It’s been well documented, Obama owns this economy. The DNC Chair Wasserman-Shultz has said as much, VP Joe Biden has also said it and a vast majority of Republicans all say Obama owns the
economy as well. With piling, Trillion
dollar deficits and unemployment having maintained historic levels for extended
periods of time; the economic malaise Obama reigns over, is one that no
President can tout.
Remember, Clinton's
sign on his desk when he was in the oval office? Contrary to popular belief, it
was not: “The filing cabinet is under the desk, Interns” it was actually: “It’s
about the economy, stupid”.If it is
truly about the economic outlook of this nation; then President Obama is in
trouble come November.
Now personally, I believe the sheer size of the US
economy is so vast and lumbering, that the President gets too much credit when
“his” economy is running on all cylinders just as much he is unfairly ridiculed,
when it’s in the toilet. That however, is not the majority of how Americans
feel or think thou. If they can’t find work, it must be the Presidents fault. The truth of the matter is that the
average American does not have time to research what really are the driving
economic factors behind our economy good or bad; so the person sitting in the oval office is seen as a
personification of the whole economy.
Now, since we are going to use this embodiment to signal a "nay or ya"
regarding the economy, I would like to use this simplistic strategy to point
out something that doesn’t get talked about enough.
President Obama is the first President in 20+ years to see our nation’s top export
be Fuel. He is also the first President since Harry Truman (1949) to oversee
the US being a
net exporter of oil-based fuels. The US
has imported 11% less crude then it did in 2005. Ten years ago, fuel wasn’t or
barley made it in the Top 25 for US exports, but now it stands at #1?
Regardless of how or why, it doesn’t matter. He was the guy in office when
this happened, thus he owns this fast break to energy independence. Never mind
the new developments and discoveries in shale oil/gas or the fact that Obama
inherited the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. Let’s, not
let things like mitigating facts get in the way of our thinking. Mr Obama is
set to become one of the greatest achievers in modern presidential history in
our quest for energy independence and for that he will be looked back on as a
rousing success. Its all about perception isn’t it, or is it context?
Its been a rather hot
item this week. People have been picking apart Mitt Romney's latest budget
proposal and it isnt pretty. The lates offering (or borrowing might fit better)
of a Romney proposed budget would actually result in equal or larger deficits
then we already have under the current administration. I find that odd,
considering Romney has
said recently that it is: "immoral to pass burdens on the next
generation like that" meaning deficits and in turn the national debt.
This is the same Mittens who also said how he "can’t wait to get my
hands on Washington". I had
to ask myself; get your hands on it for what? Clearly, by his own admission in
his proposed budget, he would actually increase the deficit not shrink it, let
alone not balance the budget.
Romney's proposed budget got me thinking... is he seriously supposed to be
the candidate with business experience? You can't argue with the wealth he
built up. Hell, paying only 13% of your income in taxes can have that effect on
a multimillionaire, no? You can't argue with his education background or the
fact that he saved the Olympics, so why is it he has a problem balancing a
budget?
Surely, he had to do so in his business dealings, haggle with budgets. We
know he had to do so as governor, so why is trimming the existing deficit so
hard to do, let alone balance our nations budget? The short answer? He wants to
appeal to everyone. That
why he is flip-flop Mitt. Period.
With that said, I want to focus on one particular part of Romney's budget
and that is defense. Mittens recently said he would not only not cut defense,
he would commission a bump from building "nine per year to fifteen" new ships for the Navy as well as new
aircraft for the Air Force. Apparently, Mittens was feeling the love from the
USS Yorktown and maybe a little patriotic and nostalgic in the World War sense,
because he then dropped this bomb saying (as you can see below) he would
"add at least 100,000 troops to the boots on the ground capability".
The problem with that is first of all, we are not entering a world war. So where could we use this 100k influx? Iraq? We just withdrew (but lest not mention the 15K people left behind to defend the city-like embassy) our combat troops. Afghanistan? It was said two years ago that Al-Qaeda is 75-100 strong in country. That was out of the mouth of then CIA director and now Department of Defense chairman Leon Panetta. I'm guessing Panetta has no advantage of actually underselling our enemy now does he.
