift that began in 2008 but is only now working itself out in detail.

What happened in 2008 was one of the financial panics that the global capitalist system periodically suffers. As is frequently the case, these panics first generate political crises within nations, followed by changes in the relations among nations. Of these changes, three in particular are of importance, two of which are directly linked to the 2008 crisis. The first is the European financial crisis and its transformation into a political crisis. The second is the Chinese export crisis and its consequences. The third, indirectly linked to 2008, is the shift in the balance of power in the Middle East in favor of Iran.

The European Crisis

The European crisis represents the single most significant event that followed from the financial collapse of 2008. The vision of the European Union was that an institution that would bind France and Germany together would make the wars that had raged in Europe since 1871 impossible. The vision also assumed that economic integration would both join France and Germany together and create the foundations of a prosperous Europe. Within the context of Maastricht as it evolved, the European vision assumed that the European Union would become a way to democratize and integrate the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe into a single framework.

However, embedded in the idea of the European Union was the idea that Europe could at some point transcend nationalism and emerge as a United States of Europe, a single political federation with a constitution and a unified foreign and domestic policy. It would move from a free trade zone to a unified economic system to a single currency and then to further political integration built around the European Parliament, allowing Europe to emerge as a single country.

Long before this happened, of course, people began to speak of Europe as if it were a single entity. Regardless of the modesty of formal proposals, there was a powerful vision of an integrated European polity. There were two foundations for it. One was the apparent economic and social benefits of a united Europe. The other was that this was the only way that Europe could make its influence felt in the international system. Individually, the European states were not global players, but collectively they had the ability to become just that. In the post-Cold War world, where the United States was the sole and unfettered global power, this was an attractive opportunity.

The European vision was smashed in the aftermath of 2008, when the fundamental instability of the European experiment revealed itself. That vision was built around Germany, the world’s second-largest exporter, but Europe’s periphery remained too weak to weather the crisis. It was not so much this particular crisis; Europe was not built to withstand any financial crisis. Sooner or later one would come and the unity of Europe would be severely strained as each nation, driven by different economic and social realities, maneuvered in its own interest rather than in the interest of Europe.

There is no question that the Europe of 2012 operates in a very different way than it did in 2007. There is an expectation in some parts that Europe will, in due course, return to its old post-Cold War state, but that is unlikely. The underlying contradictions of the European enterprise are now revealed, and while some European entity will likely survive, it probably will not resemble the Europe envisioned by Maastricht, let alone the grander visions of a United States of Europe. Thus, the only potential counterweight to the United States will not emerge in this generation.

China and the Asian Model

China was similarly struck by the 2008 crisis. Apart from the inevitably cyclical nature of all economies, the Asian model, as seen in Japan and then in 1997 in East and Southeast Asia, provides for prolonged growth followed by profound financial dislocation. Indeed, growth rates do not indicate economic health. Just as it was for Europe, the 2008 financial crisis was the trigger for China.

China’s core problem is that more than a billion people live in households earning less than $6 a day, and the majority of those earn less than $3 a day. Social tensions aside, the economic consequence is that China’s large industrial plant outstrips Chinese consumer demand. As a result, China must export. However, the recessions after 2008 cut heavily into China’s exports, severely affecting GDP growth and threatening the stability of the political system. China confronted the problem with a massive surge in bank lending, driving new investment and supporting GDP growth but also fueling rampant inflation. Inflation created upward pressure on labor costs until China began to lose its main competitive advantage over other countries.

For a generation, Chinese growth has been the engine of the global economic system, just as Japan was in the previous generation. China is not collapsing any more than Japan did. However, it is changing its behavior, and with it the behavior of the international system.

Looking Ahead

If we look at the international system as having three major economic engines, two of them — Europe and China — are changing their behavior to be less assertive and less influential in the international system. The events of 2008 did not create these changes; they merely triggered processes that revealed the underlying weaknesses of these two entities.

Somewhat outside the main processes of the international system, the Middle East is undergoing a fundamental shift in its balance of power. The driver in this is not the crisis of 2008 but the consequences of the U.S. was in the region and their termination. With the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, Iran has emerged as the major conventional power in the Persian Gulf and the major influence over Iraq. In addition, with the continued survival of the al Assad regime in Syria through the support of Iran, there is the potential for Iranian influence to stretch from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean Sea. Even if the al Assad regime fell, Iran would still be well-positioned to assert its claims for primacy in the Persian Gulf.

