Archive

Posts Tagged ‘obama’

Obama Fiscal Management- How To Spend a Half Billion Dollars On Syrian Rebels Without Even Trying

September 16th, 2015 Comments off

Do you recall how the Obama administration refused to support mainstream opponents to the Assad regime in Syria for years, until Islamist extremists came to dominate the forces fighting against the Syrian president? President Obama then said he would counter ISIS influence in Syria with a half billion dollar training program for “moderate” Syrian opponents of Assad. Ever wonder what happened with Washington’s major investment in moderate Syrian fighters? Wonder no more.

In stunning testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Pentagon officials informed shocked senators that the $500 million investment from the coffers of American taxpayers led to “4 or 5” Syrian fighters being trained and deployed in the fight against ISIS. And they are uncertain if the number was either four or five? The answer is fiscally important, for in a best case scenario America spent a mere one hundred million dollars per moderate freedom-fighter; worst case, the tab rises to $125 million per fighter.

The statement on the paltry results achieved from such a major investment by the Obama administration drew gasps of horror and stunned laughter from the senators. This is more than a failure of President Obama’s Syria policy; it is a manifestation of total incapacity to manage and steward the funds provided to the government by the nation’s taxpayers. But don’t expect any resignations over this dismal “return on investment.” As shocking as this episode is, many American citizens will not be surprised. In fact, the training program for moderate Syrian fighters can serve as a metaphor for so many fiscal aberrations that far too often are the rule rather than the exception when it comes to the fiscal probity of the federal government.

If you want an explanation for the reason America is in such bad fiscal health–and why a majority of Americans view their government as corrupt and incompetent–here is a prime example for the ages.

 

 

DONALD TRUMP 2016: America’s Next President? Kindle Edition

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/DONALD-TRUMP-2016-Americas-President-ebook/dp/B0156PAAVM/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

 

Barack Obama Meets Neville Chamberlain And Joseph Stalin? Unsettling Parallels With The Infamous Munich Agreement of 1938 And Its Aftermath

July 15th, 2015 Comments off

President Obama has made America’s worst strategic blunder by empowering the anti-American regime in Iran, acquiescing in its burgeoning hegemonic role in the Middle East, while legitimating its status as a nuclear threshold power. In all probability, this will mean the attainment of full nuclear weapons capability in a decade, if not sooner, by the theocratic dictatorship in Iran, unless a power other than Washington decides to stop them.

In the wake of the nuclear deal with Iran consummated officially by the P5 plus 1, but in reality between Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, political adversaries in Washington are weighing in on the nuclear treaty, their positions largely pre-determined by their partisan politics and ideologies rather than by a cogent analysis. This applies to those supporting and opposing Obama’s Iran deal. What is being ignored is the true basis for President’s Obama’s historic gamble on Iran and its implacably anti-American regime.

In a private meeting with leftwing progressive activists in the Democratic Party held in January 2014, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, spelled out the administration’s intentions. Unknown to Rhodes, his confidential briefing was secretly recorded, and details would subsequently leak out (http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-coming-detente-with-iran/). The core of what he had to say about the negotiations with Iran:

“So no small opportunity, it’s a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context.” He went on to say, “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away. And there are ways to do that.”

Largely in secret, and based on a belief that the American people lacked the sophistication to fully understand the Iran issue as thoroughly as President Obama and his expert advisors, a policy decision was apparently made to engage in a grand act of appeasement, allowing Iran to maintain intact its illicit nuclear infrastructure designed solely to fabricate fissile materials suitable for ultimately only one purpose–manufacturing nuclear weapons. A fig leaf of a 10-year moratorium on full-scale use of that capacity by Iran, with a supposedly strict inspection regime that is obfuscated by a complex treaty that is so arcane, it allows Iran numerous opportunities to thwart its intent and cheat successfully, has been presented as largely a public relations exercise. The real intent of the Iran deal, as Ben Rhodes suggested 18-months ago, is to transform Iran from an adversary to a regional ally of America’s and serve as the Middle East policeman, allowing the United States to finally extricate itself from military involvement in that region.

