Tag Archives: IMF world bank

Apr 8 2015

Decoding the Obama Doctrine


by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
April 6, 2015

Are the Obama administration’s policy failures in the Middle East a random series of errors by an incompetent leadership, or does some grand idea stand behind the pattern?

James Jeffrey, Barack Obama’s former ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Iraq, has this to say about the administration’s current record in the Middle East: “We’re in a goddamn free fall.”

Count the mistakes: Helping overthrow Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, leading to anarchy and civil war. Pressuring Husni Mubarak of Egypt to resign, then backing the Muslim Brotherhood, leading now-president Sisi to turn toward Moscow. Alienating Washington’s most stalwart ally in the region, the Government of Israel. Dismissing ISIS as “junior varsity” just before it seized major cities. Hailing Yemen as a counterterrorism success just before its government was overthrown. Alarming the Saudi authorities to the point that they put together a military alliance against Iran. Coddling Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, encouraging his dictatorial tendencies. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely, dooming the vast American investment in those two countries.

As a man of the left, Obama sees the U.S. historically having exerted a malign influence on the outside world.

And, most of all: Making dangerously flawed deals with the nuclear-ambitious mullahs of Iran.

Is this a random series of errors by an incompetent leadership or does some grand, if misconceived, idea stand behind the pattern? To an extent, it’s ineptitude, as when Obama bowed to the Saudi king, threatened Syria’s government over chemical weapons before changing his mind, and now sends the U.S. military to aid Tehran in Iraq and fight it in Yemen.

But there also is a grand idea and it calls for explanation. As a man of the left, Obama sees the United States historically having exerted a malign influence on the outside world. Greedy corporations, an overly-powerful military-industrial complex, a yahoo nationalism, engrained racism, and cultural imperialism combined to render America, on balance, a force for evil.

Saul Alinsky, the community organizer par excellence, on Chicago’s south side in 1966 (the author of this article met him around this time).

Being a student of community organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama did not overtly proclaim this view but passed himself off as a patriot, though he (and his charming wife) did offer occasional hints of their radical views about “fundamentally transforming the United States.” On ascending to the presidency, Obama moved slowly, uneager to spread alarm and wanting to be reelected. By now, however, after six full years and only his legacy to worry about, the full-blown Obama is emerging.

The Obama Doctrine is simple and universal: Warm relations with adversaries and cool them with friends.

Several assumptions underlie this approach: The U.S. government morally must compensate for its prior errors. Smiling at hostile states will inspire them to reciprocate. Using force creates more problems than it solves. Historic U.S. allies, partners, and helpers are morally inferior accessories. In the Middle East, this means reaching out to revisionists (Erdoğan, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Republic of Iran) and pushing away cooperative governments (Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia).

The Obama Doctrine is simple and universal: Warm relations with adversaries and cool them with friends.

Of these actors, two stand out: Iran and Israel. Establishing good relations with Tehran appears to be Obama’s great preoccupation. As Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute has shown, Obama during his entire presidency has worked toward rendering Iran what he calls “a very successful regional power … abiding by international norms and international rules.” Contrarily, his pre-presidential friendships with truculent anti-Zionists such as Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi, and Edward Said point to the depth of his hostility toward the Jewish state.

The Obama Doctrine demystifies what is otherwise inscrutable. For example, it explains why the U.S. government blithely ignored the Iranian supreme leader‘s outrageous “Death to America” yelp in March, dismissing it as mere domestic pandering, even as Obama glommed onto the Israeli prime minister‘s near simultaneous electoral campaign comment rejecting a two-state solution with the Palestinians during his term of office (“we take him at his word”).

The doctrine also offers guidelines to predict possible developments during Obama’s remaining tenure, such as: Wretched P5+1 deals with Iran compel Israel’s government to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Gentle policies toward Damascus clear the way for the Assad regime to re-extend its power. Ankara chooses to provoke a crisis in the eastern Mediterranean over Cypriot gas and oil reserves.

The great question ahead is how, in their wisdom, the American people will judge the Obama Doctrine when they next vote for president in 19 months. Will they repudiate his policy of shuffling and contrition, as they comparably did in 1980 when they elected Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter? Or will they choose four more years of it, thereby turning the Obama Doctrine into the new norm and Americans into European-style remorseful masochists?

Their verdict in 2016 has potentially world-historical implications.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Apr 8 2015

The 21st Century Munich Agreement


Post by Jeff Longo

The more we learn about the “framework” for an Iranian nuclear deal, the more apparent it becomes that we have sold out our Israeli allies. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will be left intact, economic sanctions will be lifted and unannounced snap inspections will not be permitted.

In a desperate attempt to sell this framework to a deal, President Obama assures us the world will become a much safer place. He insists the only alternative to his deal is a war with Iran. The truth is the alternative to this bad deal is a good deal and anything short of that must be rejected.

America has come to expect lies and deceit from Iran’s leadership. Unfortunately we’ve come to expect the same from Barack Obama. Our negotiations have come from a position of weakness and the results are a framework for disaster. This president no longer deserves the benefit of any doubt and it’s past time for Congress to stand up to him and kill this horrible deal once and for all.