These are also the same terrorists who are "on our side" in the uprising that is taking place in Syria. Hmmm, we are going to be supplying and siding up with terrorists to defeat a nation that we do not like today, but will tomorrow in efforts to stop the terrorists that we now all of a sudden hate who once used to help us.... stop me if I am wrong, but have we not seen this movie before; in Afghanistan no less, circa 1979? Oh, never-mind, this movie is titled the "forever war" (thanks Clearwater) thus we never know how it ends and the perpetual boogy man? He just keeps a comin', he just gets a new face (and accent) every now and then, ala Herbert West.
So, why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? To invade Iran? To combat terrorism? Doesn't seem plausible. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. I would assume the troop levels we have now are more than enough to defend our nation but Mitt doesn't agree:
“We all recognize that America needs to economize, but I don’t believe
that we can economize on securing our nation and protecting our citizens
and ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us and for our
children,”
In fact, if you compare our spending on defense to the rest of the world as I pointed out in an earlier article this year; it's not even close in how much we outspend the rest of the top 17 nations who spend the most on defense combined.
National
defense spending has increased 38% since 2001. This idea that we are going
to spend more on defense and drastically increase its scope and sheer size,
leads me to the answer to my original question. So why do we need 100,000
additional troops for? And the answer is quite obvious. Just look at Romney's quote
when he says:
"ensuring that the
world remains safe and free for us"
There it is. And that is the shared mentality from most of Washington
not just Romney. Kind of reminds me of the newest Navy slogan "A global
force for good". The problem with that? The word "Good" is
awfully ambiguous. How "good" are we, if you're an innocent bystander
whose lost their life or a loved one(s) in Iraq
or Afghanistan.
Is that "good" worth a son who was put into a battle field without
even a deceleration of war from Congress?
"Good", just like the words "safe" and "free"
in Romney's quote are equally indistinct. I thought we already were pretty
safe. Apparently, Romney does not agree and that is why he is touting a pretty
substantial face lift for the DOD. The phrase "free for us"? How can
the world be free for us? Chew on that one, I know i still am.
Which leads me to my final point. Romney is proposing not only an agenda
that is completely out of whack compared to what the rest of the world is
spending on defense, it is also an agenda that is mathematically infeasible in
an environment where we should be embracing austerity measures to live within
our means. Here is a recent quote
from of all people, Valdimir Putin, on the past, current and future US
foreign policy outlook:
"the United States, have
developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours.
The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely
invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and
geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem. By definition, absolute
invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability
for all others"
I know some of you out there are thinking "why do we care what the
future President of Russia has to say about us" and I understand that
sentiment; however, it's awfully sobering to have the Russians more in line
with reality than a hopeful for the
Presidency of the United States.
To be fair, Romney is not alone on the campaign trail in this insanity, and it
clear the Oval office shares this paranoia as well.
With that, I leave you with a quote, that in today's Republican Party would
be considered a Liberal stance on foreign policy. From the same man who shed
the initial light on the Congressional Military Industrial Complex (how
apropos), former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"We will bankrupt
ourselves in the vain search for absolute security"
I remember people used to steal hood ornaments back in the 90's and wear them as charms on chains. I grew up (pardon the pun) hood (in the suburbs), what can I say. In the last five to ten years I have seen the same hip-hop culture buying gold or silver "grills" for their mouth. Now it appears its has come full circle. The grill has replaced the hood ornament and for actually two reasons. First, car company's caught on and ended that trend by stopping the production of them. Secondly, gold is valuable. Not just more valuable then a hood ornament but more valuable then dollars... so they are shrewd investors, these kids nowadays.
In August of 1971, President Nixon ended Bretton Woods effectively floating our Dollar and subsequently making the dollar the reserve currency of the world, having no longer having to be exchanged for gold. When Bretton Woods ended, one ounce of gold was equal to $35 dollars. Today, gold (even taking a substantial hit) closed at $1,696 dollars. That $35 Dollars? Is worth still $35 nominally, but real purchasing power?
