Venezuela Land Grab

 

Something rather bizarre happened recently. The Maduro administration in Venezuela took it upon themselves to host a referendum to decide the fate of the Essequibo region, which was approved by 95% of voters. While democratic processes are all good and well, the problem here however is that Essequibo is not part of Venezuela but part of Guyana and has been that way for nearly two centuries. The root of this dispute can be traced back to colonial competition between Britain and Spain. According to the Venezuelans, after declaring their independence from Spain in 1819, the Essequibo region that was (in their view) originally Spanish automatically became theirs under the successor state principle of international law. The problem is that this is a false justification because Spain never held undisputed sovereignty over the region but instead was faced with constant competition with its rivals namely Britain, France and the Netherlands. Sometime in the course of the dispute, the other contenders withdrew to the eastern part of the Guianas region leading to the formation of Suriname (former Dutch Guiana) and French Guiana, leaving only the Brits who maintained effective control of the region later combining the colonies of Essequibo, Berbice and Demarara in 1831 to form British Guiana (which became Guyana in 1966).  Venezuela also became its own country for the first time in 1831, having previously been a part of the Republic of Gran Colombia (itself formed from the Spanish Viceroyalty of New Granada) for just over 12 years following a separation from Spain. The point of this background is to show that at no time was the Essequibo region ever under the effective control of either New Granada or Gran Colombia, as  two polities never held real control of the region.

Enter Venezuela, the new country formed from the split of the first Bolivarian republic. Like Spain and Gran Colombia before it, they also claimed that Essequibo was rightfully theirs. They even went as far as attempting to evoke the Munroe Doctrine. By all rights, a policy that was unilaterally crafted by the US government has no standing among the law of nations and cannot be used as justification to claim anything. Nevertheless, the US doing what it does best, decided to insert itself and insisted that the only way to settle this “peacefully” was by arbitration of a neutral court, they said this thinking to  catch the UK in a trap. This move backfired spectacularly on both Venezuela and their American allies (this was before the Hugo Chavez era) when in 1899 the court ruled in no uncertain terms that territory was part of British Guiana.

While initially accepting the ruling, Venezuela changed its mind in the 1960s to challenge the veracity of the court’s judgement, but truthfully it is this referendum held by Maduro that has no validity. Venezuela can wail all it likes about the court ruling in favour of a colonial power back then, the truth is that the current dispute is not with colonial Britain but with the modern independent state of Guyana. Like Venezuela, Guyana also uses the principle of the successor state to justify its sovereign right over the region. Unlike Venezuela, Guyana has exercised jurisdiction over the Essequibo region since it gained independence and as such legally speaking, the region is rightfully theirs by virtue of the 1899 ruling and 1966 Guyana Independence Act. And speaking of 1966, Venezuela actually tried to stall the Guyanese independence effort with the Geneva Agreement which insists on having the issue revisited by a UN Commission before Guyana could be granted full independence. Although both British and Guyanese leaders signed the agreement for further discussion to take place, it did not forestall Guyanese independence as Venezuela had hoped, which means that when Guyana raised its own flag for the first time, Essequibo was part of its territory.

What all of this means is that Venezuela for the longest while has accepted de facto Guyanese jurisdiction over the region, so the question now is what changed? One might expect the answer to be very complicated but the truth is that it is very simple: oil. Recently, thanks to the efforts of oil giant Exxon Mobil, oil reserves was discovered off the coast of Guyana. According to estimates, these reserves would put Guyana closer to Kuwait, outstripping Venezuela by far as biggest oil producer in the region, it was this and only this that caused Caracas to all of a sudden pick up where it left off in the 19^th century.  Let us be clear, for all the talk of a “need for justice” or the fabrications of any imagined wrongs done to Venezuela in the past, these are little more than smokescreens to mask the true intentions of the Bolivarian Republic, their real agenda has always been about gaining more territory to take advantage of Guyana’s oil discovery. This should be worrying for two reasons, 1. Venezuela has oil reserves of its own already and it has not done very well in managing them to the benefits of its people and 2. Given their obvious lack of frugality in handling their own oil reserves, why should they be given more oil resources to mismanage?