 

 

Apr 8 2015

Greece: High Stakes Poker – A tectonic shockwave looming that could smash the unity lie


As goes Greece so goes the European Union

Mar 10 2015

Can an Economy Grow Without Inflation?


Re-Post from The Austrian Insider
October 2, 2014 · by ·

It is commonly taught that we need a stable increase in prices in order for our economy to grow.  We are told, after all, gold does not expand quick enough to accommodate rapid economic gains.  But is it possible for an economy to grow without inflation?  Not only that, can an an economy grow when prices are actually deflating?

This common inflation argument seems to ignore the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world – the industrial revolution.  During the late 1800’s the American economy was booming.  The living standard of the average man increased faster than any time frame compared to today.  While I agree that no one wants to go back and forgo all the advances that have come since, it is irresponsible to ignore the shoulders on which we now stand.

I have heard from multiple intelligent people that they just don’t believe me.  They say that our economy could not have grown quicker during the industrial revolution than any time since, and are commonly under the impression that poverty increased during the Gilded Age.  But if you are to compare apples to apples, the industrial revolution experienced more growth than any time frame.  The middle class was created during late 19th century.  In 1800 the average American was a farmer, destined to a short life of poverty.  By 1900 that had all changed.

Please refer to the graph below.  We take into account 3 different – 25 year time frames in American history: 1878 – 1903, 1946 – 1971, and 1987 – 2012.  If the time following the second world war was actually a larger expansion in the economy and living standards of citizens, you would expect a larger increase in both life expectancy and average income per person.

Economic Expansions over 25 Year Periods

According to the information found at GapMinder, it is very clear that the time preceding the Federal Reserve was actually a larger economic expansion in every measurable way (these numbers are inflation adjusted).  When you take a look at the information on that site, it is clear the average income and life expectancy is greater today than in 1903, which is why no one would want to go back to that time (straw-man argument).  The point is, if we were to see the same economic expansion during the late 20th century as we had during the late 19th century, we would all be living much longer with a much larger income per capita today.

It is also important to note that we do not feel GDP as a good indicator of economic growth, especially since it includes government spending.  But even using the government’s GDP numbers, the fact still remains.  The only thing that would change this chart is if you included World War 2, since the massive government programs exploded GDP.  But it is obvious that when food is being rationed, the living standards are not increasing for the average person.

Let us not ignore the third part of this graph, the value of the dollar.  After the Civil War ended and we no longer printed greenbacks, our country relied on a hard money standard without any central bank.  We experienced some boom and busts (though I attribute that to legalized fractional reserve theft), but by any standard they were not as long nor as severe as the recessions experienced since.

No matter the source, you will find $1 held in 1878 would buy you far more goods in 1903.  This means the value of the dollar INCREASED and we experienced a DEFLATION of prices.  This goes against all economic theory you have been likely been taught.  While our economy did not expand nearly as quickly, the two other 25 year periods experienced roughly 50% devaluation of the dollar (or 50% inflation of prices).  This is using the government’s own CPI numbers, and many would consider that we actually experienced far more price increases during the 1987 – 2012 time frame (due to the manipulation of the CPI calculation).

History is not on the side of modern day Keynesian economists.  Yes life is better now, society is more accepting of different behaviors and ethnicities, but that cannot ignore the growth we experienced and the shoulders on which we now stand.

Mar 6 2015

BOMBSHELL: HILLARY’S PRIVATE EMAILS SHOW SAUDI ARABIA FUNDED BENGHAZI ATTACK


This is just coming out in public but it has been know for a long time actually right after BENGHAZI to those of us with connections to active duty military.

Mar 5 2015

Train of Thought


By Tabitha Korol

Of the many kinds of trains exhibited in Birmingham’s Wonderful World of Trains and Planes, in Birmingham, England, the only display in dispute was the model train set of Auschwitz, noted the Daily Mail. The photos included in the column certainly verify that the set was painstakingly designed to provide authenticity, was sufficiently informative, and respectfully and tastefully executed. Although I have visited Auschwitz, I have seen an authentic and replicas of boxcars in other museums, not to mention in newsreels, so I was dismayed to learn that only this one was considered objectionable.

One such objection came from a Holocaust survivor and while my heart goes out to him, this was an important teaching moment that would not be obtained in a classroom or home environment, and must not be obliterated from collective memory. It is not the presentation, but the Holocaust itself that is offensive. The mass murder of millions of innocent men, women, and children is inconceivably offensive. The obliteration of human beings by fascists – and now by Islamo-fascists – is severely offensive. And last year, I was privileged to edit a book of Holocaust survivors’ memoirs that were immensely offensive, but surely not to be dismissed or disregarded.

The visitors from Birmingham and environs elected not to stay at home in front of the telly, or go to the park, or attend a sporting event. Rather, they chose to visit a museum, to expand their horizons, to see and learn something new. So, while I respect the wishes and painful memories of the dissenting gentleman and the parents who prefer to keep their children ignorant of this part of human history, this may well have been the last thing ever seen by about one-and-a-half-million children during World War II, and I believe there is much to be gained by viewing the display.