If I used the latest CPI from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistic, that same $35 dollars would buy you $6 dollars worth of goods today. That is an 82% loss of purchasing power. At the same time, gold has lapped its initial value (in 1971) 48 times. Is there any wonder why people are clamoring to invest in precious medals? Here is a chart of gold in the last 10 years:
So it should not come to a shock when you see stories like this:
Its 1391 in Iran,
you best pass on that grass; if you want to save your ass. It is literally 1391
according to Iran’s
calendar, and here I thought I was always a contrarian? Back in 76' when we were celebrating our bi-centennial the last Shah of Iran (see 1953 US led coup) flipped the calendar from 1355 to 2535... overnight! The
Persians, well, they apparently take contrarianism to another level. Obviously the irony
of that difference in centuries isn’t lost on me when I seen this headline in
the Washington Post last night:
My first thought was “well, Iran
is trying to reduce gasoline usage” but I figured that was even too drastic for
this regime… but not too far off. As I read I was surprised to learn that:
1. The executions are in
public for everyone to see.
2. About 80 percent of
the executions involved drug offenses and many were minors.
3. Iran’s Penal Code
make demonstrations, public debate and the formation of groups deemed a threat to ‘national security’
punishable by prison or death
What jumped off the page was that drug offenses are
the overwhelming majority of the executions. But that doesnt touch the ludicrous notion of sentencing minors to death, i mean wow. I would continue but I think there
isn’t much else to be said. Public debate is one of the many offenses that could be cause for
a stoning or hanging… writing this blog and you reading it could be two acts
that were punishable by death. Does this not seem like something taken out of
the dark ages?? Circa 1391??
It makes sense though. Drugs and public debate (both
offenses) would open up some eyes resulting in a formation of groups (also an
offense) of like minded “awoken” people and before you know it, national security would be threatened. You would have yourselves another Arab spring
uprising. While I don’t agree, I can see the Iranians reasoning. Had anyone
have the insight and organization it would end that theocracy resulting in
public executions of the publicly “elected” leaders. Basically, its a little
C.Y.O.A.
This had me thinking about our nation and it dawned on me that some people would prefer a government that blends their faith here in the states. Take Slick Rick, Santorum actually said this week he doesn't believe in the "absolute separation of church and state". While some might rationalize this or explain it the bottom line is any type of religious beliefs should always be excluded because religion isn't exactly inclusive. Its been the basis for a few conflicts over time. You will always have people that will become disenfranchised and government cannot be in the business of playing favorites or picking winners (hahaha).
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful souls, but there is a small percentage of them and a high percentage of them running entire nations that use pieces of the Koran to justify horrendous acts. There is also rouge groups of men that use the Koran to endorse and carry out terrorist acts. Now, superimpose that here if we didn't have the separation of church and state or if we started chipping way at that now.
The overwhelming majority of Christians are peaceful souls but there is that 800 lb crazy book in the room like the Muslim version, but older... and with a sequel starring a pretty cool hippie with a sandals. Being Slick Rick is Christian; have you ever read Deuteronomy or Exodus? Imagine if someone started bringing those books to capital hill for show n tell? Gee, i hope they wouldn't pick out the parts concerning the murder of unbelievers (yikes). Praise God, we have the separation of church and state.
What does Rick Santorum have in common with Tony Raines; besides both having no shot to win (I couldn't find any on Pinny or 5dimes
for Raines) in their respective races… both are involved with the
Daytona 500 this weekend. Slick Rick has purchased a ride on the hood of Tony
Raines #26 car in hopes for a little recognition. I guess when you are
having trouble piecing together campaign money; a good bang for your
buck strategy would be to spend a little precious cake on the hood of a
car that has no shot in hell to win the race. Who the hell is his
campaign manager? HR Pufnstuf? Maybe, he is hoping for a crash? Wouldn’t that be
ironic? Santorums sponsored ride crashing much like his presidential
hopes will be when people finally start to understand this sociopath.
This poor guy will be the butt of many jokes this week and maybe
that’s a good thing for Santorum. Other then religious zealots and some
backwards Tea Partiers who obviously don’t grasp the economic aspect
(the only aspect) of the Tea Party, Santorum is a laughing stock. A
little time away from some of the monologues each night might not be a bad thing? Slick Rick is a guy who wants to grab the wheel from Tony Raines clutches and
bring our country back to the century it was invented in. So, in reality
it’s actually a good move made by Santorum to side up with some fly by
night driver with no chance like himself. It shows he at least has a
sense of humor.