There are not much shades of grey here, it is cut and dry, a larger nation is being quite open its desire to annex two-thirds of a country that it is less than half of its size, in other words this is a land grab. This so-called vote is illegal in every sense of the word as the right of conquest was outlawed by the UN Charter of 1945. I find it ironic that Venezuela attempts to use democracy as justification for this while ignoring the fact that a vote cannot be valid if the persons doing the voting are not the persons who are to affected by the vote, in other words it is not the place of the Venezuelan people to decide what should happen to two-thirds of Guyana’s land, something that the International Court of Justice was adamantly clear on. Quite frankly, the actions of the Bolivarian regime are grossly hypocritical for two reasons 1. They claim that Guyana’s claim is not legitimate because it was inherited from colonial Britain, but Venezuela itself used colonial Spain to justify their own claim and 2. Maduro himself has struggled with the idea of an external power challenging his legitimacy as the US has repeated tried to install the puppet Juan Guaido in his place. How then can he not see the irony of his own government acting as an external power imposing itself on a smaller nation, when that is exactly the kind of struggle they are having with the US only in reverse?

In the end, there are no “both sides” argument here as there are in some international disputes. The international community (especially CARICOM and the Commonwealth) should stand by Guyana and let Venezuela know that Guyana’s territorial integrity must be respected. The fate of Essequibo is non-negotiable and any attempt to alter it should be met with swift and decisive action proportional to the extent that Caracas is prepared to go to pursue this false claim. The world is in enough chaos as it is, the last thing we need is another unnecessary war especially not against one of our sister states in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Therefore, every effort must be made for cooler heads to prevail, this dispute (which should not even be a dispute to begin with) has gone far enough and it is high time for the government in Venezuela to focus on cleaning up its own messy situation, dial down on the inflammatory rhetoric and leave Guyana alone.

Race for Westminster: 2015

It would be entirely remiss of the Jamaican Tory not do a feature on the what’s going on in the United Kingdom in light of the general elections in the 2015 race for Westminster. This election has turned out to be a pivotal one, with several competing issues of interest that will affect the future of Great Britain for years to come. These include immigration policy, the NHS, defence spending, employment levels, regional devolution and foreign policy  etc. all have in one way or another found their way on the agenda, some  deemed more salient than others depending on which party you support. And while on the matter of parties this particular election is being contested by several parties including, the ruling coalition of the Centre Right Conservative Party and Centrist Liberal Democrats while the challengers comprise of the Centre Left Labour Party, the Right Wing United Kingdom Independence Party  and three fully leftist parties, Plaid Cmyru, the Scottish National Party and the Greens each of then jostling to see who can dominate Westminster, although it can be safe to say that it’s unlikely to happen with any of the three leftist parties since none of them will be contesting all the seats in the House of Commons.

         

One thing all the experts seem to agree on is that there will be another hung parliament just like in the 2010 elections and what makes this even worse is that the Prime Minister no longer has the power to advise the Sovereign to dissolve parliament for early elections, all thanks to a bill slipped into the last parliament by the Liberal Democrats which states that Parliament’s five year term is now a mandatory one. Being a lover of tradition and a staunch advocate for the Westminster model of democracy I cannot help but frown on the decision to have this bill passed in the Commons, in effect it would create a very untenable situation if it is that a Prime Minister suddenly lost the confidence of the house in the middle of his term but is forced to stay on due to his inability to call an early election for a fresh mandate. On the other hand one could argue that the Lib Dems were merely looking out for their own interest, what if the in the middle of the last term (2010-2015), Cameron’s Tories  had decided to get an early divorce from Clegg and his ilk and kick them to the curb?, there would have been very little legal barrier to prevent this, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was pretty much Clegg’s insurance policy to ensure that there was no double cross. With another hung parliament almost a guarantee it is very much a possibility that smaller parties will be looking to cash in on this investment in fact this has put both Cameron and Miliband at the short end of the stick if it is that neither of them can martial enough votes to gain unilateral control of the Commons, this no doubt would be what parties such as the SNP, UKIP and the Greens are counting on since it would them give them a chance to enter into the halls of government in Westminster.

After taking a look at the parties and their positions on varying issues, it is quite apparent that not all these political groups have the United Kingdom’s best interest at heart. Take for example the SNP, a group of political rabble-rousers that openly decry the union every chance it gets, this is the same party that time and again has called for the withdrawal of Scotland, which would utterly destroy the union but they simply just don’t care, so long as they get what they want. They along with the Greens have on several occasions called for the destruction of the Nuclear Trident missile defence mechanism which would of course leave the Island unable to defend itself against foreign aggression but again that’s not in their interest to concern themselves with maintain British Sovereignty. What is it to them if the pound loses its value on the market if it’s stability can no longer be assured by the central government in London?, what is to them if the Realm is suddenly unable to defend itself as it no longer has the men or equipment that it once had due to severe military cuts?, why exactly should they care if the United Kingdom is no longer able to meet its commitments to NATO or the United Nations Secuity council due to its weakened status? The answer is simple, they don’t care, and they never have.