This is where parallels with the Munich agreement of 1938 resonate most strongly, for reasons largely forgotten. Neville Chamberlain signed an agreement with Adolf Hitler, sacrificing Czechoslovakia in a grand act of appeasement, not solely to achieve “peace in our time.” The British political establishment of that era viewed communism and Soviet Russia as a far greater menace than Nazi Germany. It was their hope that the Munich agreement would focus Hitler’s attention towards the East, and use Nazi Germany’s military power against Stalin’s Russia.

It was the reaction of Soviet dictator Stalin to the Munich agreement that resonates with the contemporary thinking of the Obama administration on Iran. He decided to play his own game of appeasement with Hitler, signing the notorious Soviet-German non-aggression pact that enabled Hitler to launch the Second World War. Stalin was fully aware that in Nazi ideology, the Russian people were viewed on the same level as the Jews, with Hitler boasting in Mein Kampf of his future intentions to destroy Russia as a nation and conquer its lands. Stalin convinced himself that the non-aggression treaty ushered in an era of pragmatism in German policy towards Russia, and Nazi ideology had faded away. As history was to reveal, he was fatally wrong is his calculation, and the result was that his country was nearly annihilated, and escaped total destruction at the cost of tens of millions of lives.

Barack Obama, John Kerry and Ben Rhodes apparently believe in a manner similar to Stalin’s that the Ayatollahs’ vehemently anti-American hatred is not a core value of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will be sublimated by pragmatism. Yet, even as the Iran Deal was being finalized, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei publicly chanted “death to America!” American flags were burning on Iranian streets as Kerry and Zarif exchanged smiles. And the regime’s most militant instrument of power, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, was staging naval exercises that involved the “sinking” of a replica of an American aircraft carrier.

President Obama has apparently convinced himself that Tehran’s hostility is only a passing phase, and that in time it will become the trustworthy guardian of the Middle East, protecting the United States from what the administration seems to regard as the unruly Sunni Arab world. Decades of alliances with the broader Arab world, and especially Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, along with Israel, are in the process of being abandoned, in what must be regarded as the most reckless crapshoot in American geo-strategic planning.

Unfortunately, the administration has lulled itself into sleepwalking with a hegemon whose core ideology, as the leaders of the Islamic Republic have repeatedly stated, is centered on hatred of the United States. Unless other forces can prevent what at this point seems inevitable, the ultimate outcome of the Iran deal is that Americans will one day awaken to the reality of an apocalyptic regime pointing nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles at their shores.

 

\CLICK VIDEO TO VIEW:

 

Comments are closed.

 

U.S. Economy Falters: Growth Fell In Last Quarter of 2014

February 28th, 2015 Comments off

 

According to revised data from the Commerce Department, the American economy grew by only 2.2 percent in Q4 of 2014, significantly lower than the earlier reported figure of 2.6 percent, which caught analysts off-guard.  The corrected GDP growth figure for Q4 is a sharp drop from the reported 5 percent growth in Q3, throwing a wet blanket over claims made earlier by the Obama administration that the U.S. economy was set for strong, consistent growth.

Typical with poor economic data emanating from Washington, the analysts and pundits are already doing their spin routine, claiming that the disappointing economic data for Q4 of last year was merely a temporary speed bump. The prediction of annual GDP growth in excess of 3 percent in 2015 for the American economy is being forecasted by many observers.

But what about the undeniably very bad economic news coming from the Eurozone and Russia, and the slowdown in China and Brazil? As the U.S. economy is not a island, it seems unreasonably optimistic to believe that the proliferation of bad economic news from abroad will not impact the United States negatively.