Remember the movie Dumb & Dumber? When Lloyd and Harry "found" a suitcase with a few million dollars and they spent it on anything and everything and then replaced each item they bought with a piece of paper... an IOU?
Now, Harry and Lloyd have no money, they, like our government, are broke losers (I was referring to the movie actors as losers but this will play here as well). How do you suppose they pay it back? They would borrow it? But from whom? What if they borrowed from the people that now hold the IOU's, you know, the people whom they "borrowed from" initially? Lets keep this scenario for an exercise later, bare with me until then.
With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extended the
payroll tax cut this past Wednesday, putting between $20-$2000 dollars back
into the pockets of working Americans each week. While I firmly believe cutting taxes is
always a good measure, I have to question this particular measure, as how to pay
for it; just doesn’t make sense.
It was the same logic of George Bush Jr who cut taxes,
slashing revenue and dramatically expanded government. Sure, it’s more money
back in peoples pocket but it’s going to be much more expensive down the road
in the form of interest payments on the accumulation of budget deficits that
end up making the public debt liability in the national debt.
When you cut taxes, it has to come from somewhere. So,
anytime you cut taxes and do not make cuts in existing programs or services to
pay for them its not really a tax cut, it’s a loan at interest with dollars that are becoming worthless by the day. To call it a tax cut, while
already in a 1.3 Trillion projected hole without cutting a single thing from even
the deficit, further expanding the budget deficit is counterintuitive if not
just flat out a lie. Unlike the Bush and the Republican favored (and flawed theory)
of supply side economics, coupled with increase spending, the means to pay for
this tax cut comes right out of the coffers of… Social Security.
"Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen
Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social
Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes.
Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by
Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people
to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security
solvent for at least the next half century"
The reason we had a surplus in Social Security was a payrolltax
raise (the opposite of what’s going on here with Obama’s tax cut) by
Ronald Regan. I’m not a big fan of “the Gipper” like so many are, that call themselves
a fiscal conservative (because he wasn’t one). However, he knew baby boomers
where going to retire and need to collect from a diminished population numeric wise;
thus a surplus was needed. He then, proceeded to raid it in 1987 as did George Bush Sr following him and lest not forget Bill Clinton. Hell, this goes back to LBJ in the sixties if you want to see who is culpable for raiding social security.
According to the Social Security Administration, as of 2010, Social Security should have had a 2.6 Trillion dollar surplus, but I find that odd? How can the federal government put into its budget each year a bill for Social Security when the FICA tax is already being removed from your paycheck to pay for Social Security? Is this not the essence of double taxation? So, where is this surplus? It’s been raided and spent and
replaced with IOU’s (bonds) with things like wars in Afghanistan/Iraq and
other toys that politicians want - but don’t want to pay for… like this tax
cut. In other words, it's a gigantic slush fund used by politicians to keep their feet from the fire.
(Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.)
In 2005 George W even had the chutzpah to admit it... while raiding it!!!
“There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that
future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced
benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.”
It’s rather humorous to me that this is the only measure
where you will find bi-partisan support in such a partisan political scheme
that is Washington these days. Its also why I write my blog, to show this type of fraudulent partisan logic, as if there was really a difference on the important issues. Why the bi-partisan support? Because
its politically expedient for both parties.
The Democrats can say they are
helping out Joe-six pack with more money in his pocket, while the Republicans
can hold up their oath to Grover Norquist. The best part of this tax cut is it
comes out of an existing program that so many people & elected leaders from both “sides”
rail on for not being solvent. We have heard about the entitlement tsunami that
is coming… I wonder why?
Now, both parties can appease to their constituents so that they
can be reelected; totally disregarding what the cost/benefit factor is. The "rich" (anyone over 110K), who won’t
collect social security anyway, can get some of their money back. Joe-six pack
can break even now, to make up for the rising gas prices and other commodities and maybe even save spend a few dollars (literally a few) at Wal-Mart buying Chinese
trinkets or Snuggies (never mind, they are via China as well). It’s a win-win. I
guess.
But don’t tell that to Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
“I never thought I would have to see the day when a Democratic president of
the United States
and a Democratic vice president would agree to put Social Security in this kind
of jeopardy. Never did I ever imagine a Democratic president would be the beginning of
the unraveling of Social Security.”