 

And as if all of that is not enough the Greens have wasted no effort in making it clear where they stand on issues affecting the country. Take for example defence where they  support the SNP’s plan to destroy the Kingdom’s greatest defence mechanism, what about their stance on terrorism?, who can forget Natalie Bennett’s ghastly statement saying ISIS was simply misunderstood and even went as far to berate the government for it’s role in the fight against terrorism. This is also the same party that wants to dramatically increase the spending on benefits, widening the poverty threshold instead of creating opportunities for those who wish to make it themselves instead of using the state as a surrogate parent. One doesn't have to be a master of economics to know in order for public spending to increase then so will taxes and with no prospects for growth under a Green led government, one can make the assumption that it is the few who will be paying to sustain the many. Is the “equal society” that all the left wingers love to wail about? I hardly think so.

After taking a good look at the debates and more importantly at the polls, The Jamaican Tory is willing to go out on a limb here that say that British people have really become disillusioned with the political process and frankly who can blame them, anyone who has taken a good look at politics in Britain today can immediately see why, it’s pretty much a choice between dumb and dumber. To be fair though not all parties are like that, take for example UKIP, which at every single turn has been the standard bearer of everything that is traditional British, their policies include, a Britain that defends the sovereignty of the Crown rather than sovereignty of distant foreign bureaucrats in the EU, a strong foreign policy that emphasises Great Britain retaking it’s rightful place amongst the most powerful nations of the world and restoring it’s long ignored ties to the Commonwealth, an economic policy that would put the British economy back to work by revamping industry and increasing employment by ending mass immigration of unskilled workers from the EU simply out of political expediency. Sadly this is also the same party that has been most vilified and maligned particularly by the leftist and their collaborators in the media that has falsely painted Farage as racist and bigoted when any serious look at UKIP’s policy would  easily tell that this is certainly not the case, no wonder they were upset after he openly called out the leftist sympathizers to thier faces.

              

With ultra-leftist cannons like SNP and the Greens on the loose promising the shake the very foundations of the Westminster-Whitehall system the people of the United Kingdom have a pivotal decision  on the future of that great nation come May 7, personally speaking my own preference (though sadly I don’t have a vote) would be for the UKIP to win a overwhelming majority, but pragmatism tells that this isn't likely to happen so I’ll be willing to settle for a Tory-UKIP coalition to form the next government, anything else is unacceptable and any deal that places either the SNP or the Greens in government would be a disaster, one where it would be “Anarchy in the UK” as posited in  the 1976 popular but disrespectful hit song by the Sex Pistols . It is therefore my sincerest hope that come Election Day that the British people make a choice that is a solid investment in their future by voting for a party that puts Britain First.

Compulsory Voting?? Bad Idea

It’s been a while since I last made a post and maybe some of my readers are wondering why is it that the Jamaican Tory seems to have fallen off the grid, well the fact is that I’m back now and ready to issue the first post of 2013, which also happens to be the 50^th post in this Jamaican Tory series . So many things have taken place in my absence, so many incidents I can write on but for now I’ll choose something very close to home.

It concerns some rather controversial comments made by a prominent member of parliament Everald Warmington from South West St Catherine, a rather eccentric character known for his wit and flamboyant style but is who also a true conservative and one of the few members of the present parliament who has spoken up in support of the monarchy and it’s place in our constitution, coming in confrontation with certain members of the political left in order to get his point across. A man some (particularly the left) would consider to be highhanded, obnoxious and even downright rude but whom I  have come to have respect for due to his conservative views and uncompromising stance even if his style of doing so is a bit unorthodox, he seems to have his head on straight, which is why it gives me no great pleasure to have to criticize him now.