Just as the processes unleashed in 1989-1991 defined the next 20 years, so, too, will the processes that are being generated now dominate the next generation. Still powerful but acutely off-balance in its domestic and foreign policies, the United States is confronting a changing world without yet having a clear understanding of how to deal with this world or, for that matter, how the shifts in the global system will affect it. For the United States strategically, the fragmentation of Europe, the transformation of global production in the wake of the Chinese economy’s climax, and the dramatically increased power of Iran appear as abstract events not directly affecting the United States.

Each of these events will create dangers and opportunities for the United States that it is unprepared to manage. The fragmentation of Europe raises the question of the future of Germany and its relationship with Russia. The movement of production to low-wage countries will create booms in countries hitherto regarded as beyond help (as China was in 1980) and potential zones of instability created by rapid and uneven growth. And, of course, the idea that the Iranian issue can be managed through sanctions is a form of denial rather than a strategy.

Three major areas of the world are in flux: Europe, China and the Persian Gulf. Every country in the world will have to devise a strategy to deal with the new reality, just as 1989-1991 required new strategies. The most important country, the United States, had no strategy after 1991 and has no strategy today. This is the single most important reality of the world. Like the Spaniards, who, in the generation after Columbus’ voyage, lacked a clear sense of the reality they had created, Americans have no clear sense of the world they find themselves in. This fact continues to define how the world works.

Therefore, we next turn to American strategy in the next 20 years and consider how it will reshape itself.”

Comments? Send them to feedback@stratfor.com

“Three US senators in Cairo to discuss case of 19 Americans to be tried as pro-democracy NGO activists • They are Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman • Oil prices rise above $120 a barrel Monday, day after Iran cuts off supplies to UK and France • Iron Dome missile defense batteries positioned in Tel Aviv Monday • They will interface with military network – IDF spokesman • More batteries soon in other parts of country • Israeli schools hold earthquake exercise Monday • Israeli police stage mission command drill to prepare for scenarios of Palestinian mass riots and attempts to storm into Israel across West Bank, Gaza and Egyptian borders • It is held at the IDF’s Tselim military exercise site . Iran bans import of computer security software, will rely on local developers • UN nuclear inspectors visit Iran for another bid to access nuclear sites and interview scientists denied first time • Israel must prepare proactive measures to defend population against advanced enemy weaponry, said Netanyahu at Sunday’s cabinet meeting • Passive defense is not enough. Much more to be done to upgrade deterrent and punitive resources • Disagreement in high-powered White House officials with Israel leaders on Iran and Syria • Revolutionary Guards hold another war preparations exercise in southern and central Iran.”

source: debka.com

Enemies of The People

“More than 10.5 million people — about 5.3 percent of the population aged 25 and 64 — received disability checks in January from the federal government, the Post wrote, a 18 percent jump from before the recession.

Among those claiming disability, 43 percent are asking for benefits because of mental illness, the Post wrote. A growing number of those people are older, former white-collar workers.

Disability claims come from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is set to go broke in 2018. Congress last week agreed to dip into the revenue stream to give a 2-percentage point tax break to working Americans.

The Post noted that the more people file for disability claims, the better for the unemployment picture since those people are removed from the jobless rolls.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/19/report-millions-jobless-file-for-disability-when-unemployment-benefits-run-out/print

“The arithmetic of Super Tuesday delegate allocation means that Gingrich’s presence splits off vital voters from Rick Santorum”

by Harry J Enten
Sunday 19 February 2012

Read it @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/19/how-newt-gingrich-helps-mitt-romney-win#start-of-comments

“Billionaire Sheldon Adelson has decided to donate an additional $10m to Newt Gingrich’s Super Pac. The move is expected to boost Gingrich in the lead-up to the 6 March “Super Tuesday” primaries. Gingrich has taken a back seat to the Mitt Romney-Rick Santorum showdown in Michigan, and he needs ads on the air if there is any way of overcoming the press’s new two-man race narrative.

But Sheldon Adelson has ulterior motives at work. He is not a fan of Rick Santorum, and he understands that boosting Gingrich has the side-effect of helping Mitt Romney.

Poll upon poll in the last week has indicated that Gingrich supporters are more likely to support Rick Santorum than Mitt Romney in a one-on-one match-up. Consider the state of Arizona, where polling finds Santorum rising, but Romney with a comfortable high single-digit lead. If Gingrich were to exit the race, however, Santorum would pull into a tie with Mitt Romney.

If Republicans played by Democratic party primary rules, all primary contests would award delegates proportionally – and the effect of Gingrich in Arizona and other states would be minimal. Yes, Santorum would probably not win as many delegates, because his percentage of the vote would be lower, but Romney’s delegate total would be unlikely to change greatly because his percentage of the vote would stay about the same regardless of Gingrich.