 

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

 

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO

Hillary Clinton Nude

Hillary Clinton Nude

Obama’s Accounting Games “Reduce” U.S. Deficit

August 20th, 2009 Comments off
With the U.S. economy sinking and unemployment rising, the already record projected budget deficit for the current fiscal was set to increase beyond the latest revised upward figure of over $1.8 trillion. With growing problems on Capital Hill with proposed healthcare reform owing to concerns about the growing Federal government deficit, something had to be done. And something was done. Here is the American government at work.

The Obama administration will remove $250 billion for additional emergency funding for the financial system, and $78 billion for additional funds for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from the budget. That takes the projected deficit down to just below $1.6 trillion. Add those figures back in and the deficit would have been forecast at over $1.9 trillion, higher than the previous updated projection.

Of course, this is simply a bookkeeping exercise. With the FDIC shutting down insolvent banks at warp speed, and the global credit markets still largely frozen with toxic assets, who does the Obama administration think it is kidding?

 

For More Information on “Global Economic Forecast 2010-2015” please go to the homepage of our website, http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com 

 

 

 

 

 

America And Economic Collapse: Will Obama Share the Fate Of Gorbachev?

December 28th, 2008 Comments off
An economic crisis can destroy an empire. It was financial bankruptcy that led to the liquidation of the British Empire. More recently, economic stagnation and paralysis led to the demise of the once-powerful Soviet Union. Will the global economic crisis sink the United States, and end American hegemony? The success or failure of the incoming Obama presidency will determine the ultimate answer to this millennial question.

When the global financial crisis first arose, leading to a worldwide credit crunch, it became apparent that the economic policies of George W. Bush would be the defining issue of the 2008 presidential campaign, spelling doom for the Republican nominee. When the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, proclaimed that the economic fundamentals of the U.S. were sound, he insured that Barack Obama would win the election and become the 44th president of the United States. In fact, the fundamentals of the American economy are as feeble as were those of the Soviet Union before it collapsed.

Barack Obama is a very intelligent politician, and is already being compared to President Franklin Roosevelt, who presided over the New Deal economic policies of the 1930s in the depths of the Great Depression. However, Barack Obama may also be compared to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the once-mighty Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Gorbachev, like Obama, is a highly intelligent man. He was selected by the Soviet elite as their last-ditch candidate to save the crumbling Soviet Union. In spite of his best efforts, he failed. The economy of the Soviet Union imploded, leading to the total disintegration of the Soviet State, which once was deemed an equal superpower rival to the United States of America. Will Obama’s fate be that of Franklin Roosevelt, or Mikhail Gorbachev? There are disturbing parallels between the United States of 2009 and the Soviet Union in its last years of existence. These may prove more relevant than the comparisons some American economists are trying to draw between Obama’s and Roosevelt’s America.

Consider the following: prior to its extinction, the Soviet Union was driven to bankruptcy by bloated military expenditures, exacerbated by a losing war in Afghanistan. Its economy was immune to reform due to the tyranny of central planners. In the America that gave birth to the global financial crisis and credit crunch, the government’s finances have been driven to the brink of bankruptcy by vastly excessive military expenditures, run amok by a losing war in Afghanistan and an unnecessary war in Iraq. Its economy, supposedly a paean of free-market flexibility, has now proven to be a myth constructed by the financial alchemists of Wall Street and pseudo central-planners of the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department. Just as the Soviet Union used tax-payer money to bail out failed industries, the United States through its Treasury Department and Federal Reserve Bank have deemed failed financial enterprises “too big to fail,” warranting hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit borrowing that tax payers are responsible for in an equally futile rescue bid.

Obama, like Gorbachev, will be tied to an elite that has a vested stake in salvaging a doomed system, even at the risk of national insolvency. If Barack Obama has the intellectual stamina to resist the American financial elite and recognize that the Global Economic Crisis calls for a total restructuring of the economic order of the United States, he will go down in history as the president that saved America’s economy and preserved its status as the dominant economic power in the world. If, however, he is unable to unshackle himself from the failed policies of the American financial elite, he will be doomed to share the fate of Mikhail Gorbachev as that of being a valiant failure.