                                

In a speech made to a group of party supporters, he was reported to have said that "If you don't vote, you don't count," basically telling his constituents that those who refuse to exercise their constitutional right to vote, should not expect to receive any forms of aid from his constituency office. Naturally these comments sent shock waves across the island, although it is common knowledge that politicians are hardly the most respected people in Jamaica, few would dream that an MP would be brazen enough to make such a statement on national television (in truth a number of politicians have already adopting this practice of having little dealings or contacts with those who are no aligned to them or their party, even though they publicly deny it). Everyone from the media to various civil society groups wasted no time in villanising Warmington for his comments and to be frank I can’t say I’m shocked and I doubt he is either, it’s not the first time he’s been on the receiving end of such angry public backlash for what is considered to be extremely offensive language which some even goes as far as to say displays his contempt for the people that he is sworn to serve as member of parliament.

However when the dust settles and all the trash talk is over, Warmington’s comments does leave room for the nation to debate a very important issue, should compulsory voting be imposed in Jamaica or not?, some countries already have this e.g. Australia, Argentina, Singapore, Peru and a few others, it’s not a whole lot but still there is precedent for it.

                                                    

                                     

This year 2014, will mark the 70^th anniversary that universal adult suffrage was granted in this country and anyone aware of our history will know perfectly well the hard struggles that our ancestors had to go through in order to obtain the right to elect their representatives in free and fair elections, a right which they finally won on October 27, 1944 when His Majesty King George VI gave his royal assent to the new constitution. This Order in Council saw  the hosting of the first democratic elections in on December 12 of that same year where every adult subject of the Crown in Jamaica was entitled to a vote. In his tirade Warmington charged that those who refuse to vote are in fact refusing to take any interest in the affairs of the nation and as such should not be entitled to any form of benefits for their lack of participation, he also called their actions as being disrespectful to those who gave their blood, sweat and tears to earn a right that many people now take for granted .

                                            

While I do sympathize with Warmington’s point of view, I can hardly say that I agree,  the truth  is that, while his comments may have triggered the calls for a discussion on compulsory voting, I seriously doubt it will go past the discussion change. If the history of Jamaica is anything to go by then it’s safe to say, the people will never accept such an imposition from the government but at the same time nor will they stand for any government that seeks to deny them the right of this franchise, Jamaicans love their freedom of choice it's just who we are as a people, in fact the latest Freedom in the world index ranks Jamaica and its Caribbean Commonwealth partners rather highly on the freedom index, far above any other group of nations in the developing world and that’s saying something.  People nowadays are getting rather disillusioned with the whole political process and comments like those uttered by Mr. Warmington only serves to heighten the cynicism among an already disgruntled population, a call for compulsory voting at this time is most certainly not a good idea, The Jamaican People simple will not stand for it. 

Race Heats Up

With just two weeks before the annual conference of Jamaica Labour Party, things seems to be heating up in  race to the top between incumbent Andrew Holness and challenger Audley  “Man-a-yard” Shaw and right now the competition is still anyone’s game  with both leaders still managing to pull very strong support from the grass roots base of the party. However the Jamaican Tory is deeply concerned with the turn of events with the campaign becoming more and more hostile , this leadership challenge is tearing the party apart, as we’re now seeing Labourite against Labourite, when what we’re more used to seeing over the years is Labourite against Comrade (PNP). Perhaps this is what Olivia Grange meant when she declared that whoever seeks to challenge the leadership at this time might not have the best interest of the country and the party at heart.

                  

               

To be frank blame can be thrown at both sides, since the announcement of the leadership challenge every issue has turned into a major squabble from the selection to the delegates list to disputes over who has the most parliamentary support and which side has more to spend on the campaign trail. This race is getting way too petty, with both sides airing their dirty laundry in public as it were, this is not doing either side any good rather it is hurting the entire party.

I’m rather shocked at the amount of tribalism that is being displayed within the ranks of the JLP itself, just last week as senior JLP MP, that is a known supporter of the incumbent evicted a counselor from his constituency office simply because she supported the challenger, this was irrespective of the fact that the counselor was still a loyal member of the party . Other statements and actions by the leader's supporters are also calls for concern, such as Everald Warmington decrying Shaw’s leadership of his area council as the worst in the island, effectively branding him as incompetent. Then of course there is the leader himself who was also found making uncalled for comments about his opponent , he accused his challengers of being traitors deliberately undermine his authority to the detriment of the party, which is why it where it is today,.