Now think back to the beginning with the movie exercise. We, are the person that the suitcase belongs to. Harry and Lloyd are your local congressman and President and Senator... not only do they borrow the money, but they do so at interest or whats called the coupon, through bonds (IOU's). How can we have an outlay (and subsequent budget deficit and then subsequent accumulating national debt) for social security in the budget each year with FICA coming out of our checks to pay for it?
Because of this budget deficit you will also incur a bill that will be an interest payment on the principal of the national debt, which again, is an accumulation of every budget deficit in our history. This is simply because you are spending more then you're collecting in revenue. So, unlike Harry and Lloyd, we are not just going to borrow from the suitcase owner to payback the IOU's we replaced the initial money with. No, the government takes it one step further and promises to pay back those IOU's with future obligations, ie taxes and the circular logic continues. This will go on forever if drastic measures are not taken to stop this, but without strict terms limits, I cant see that happening. After-all, intergovernmental debt doesn't have to be paid back, right? In the words of Lloyd Christmas:
Its as good as money sir, those are IOU's... go ahead and count it, every cent is accounted for.
Add another log (or two) to the fire. India,
Russia, Turkey,
China, Japan,
South Korea and
now Pakistan
and Australia are
all continuing to trade with Iran
despite US
sanctions passed on through on December
31, 2011. A similar set of sanctions was set in place by the
European Union on January 23 of this year. This resulted in a move by Tehran
to stop sending crude to both Brittan and France.
Iran, who is a member of both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and International Atomic
Energy Agency feel they should be
able to pursue Nuclear power for domestic purposes, whether that is true or not
is anyone guess and is totally irrelevant, as far as we are concerned here in the states.
As we have heard ad nauseam, the sanctions were put on Iran
based on their developing nuclear weapons program going online and posing a
threat to destabilize the region. Iran
says it’s for peace, the US
doesn’t believe them and because of that, the west led by the US,
continues to escalate toothless sanctions on Iran.
Iran has taken a progressive approach to combating sanctions
from the West, thus the new sanctions put in place on New Years eve 2011 come
across as a either a gross miscalculation by our intelligence (where have we
seen this movie before) or our State Department (again, same movie, same script…
different actors) in dealing with the supposed weakness or Iran; its inability
to make enough Gasoline.
Tehran has used
multiple tools to soften the blow of sanctions well in advance. First, there
was the 2007 Gasoline Rationing Plan put
into place by President Ahmadinejad. Three years later, in 2010, came a
massive reduction of subsidies on gasoline, resulting in a quadrupling of price overnight across the entire
nation of Iran, prices went from 0.38 cents per gallon to $1.44.
All the while, Iran's dearth of refining capacity (that the
sanctions were thought to have been targeting) and the need to import 40% of
their gasoline was being addressed and dramatic changes were being implemented.
Iran has spent and will continue to spend billions
on modernizing their current refineries while putting into motion the building
of seven new refineries. As a contrast, the US hasn’t built a new refinery in 36 years
(that plays a big role at what you pay at the pump).
Here we have Iran looking to build seven refineries in the
next few years. This will not only allow them to supply their own oil, it was
also give them more economic freedom as they will not have to subcontract out
the refinery process of raw crude to other gulf nations. Iran went from importing 40% of its gas five
years ago to now just 5% coming way of importation.
With all this
development and concentration on energy independence; Iran is posed to be a net exporter of Gasoline by 2015. That is a rather dramatic turnaround in just a few years time and a
testament to the Iranian’s diligence and prudence on addressing their achilles
heal.
Let’s get back to
that script and movie theme once again. It was the buildup in 2002 to the Iraq invasion that the US (after multiple sanctions on Iraq and refusing anything outside of the fact
that Iraq had WMD’s) went to war to hold up UN sanctions despite that fact that the
UN never approved of the war in the first place. Then, shortly after the
invasion, the script was flipped to "giving the citizens democracy" or "freeing them from a
big mean dictator". Or was it that "he supported terrorists"? I can’t remember the order for
excuses as they were then, as they are now, in dealing with the new posterboy for dollar interference... totally irrelevant.