Republicans, though, play by their own delegate rules, and they differ from state to state. Arizona awards its 29 delegates on a winner-take-all basis, which Romney is likely to take. It doesn’t matter if Romney wins the state by one vote or 100,000 votes. Indeed, Arizona is part of a pattern: Romney does well in the winner-take-all states, while the states where he does poorly still offer him the opportunity to win delegates thanks to Newt Gingrich.

To illustrate this point, let’s take a look at the upcoming seven primaries on Super Tuesday. Romney may not win a majority of these states, but with Gingrich on the ballot, he is likely to still win a plurality of the delegates.

Two contests are in the north-east, Massachusetts and Vermont. Vermont is conditional winner-take-all, in that if the winner garners 50% or more of the vote, he wins all of the state’s delegates. Romney will almost definitely achieve that status and win all of the state’s 17 delegates.

Massachusetts, Romney’s home state, is actually proportional in the traditional sense of the word. You win two-to-one over your nearest opponent, and you’ll likely end up with twice as many delegates. There’s a catch, however. You need to get above above a 15% threshold statewide and in a given congressional district to be eligible for district-level and statewide delegates. My math indicates that, with Ron Paul winning his share of the vote, any split among the conservative alternative vote in Massachusetts could result in a situation where neither Gingrich nor Santorum ends up meeting the threshold. Thus, even in a state where Romney is supposed to do well, but the rules allow the other candidates to pick up delegates, Gingrich’s presence may prevent the latter from happening.

Three of the Super Tuesday states are southern states where all the candidates are on the ballot. They all have high evangelical populations, and Mitt Romney isn’t expected to do well in any of them. Still, he is going to win some delegates.

Georgia, Newt Gingrich’s home state, awards its delegates on the statewide and congressional district level. Statewide, Romney needs only to meet a 20% threshold to win a proportional share of the 31 at-large delegates. He will most likely meet that 20%. On the congressional district level, the Gingrich/Santorum split rears its head. In a one-on-one with Romney, it’s likely that either Gingrich or Santorum would get 50% of the vote in most of the state’s 14 districts. Under this scenario, Gingrich or Santorum would get all three of the delegates in a given district. But by splitting the conservative alternative vote, neither Gingrich nor Santorum will get to 50%.

What may happen in districts across the state is a 45% split for one alternative, 25% for Romney, and 20% for the other alternative. In this situation, the leading candidate in each district gets two delegates, and Romney, despite getting the same vote share that he would when facing only one alternative, would get one delegate.

Oklahoma and Tennessee are states with even more evangelicals than Georgia. These contests have different thresholds at the state and district level, but the end result is going to be the same. Romney is not likely to get much above 25% of the vote statewide or in most congressional districts in either of these states, but he will still pick up one delegate in many districts for coming in second, plus a proportional share of the statewide delegates.

What about the two other primaries on Super Tuesday? In Virginia, Romney’s going to take all of the 46 elected delegates because neither Gingrich nor Santorum made the ballot. In Ohio, a split of the 63 delegates is likely, but Santorum already starts nine delegates in the hole because he didn’t meet signature requirements in three congressional districts. In the other districts, which award their three delegates on a winner-take-all basis, Santorum will likely be hurt with Gingrich on the ballot. Santorum’s hope of receiving a majority of the vote statewide and winning all the at-large delegates is rendered likely unrealisable because of Gingrich. Instead, statewide delegates will be awarded proportionally.

It becomes clear that – thanks to Gingrich – Mitt Romney is going to win even when loses. He benefits from a delegate rule structure that rewards well-organized campaigns and penalizes split competitions. States beyond Super Tuesday, such as the Romney-friendly territories of California, New Jersey, New York, and Utah, are either partially or completely winner-take-all. Santorum needs to have a clean path to win enough delegates from the other states to have a shot at the nomination.

The longer Gingrich stays in the race Romney will reap the benefits, which is why Sheldon Adelson is going to keep giving to Gingrich.”

“Let’s start with one important fact. Our country has never elected a president born and raised in Michigan. Mitt Romney was born in Detroit. His father served with distinction as governor. Before that, he was president of American Motors. Mitt grew up with the prospects of the auto industry and of Michigan discussed around the dinner table.

He has deep ties to our state. Mitt understands the challenges confronting Michigan as few Americans do.

Mitt Romney is not a career politician. He stands alone among the candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, with his extensive experience in business, having spent two decades helping to start companies and turn around failing ones. Most important, he has a credible plan for jumpstarting the economy and putting it on the path of sustained growth.