               

The Shaw camp is not spared either, regardless of  calls by the self-styled Man-a-Yard to  “bring back the love” , it is quite clear that this party is anything but united, it is quite telling that many of those who lost their seats in the last general elections are supporting Shaw, and even placed blame at the Holness feet for their election  losses, this criticism however seems rather unfair considering that Holness managed to retain his seat while they loss thiers, he must have doing something right that they were doing wrong, they also further state that since that time until now, Holness has yet to meet with them. And then of course there is Shaw himself who made a huge fuss, criticizing the leadership style of Holness  by discussing several internal party matters on a public platform and complained about Holness being weak and indecisive, allowing the PNP to get away with too much and promising that should he win, he will be the PNP’s worst nightmare, much like the present Prime Minister threatened when she lost the election back in 2007.

                       

Being a High Tory I still believe that a government that subscribes to conservative principles is best to lead a country, which is why I prefer to support the conservative JLP over the liberal PNP, but this race is tearing the party apart so much that it’s heartbreaking. The more I watch, is the more that I’m of the view that regardless of who get most of the delegates votes, the real winner in this whole saga will be neither Holness nor Shaw but rather the People’s National Party, while Labourites are busy infighting the  comrades of the PNP are having a joy ride ruining the country with no serious challenges to their incompetence and mismanagement .  I would not  be surprised if Prime Minister Simpson Miller did exactly what Holness feared she would and call an early general election soon after the leadership race is over just to spite the JLP. So the question here is: if she does, can the JLP  recover in time to take on the PNP and hopefully retake the reins government or will they miss the mark and end up spending another 18 years as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition?.

Leadership Challenge? Bad Idea

One could not have been in Jamaica and not have heard this story, after all it has been in the news for an entire week, and is one of the hottest topic of discussion right now particularly on local talk shows. There are quite a bit of rumblings going on in the opposition Jamaica Labour Party as it is indicated that Audley  “Man-a-Yard  Shaw”  might have is eyes on the top job in the party and is carrying on consultations to see whether or not he should challenge the incumbent  Andrew Holness for the leadership when the Party host it’s annual conference in November , Shaw is currently one of the 4 deputy leaders of the JLP, Chairman of Area Council Three, Member of Parliament for North East Manchester, a former finance minister and the current shadow minister of the same portfolio. Holness on the other hand is Member of Parliament for West Central St Andrew, a former Prime Minister and Minister of Education, he is also the  current Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

Given what has been said so far it seems as though the tide is swaying in favour of the incumbent rather than the challenger, something Shaw probably did not anticipate given the recent defeat the party had faced at both local and national levels. However it seems as though many labourites are still loyal to the incumbent leader , several senior JLP MPs have already publicly declaring their support for Holness continuing as leader, Everald Warmington one of the most outspoken MPs and Chairman of Area Council Two had no qualms about publicly declaring where his loyalties lie and urged the delegates in his constituency in do likewise, while former culture minster Olivia “Babsy” Grange even went as far as to assert that any member of the JLP that wishes to mount a challenge at this time has an alternate agenda that means no good to the party or the country.

                    

Looking over the history of the Labour Party ever since it’s foundation 70 years ago, a certain trend has been noticed, since 1943, the JLP has had four leaders and none of them were elected by popular vote of the delegates of the party. The JLP was founded by Sir Alexander Bustamante to challenge the People’s National Party and others in Jamaica’s first general election that was held the following year. Although he retired for parliament in 1967, Sir Alexander remained as Party Leader while the senior deputy leader (Sir Donald Sangster and later Hugh Shearer) served as Prime Minister. In 1974 when Bustamante finally retired from the party, labourites began searching for a new leader. Shearer was not seen as the most suitable candidate given his election loss to Michael Manley and the PNP in 1972, so they turned to Edward “Papa Eddie” Seaga and he took the party in hand and lead it from 1974 to 2005, serving as Prime Minister from 1980-1989. When Seaga retired the senior hierarchy of the JLP unwilling to have the party divided by a leadership contest decided to work with who they thought was the most winnable candidate and settled on Bruce Golding who led them to victory two years later after 18 years out of government.  After only one term as JLP leader and Prime Minister, Golding also decided that it was time to go and again a succession crisis arose and the party leadership was settled in the same way as it was in 2005, this time with Holness emerging as victor, the delegates of the Jamaica Labour Party were for the most part left out.

              

Of course in all fairness one cannot blame the party leadership for all of this, the delegates too must share the blame, after all according to the constitution of the JLP, the delegates in theory have a opportunity to elect a new leader every November when conference comes around, it’s just that they have never exercised this right, that will certainly change this year and one can only wait and see what the results will be (personally I’m betting on Holness). Some have accused Man-a-Yard of trying to unseat the leader by surreptitious and underhanded means and they also claim that he has no right to mount a challenge but is being driven solely by personal ambition; of course Shaw denies these charges. These are baseless accusations, in truth Shaw has every right to challenge for the leadership and so far he has not gone contrary to the party’s constitution. That does not however mean that the decision to challenge is a wise one as the opposition surely has better things to do than internal squabbling.