The bottom line is
this. We go after them with sanctions and they ultimately don’t work. There is
only one other alternative; Iran will get a taste of what both of its neighbors
got. Like Iraq, this isn’t about Nuclear weapons. It is about oil. However, above all, this is about protecting the petrodollar. Iran has made all the right moves and either we
are severely underestimating them or it’s just a big dog and pony show for the
inevitable. Either way, regardless if its Obama or Romney or Santorum… Iran is next.
Santorum has and will always be a big government "compassionate"
conservative and his record clearly shows that. He will never shrink
government. Because Santorum thinks that government should be involved within every aspect of our lives. Not
only the handling of our taxes and defense of our contracts and borders but he also favors ADDED government power in the business of defense and regulation of morality.
Anytime the government gets involved or makes any move its costs the tax payer. Government as we know creates nothing, all they can do is tax & spend (borrow & spend is more like it). So, with Santorum getting heat this week in an add put out by Ron Paul, in which it calls the former Pennsylvania Senator a "Fake" Conservative, he had to come out and show he wasnt fake and that he was genuine; as his clear rise in the polls would indicate.
Could there be a better time for the Vest to continue to prove his
conservative credentials then the last debate of the primary season last
night in Arizona? I dont think so, and CNN clearly understood what was
going on as it didn't take
long for John King of CNN to fire a 85mph fastball - belt high for Dr
Paul. Within minutes, King asked Dr Paul why his ad this week was calling Santorum "fake"? Ron Paul simply said:
"Because he's a fake".
The good congressman then went on a bit of a rant, on how exactly he thought the Vest was fake and then Santorum's rebuttal was bunch of fluff and rankings from all sorts of conservative organizations supposedly ranking Santorum as some type of fiscal hawk (sic). It was a little later in the debate where Santorum outed himself. Here is the text:
SANTORUM: As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I've
always opposed Title X funding, but it's included in a large
appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things,
including...
(BOOING)
... the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the funding
for Health and Human Services and a whole bunch of other departments.
It's a multi-billion-dollar bill.
What I did, because Title X was always pushed through, I did
something that no one else did. Congressman Paul didn't. I said, well,
if you're going to have Title X funding, then we're going to create
something called Title XX, which is going to provide funding for
abstinence-based programs, so at least we'll have an opportunity to
provide programs that actually work in -- in keeping children from being
sexually active instead of facilitating children from being sexually
active. And I pushed Title XX to -- to accomplish that goal.
So while, yes, I -- I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and
there were things in there I didn't like, things in there I did, but
when it came to this issue, I proactively stepped forward and said that
we need to do something at least to counterbalance it, A; B, I would say
that I've always been very public that, as president of the United
States, I will defund Planned Parenthood; I will not sign any
appropriation bill that funds Planned Parenthood.
Here, you have someone who is self described as "the most fiscally conservative senator in the Congress in the -- in the 12 years that I was there", who was also rated "high" in ratings from both the National Taxpayers Union as well as Citizens Against Government Waste actually admitting he was in favor of creating new spending. Not only did he help pass legislation worth billions that he (allegedly) didn't like, he trumps that, with actually admitting to adding more spending for new programs to counter the spending of existing programs he doesn't like. My heads hurts just typing that. Lets try this....
Santorum doesn't like Title X (planned parenthood) but he passes it anyway as a rider on another bill worth billions he does like but because he isn't satisfied with the spending of Title X, he creates (spends) Title XX to satisfy his quest for divine mortality be offsetting Title X.
Nope, this still makes no sense and that is the point. It cant make sense because my logical fiscal conservative brain doesnt compute that as fiscally conservative. That my friends is the antithesis of a fiscal conservative. How does spending new money to offset already spent money create anything but more debt and bigger government? It doesn't. And again... that is the point. That is the very definition of a big government whore... thats what Santorum is, and the Tea Party will line up to support him?
Cox, a veteran of the Iraq War, told Examiner that one of the
highlights for him was the ceremony that took place outside of the White
House. The 500 troops stood in formation in front of the White House
and then did an "about face" and turned their backs to the White House
in a symbolic gesture that displayed their disdain for President Obama
breaking his oath of office, which is the same oath all servicemen take,
to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States.