Michigan has laid out an impressive game plan for success. Across both peninsulas, Michiganians are working together with relentless positive action to move our state forward. We’ve made the tough decisions and bold reforms that are rejuvenating our state, such as restoring Michigan’s fiscal integrity.

By eliminating a nagging $1.5 billion budget deficit last year, we’re now in the position of recommending strategic, long-term investments in priority areas such as education, economic development and infrastructure. Simply put, we’re getting it right and we’re getting it done.

In contrast to Michigan’s blueprint, Washington is still at the drawing board. Deficit spending continues to run rampant. For the first time since World War II, the nation’s total debt burden exceeds the size of our entire economy. With Washington running trillion-dollar annual deficits, our nation’s recovery has been the slowest since the 1930s.

Washington is not on a sustainable course. Mitt Romney will change the direction.”

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120216/OPINION01/202160341/

No roses for Rick Santorum today

Santorum’s Voting Record:

Defense and Foreign Policy

Voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Voted against requiring the President to certify that the CWC is effectively verifiable.
Voted against requiring the President to certify that that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and all other countries determined to be state sponsors of terror have joined CWC prior to submitting the instrument of ratification.
Voted for the START II Treaty
Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
Voted to ban antipersonnel landmines
Voted against increasing defense spending offset by equivalent cuts in non-defense spending.
Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same payraises as uniformed military.
Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyranical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.
Voted to limit the President’s authority to impose sanctions on nations for reasons of national security unless the sanctions were approved by a multilateral regime.
Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea
Voted to weaken alien terrorist deportation provisions. If the Court determines that the evidence must be withheld for national security reasons, the Justice Department must still provide a summary of the evidence sufficient for the alien terrorist to mount a defense against deportation.
Voted against delaying the India Nuclear until the President certified that India had agreed to suspend military-to-military exchanges with Iran.
Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program

Nominations

Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture)
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN
Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge
Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9thg Circuit
Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge
Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge

Labor

Voted against National Right to Work Act
Voted against Real of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding
Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voted for Job Corps funding
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization
Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.
Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.

Guns

Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.

Reform

Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
Voted twice for a Congressional payraise.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapits, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.
Voted for a McCain amendment to require State and local campaign committees to report all campaign contributions to the FEC and to require all campaign contributions to be reported to the FEC within 24 hours within 90 days of an election.

Immigration

Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.

Taxes

Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

Welfare

Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

Waste

Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million
Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL)
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%
Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

Spending and Entitlements

Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

Health Care

Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against a allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

Education

Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.

Energy

Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.

NEA
Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.

Bankruptcy
Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

★This partial list does not even include his support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, (Bigger than Obama care) http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902 FIVE debt ceiling increases, funding the bridge to nowhere, refusing to redirect earmark allocations to disaster relief along the Gulf Coast post Katrina, etc

★Club for Growth today rendered an opinion on U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s charge that Rick Santorum is a “big government, big spending individual.”

Verdict: Mostly true.

Read More @ http://www.dailypaul.com/213706/time-to-take-down-santorums-disguise

"You sir, are a one term mistake."

“Mitt Romney has won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an unofficial endorsement from party activists that nevertheless helps the former Massachusetts governor burnish his conservative image.

The victory breaks a two-year winning streak by Ron Paul.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/11/romney-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll/#ixzz1m71w33JO

Read it all @ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290859/nothing-squid-ink-ed-haislmaier?toggle=y#comment-bar

“If there was a question Friday morning whether the Obama administration might cede ground, there was no doubt at the end of the day. They haven’t budged.

Despite what President Obama said at his White House press conference, the actual regulations make permanent the “interim final regulations” issued August 3, 2011 — the ones that sparked the furor in the first place.

Prefaced by 17 pages of the kind of rhetorical squid ink that President Obama defensively deployed at his press conference, the words that have the force of law appear on pages 18 to 20. That’s where the actual amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations are made by three departments — Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services — that Congress previously granted joint oversight of employer health plans.

The bottom line is this: “Accordingly, the amendment to the interim final rule with comment period amending 45 CFR 147.130(a)(1)(iv) which was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 46621-46626 on August 3, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.”

Translation: The Obama administration Friday afternoon put into federal law the very regulation that drew objections from almost 200 Catholic bishops, some 50 religiously affiliated colleges and universities, 65 North American bishops of Orthodox churches, numerous other Jewish, Evangelical and Lutheran leaders, and even some liberals — and without changing so much as a comma.

From this point forward, any changes to this regulation have to go through the formal regulatory process all over again.”