                        

Overall the situation is like this, Labourites are more interested in a change of government than they are in a change of party leadership, many resent Shaw for what they see as his attempts to divide the party for personal gain (some have even accused him of being a PNP comrade for doing so), personally I think that it’s not too late for him to back down after all he has not officially announced a challenge, but in either case the Jamaica Labour Party will have everything to loose and nothing to gain if it remains divided along sectarian lines and distracted by personality issues. 

The Big Race 2012: who will it be?

It has now come down to the wire, with only one day to go there’s only one Question on everybody’s lips, who will occupy the big seat for 2013-2017?, who will win the election up north, will incumbent Barack Obama be given a second chance? Or will he be upstaged by Mitt Romney?, having caught bits and pieces of the Campaign from  the Republican primaries all the way up the debates, I must say this is still anyone’s game according to the latest polls. Of course a recent experience here in Jamaica has taught me that the polls cannot always be trusted. Some may not know this but the people of the U.S. do not elect their president directly but rather indirectly and it may very well be possible however unlikely for a candidate to win the popular vote but still lose the election since votes are counted according to state not the individual and no state is more crucial than the swing states, since they are the ones that almost always determine the results.                       

Two things I must make special note of are the nature of campaigning and the cost, preparations for an election campaign begin as soon is the previous one is over, in other words it is a never ending cycle that in itself seems quite ridiculous candidates launch propaganda campaigns trying to make their opponents look bad oftentimes spinning the truth  in order to accomplish this goal, this leaves the nation heavily divided and may cause persons to become bitter if the candidate of their choice loses. Unlike a constitutional monarchy or even but to a lesser extent a parliamentary republic, in the United States and presidential systems, there is no separation between Head of State and Head of Government what this means that there is no living symbol of loyalty for the entire nation to rally around. “What about the post campaign healing process?”  “What about having the elected president trying to galvanize the whole nation to support him after he has been elected?”, some might ask, here’s my answer, this is unlikely seeing that is I said before Campaigning gets off the ground as soon as the last one ends that is precisely why Americans pledge allegiance to their flag, unlike us in the Commonwealth Realms who pledge our loyalty to a living being, our monarch, former Canadian Prime Minister Sir John MacDonald best sums it up this way “By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the  American Constitution. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection.”

As everyone knows campaigning cost are massive, and many of the times donation to a candidate or a party are funded by private enterprises with billions of dollars being spent every election for endorsements and campaign ads which often times end with the words “I’m (name of candidate) and I approve this message", an election which should have been about the people is taken over by corporate mongols, U.S. based multinational corporations and  the wealthy business upper-class who have the most to gain from their candidate being declared as victor. 

In terms of who has the better policies I had originally been in full support of Mitt Romney obviously because he was more conservative , but after listening to the three debates I have come to different conclusion, Romney in fact has only excellent domestic policies but as far as foreign affairs is concerned the President still has the edge. Romney is a total disaster when it comes to foreign policy I mean seriously, "Russia is America’s number one geopolitical foe"? Where the hell did he get that from?, the last straw for me was insulting the British at the Olympics, in my book that is almost unforgivable as I consider myself a true anglophile. On the other hand I like the stance that he takes on domestic issues such as civil rights, health care, education taxation and how to get the American economy growing at a faster rate. The President is completely the opposite his domestic policies have been the downfall for the U.S. over the 4 years of his presidency leading to the reduction their once proud AAA credit rating, and the fact that the U.S. is now the largest debtor in the world, especially to China, one could not talk about Obama’s domestic policy without mentioning Obama-Care, the highlight of the President’s policy bitterly opposed by republicans, the very first thing that Romney plans on repealing if elected. His foreign policy however includes more inclusion and more idealism rather than typical Romney Style realism, whose only aim is for the U.S. domination of all other nations, that kind of politics is impractical in this day and age given the nature of the international system which Romney has continuously demonstrated that he doesn’t fully  understand.

Like I said before this election is still anybody’s game, the United States and the world watches with bated breath to see what the outcome will be on Tuesday night and who will get the chance to lead America for the next four years until 2016 when the process is done all over again