The veterans were told to render a salute and hold it for as many
seconds as there have been active duty soldiers that have committed
suicide while Obama has been in office. The salute lasted nearly 10
minutes, Cox said. They then bowed their heads in silent prayer for as
many seconds as members of the military have died overseas while Obama
has been Commander-in-Chief, which Cox said was almost 30 minutes.
During the ceremony (as seen in the video to the left), a pair of
soldiers held a flag with words Martin Luther King spake in opposition
to the Vietnam War, warning against America's arrogance overseas. King said:
I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a
stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And
don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine,
messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a
way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I
can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't
change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power,
and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my
name. Be still and know that I'm God."
Is Iran
a threat? Are they a threat to the US?
Are they are threat to her allies? Is Iran
a threat to the region? The answer to these questions are all, yes, they are.
However, they are a threat for different reasons to each entity. Israel
has long had problems with Iran.
It’s well documented and that will never cease; at least not in our lifetimes.
The Middle East region is very complicated and convoluted. With the Arab Spring now working
its way into other totalitarian regimes, established dictators and theocracy’s, the
region remains sensitive to any waves. Iran
is the most powerful state left in the Middle East. They
are predominately Shi’a Muslim’s (85%) while the rest of the region is overwhelmingly
Sunni Muslim (90%). If we remember the problems with the US
invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq,
it was complications of various religious sects and the sectarian violence that ensued because of those divisions, was what caused the greatest problems.
Religion was also in part the basis for Iraq’s
invasion of Iran
in 1980 that lasted eight bloody years resulting in over 1 Million deaths. This
was the same war that the US
backed Saddam’s Sunni invasion supplying both weapons and intelligence to Iraq
in proxy war against the Shi’a Iranians. It was during and after the Iraq
invasion that Iran
became more isolated the ever before and when you include they speak a different
language (Persian) and have another belief system from their neighbors; it only
compounded the isolation.
Recently, there was the wikileaks cable that quoted Saudi
Ambassador to the US,
Adel al-Jubeir recalling King Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia urging the US
to attack Iran’s
nuclear program. To quote “cut the head off the snake (Iran)”. Last month, Saudi Oil Minister, Ali al-Naimi, said that the Kingdom will be able to make -up for any shortfall if Iran remains in a defensive posture; further indicating their approval for regime change.
"It is because of our ongoing investment that Saudi Arabia is able to
respond to shortages around the world - take issues with Libyan
production last year for example. 'And it's because of our investment that any future shortages will be handled."
In fact, most Arab nations do not receive the Iranians well and do not want
them to go nuclear. The Arab League has isolated Syria
(Iran’s only
ally) as it has halted both diplomatic and economic ties with
the nation. If that wasnt enough of a statement they will lend political and material support to
the Syrian opposition. It appears Syria
will come to some type of regime change similar to what happened in Egypt and Libya.
The Arab spring is said to be based on freedom of individuals and elections are
a part of that; if and when the revolution takes power, it will not replace the
leadership of Assad with a pro Iranian government.
What is happening is Iran
is walking the proverbial plank. They have no allies. Everyone around them
either wants their leadership removed or they simply don’t care either way. Both
bordering nations of Iran
have been vaporized by the United States.
Its only logical that another member of the “Axis of evil” stuck smack dab in
the middle of US occupations is next.
They know it and they also know they only have a few cards
to play. First, they must go nuclear BEFORE an attack, being that a nuclear
nation has yet to be attacked by the United
States. Will this deter them from being
attacked by the West? Nobody can say for sure, but it will at least give them
pause and possibly buy the Iranians more time. Secondly, and the Ace of Spades,
is that they will divorce themselves from the dollar.
With the drumbeat of war ratcheting up from the US
to heights not seen since 2002, Iran,
like its neighbor Iraq
once did, is poised to play chicken with the US
and its European allies engaging the US
in economic war. The first strike was launched by the US
in new sanctions signed by President Obama back in December and there was a
response by Tehran with a threat to
close the Strait of Hormuz.
Now, we have Belgium-based
SWIFT - who is a lifeline to international trade, as they oversee an average
of 18 million payment messages per day between banks in 210 countries prepared to cut off Iran,
virtually forcing international trade with Iran
to a standstill. This is a remarkable revelation and a clear indication of the
clout the US
still carries as the reserve currency of international trade. Never, has SWIFT
removed a nation since its inception in 1973.