On Iran, the New Jersey governor warned how dangerous it is to allow Iran to acquire nuclear capability. “Both Americans and Israelis believe – we know deep in our bones – that if the Islamic Republic of Iran acquires a nuclear weapons capability, it will be an existential threat to Israel, to America, and to world civilization itself.”

Christie warned President Obama he would be directly responsible if this happens. “I believe, like you, that stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability must be a top priority of the United States of America. Any president, Republican or Democrat, who allows such a thing to occur on his watch, would be acting in a way that is profoundly against the national security interests of the United States and the security interests of our friends in Israel.”

“It’s only by speaking the truth boldly, or by speaking the truth to power that we will prevent this from happening,” Christie continued, explaining his stark warning to the president. “It is only by decisive action by leaders who truly understand that a threat to Israel is a threat to America. A threat to the Israeli way of life is a threat to the American way of life. Not only for here in America, but for all the nations that emulate our democracy or are trying to emulate our democracy around the world.”

More @ http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/christie-i-admire-israel-enemies-it-has-made_626437.html

MEMORANDUM

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Rich Beeson, Political Director

SUBJECT: The Road Ahead – A Reality Check

DATE: February 7, 2012

Since launching his campaign for President in June, Governor Romney has dominated the debates, travelled tens of thousands of miles rallying Americans with his conservative message of American renewal and clearly emerged as the one Republican who can defeat President Obama and restore American greatness.

As the campaign moves forward toward Super Tuesday, it has become apparent that Mitt Romney is the only candidate with the organizational strength and broad-based appeal to secure delegates in all remaining primaries and caucuses. Of course, there is no way for any nominee to win first place in every single contest — John McCain lost 19 states in 2008, and we expect our opponents to notch a few wins too. But unlike the other candidates, our campaign has the resources and organization to keep winning over the long run. A winning conservative message, hard work and old fashioned delegate math will win this race for Governor Romney.

Past Contests

After a virtual tie in Iowa, Governor Romney won resounding victories in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada. He now has a significant delegate lead, and he is the only candidate to have earned delegates in every available contest.

Future Contests

The Reality of February

It is difficult to see what Governor Romney’s opponents can do to change the dynamics of the race in February. No delegates will be awarded on February 7 — Colorado and Minnesota hold caucuses with nonbinding preference polls, and the Missouri primary is purely a beauty contest. Except for the Maine and Wyoming nonbinding caucuses running through February, the next contests are on February 28 in states where Governor Romney is strong. Arizona’s 29 delegates will be bound in a winner-take-all contest. Michigan, the state where Governor Romney grew up, binds 30 delegates.

March Contests

The rules for the March states offer even less comfort to Governor Romney’s opponents. With so many states and territories voting, organization and resources are key. Ours is the only campaign to be active in all of these states, and we have the resources and organization to maximize delegate totals according to each state’s rules. Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum have no plan in the majority of the March states (although the Paul campaign has waged a systematic effort in a number of them). Governor Romney is the only candidate prepared to compete in simultaneous contests across the country.

Speaker Gingrich indicated Saturday night that the Southern states in March were his strength. This is a flight of fancy and not grounded in reality. In Virginia, Gingrich failed to qualify for the ballot. Because only Governor Romney and Congressman Paul will be on the ballot (and write-ins are not permitted), one candidate will receive either all or a significant majority of Virginia’s 46 bound delegates, which are awarded to the candidate who receives more than 50% statewide and in each CD. And Texas, which Speaker Gingrich cited as a firewall in his bitter post-Nevada press conference, has moved from Super Tuesday to at least April 3, and possibly as late as June.

Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Mississippi offer a mix of proportional allocation, proportional allocation with vote thresholds, and winner-take-all by CD rules. The bottom line is that it will be difficult for Speaker Gingrich to take large delegate prizes from any of these states. More likely, the delegates will be split among multiple candidates.

In addition, Speaker Gingrich faces other March states that are far less favorable to him: Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, Guam, Kansas, Northern Marianas, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Illinois will all be casting votes.

Competing in the March states will take resources, a national organization, and broad-based appeal that Speaker Gingrich, Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul simply do not have. This is exactly the sort of operation Governor Romney has been building from the beginning of this campaign.

Conclusion

Speaker Gingrich’s and Senator Santorum’s campaigns have resource challenges. The remaining February states may not be kind to them, and their hopes for a comeback in March may be very difficult and based on an incomplete understanding of the delegate selection rules. Even “success” in a few states will not mean collecting enough delegates to win the nomination.

In contrast, Governor Romney will be competing across the country and collecting delegates in state after state, even if other candidates pick up some wins. This is exactly the sort of methodical, long-haul campaign we planned for, and we are well on the way to victory.”