"Kicking Iran
out of SWIFT is both unprecedented and another dangerous step toward turning a
financial war into a military conflict," said Reza Marashi, National
Iranian American Council's research director.
Not only does this hurt all Iranians, but more importantly it
hurts Iran’s
military as well. Without fuel you cannot mobilize your military and logistics
become impossible. Logistical failure has been the downfall of some of them
most important conflicts of the last 300 years and with Iran
being economically cut off it would inevitable. While Iran maybe the 3rd
largest supplier of crude in the world, it’s also relying on 40% of its petroleum and diesel consumption to come way of imports due to both refinery
dysfunction /inefficiencies and just flat out a shortage of new refineries. That however is being addressed and eventually Iran will not be so dependable on importing gasoline but yet still vulnerable if those refineries were knocked offline.
At one point, Iran was planning on getting out of the dollar as early as 2002 (if not long before) and
then Iraq (who
tried getting out of the dollar in 2000 after a decade of sanctions) got
blitzed and Tehran went eerily
silent. Then a few years later and coincidentally enough with the US
bogged down in two stagnate/unpopular wars... Tehran
began chatting aloud about dumping the dollar again. It was The Iranian Oil Bourse, created in 2008, that set the stage for this showdown that will
officially end the petrol-dollar relationship with Iranian crude oil beginning on March 20, 2012. That is just a little
over a month to go.
Now that we are facing our own debt problems, drawing down
from Iraq and Afghanistan
and have a President who may be perceived as weak, the Iranians threw down the
gauntlet. What are we to do? All this adds up to one thing and that is why
we are seeing a strong military presence in the Middle East,
coupled with tough talk from talking heads here in the states. I see a major
push to invoke war with the Iranians.
I've always felt and said that nuclear weapons and terrorism
have always been more of a perceived threat then an actual threat concerning the
Middle East. 9-11 was the exception and it wasn't state
sponsored either. Are nuclear weapons that much of a threat to warrant all this
attention? I have my reservations. Iran
has plenty of nations around them that don't particularly care for them and are
nuked up as well, and those that don’t posses nuclear capability's, I assume would be more then happy to have nukes
from the US/West planted on their soil as a deterrent.
Iran
maybe a nutty regime but mutual destruction is a deterrent to even the crazies,
no matter how much “cooze” Allah can (sic) promise. It’s simply a self
contained regional situation in spite of what the saber wavers might otherwise
say, even if they did get nukes. The idea of supporting terrorist and getting
nukes however is easier for people to grasp then how the Petrodollar recycling
machine works and its more inline with the average person’s moral views: good
vs evil is easier to understand vs then say what it really is and that is the Machiavellian battle of high vs low mach, or
some might say survival of the fittest.
Hell, the majority of the country does not even
believe in natural selection!? Can you really blame our government for running
with the: 'scary dudes in turbans, armed with rocket launchers and hiding in
caves reading Korans under camp fires - alongside a gaggle of virgins, who also want to
nuke you…because they hate you, because you are free' story?
That's where this web gets tangled. See, as Americans we like our standard of living. Is it inflated? Is it driven purely by consumption and debt? Is it made possible by a rigged game that allows us to trade pieces of paper for all types of goods and commodities that the rest of the world has to break their backs for? The answer to those questions is also - yes.
If it was just about nuclear weapons we would have eliminated North Korea's capability's long ago. If it was about terrorism, we would have went after our own allies like Saudi Arabia or never would have clandestinely funded so many right-wing gorilla operations in Latin and South America the last 50 years. Anyone that threatened to flip the monopoly board over and not participate (and publicly denounce the petrodollar) in the petrodollar scheme and trade with other currencies, has already been or will be (Hugo Chavez) neutralized. From Libya - Iraq - former IMF chair Dominique Strauss-Kahn and now Iran.
With the Petrodollar recycling process being the single -
most vital element to the United States
hegemony, it is imperative and absolutely essential that nations (see OPEC)
continue to exchange their oil for US dollars. Or, the world as we know it here
in the States will be much different... and not for the better. You can rest assured, that we will be putting a boot up the Ayatollahs ass and carpet bombing the Caucasus before our leaders (see corporations) allow us to fall into that state.