Taking this a step further, if the exhibit were of sailing vessels, I would expect to see crafts of all kinds – those that carried goods and those that carried human cargo, those designed for peacetime and those designed for wartime:

  • The dhow, the traditional sailing and trading vessel, c. 600 BC – 600 AD, invented by Chinese, Arabs or Indians;
  • The vessels of the Polynesians, who were the finest navigators of the time;
  • Ships of the explorers, Vikings, Vasco de Gama, Marco Polo, and Christopher Columbus;
  • Muslim slave ships that brought Africans to Europe and America;
  • The Barbary pirate ships, the menace that attacked ports, captured people for slavery, and plundered merchant ships.
  • The American Navy ships dispatched by President Thomas Jefferson to battle the Barbary pirates;
  • The Mississippi River boats and barges that transported slaves through the States;
  • The MS St. Louis, the German ocean liner noted for its 1939 voyage in which her captain, Gustav Schroder, tried to find homes for 915 Jewish refugees who were denied entry to Cuba, the US, and Canada;
  • The First Class, “unsinkable” Titanic luxury liner.
  • Samples of warships, trading vessels, aircraft carriers and submarines, and any other ships noteworthy through our human history.

There will always be those who find something offensive somewhere, particularly when it comes to the Holocaust and persons who would deny its very occurrence. Nevertheless, the purpose of a museum exhibit is to teach, to engage the mind. The exhibit has accomplished its mission admirably. I commend the curator and all the museum’s participants for their vision, their talents, and their courage.

Mar 5 2015

Netanyahu’s speech to Congress


By Paul Eidelberg

Clearly, the invitation for Netanyahu’s speech to Congress was unprecedented. It was also indicative of great American patriotism.

The invitation was far more than a political insult to President Obama. It conveyed utter contempt for Obama’s Lilliputian mind and un-American character.

Mr. Netanyahu showed extraordinary merit, for he displayed the qualities that were lacking in Obama. Hi speech conveyed the kind of intelligence, national pride, and moral and political leadership which America today is so much lacking and so much in need confronted by the unprecedented challenge which Islam poses to America’s beneficent leadership in world affairs.

Congress’s invitation to Israel’s Prime Minister and his excellent speech should be regarded in Biblical terms, as it will be regarded by Christians and Jews who take the Old Testament seriously.

Feb 13 2015

The Minsk Agreement on Ukraine – Putin’s Victory


Posted on February 13, 2015 by

Minsk-Agreement 2-13-2015

In the Belarusian capital Minsk representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the rebels from the Donbass signed a 13-point agreement on a ceasefire and other measures to resolve the conflict in Ukraine under OSCE supervision.

The essence of the plan is to take account of the self-determination of peoples, which is the reason for the conflict: the ethnic Russians in the Donbass do not want to submit to a central government from Kiev itself. The Obama Administration really opposed this sort of settlement on the grounds of old-world empire theory predicated on territorial integrity of Ukraine. Such policies have led to the death of hundreds of millions of people over the centuries..

The leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany have reached a ceasefire deal after 17 hours of talks in Minsk, Belarus, on the Ukrainian conflict.

The ceasefire will come into force on Sunday as part of a deal that also involves the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line.

Russian president Vladimir Putin was the first to announce the deal, saying: “We have agreed on a ceasefire from midnight 15 February.” Putin went on to say “There is also the political settlement. The first thing is constitutional reform that should take into consideration the legitimate rights of people who live in Donbass. There are also border issues. Finally there are a whole range of economic and humanitarian issues.”

Putin achieve a major political victory as the deal was brokered with Germany and France. The US did not participate and given Obama’s policies, there would not have been any such deal and Kerry, well he may go down as the worst Secretary of State in history.

In particular, the agreement provides for a truce starting February 15, 0.00 local time clock is a strictly complied ceasefire comes into force. Furthermore, all heavy weapons systems should be withdrawn 50 km behind the line of demarcation with weapons greater than 50 caliber should be moved 70 km and 140 km for missile systems. The negotiated in September boundary lines apply to the separatists as starting points. The withdrawal shall begin no later than two days after the ceasefire and be completed within 14 days.

On the first day of truce to begin talks on local and regional elections “in accordance” with Ukrainian law. No later than 30 days after the signing of the agreement, the Ukrainian parliament adopted a resolution to establish the areas that receive a special status. This should apply to those areas in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, who were at the time of the Minsk Agreement under control of the rebels in September. There will also be a general amnesty for all rebels. Five days after the withdrawal of the weapons of the exchange of prisoners and hostages on both sides should be terminated.

A day after the regional elections to the Ukraine again assume full control of the border with Russia in rebel-held areas. This should apply to the completion of a comprehensive political settlement, which is aimed at the end of 2015. Moreover, all foreign fighters and weapons are to leave the country. All “illegal groups” are to be disarmed. That would include American supported private armies.

By the end of 2015, a constitutional amendment is to be implemented, which provide for decentralization and a special status for areas in eastern Ukraine. As part of this reform about an amnesty for the rebels, a linguistic self-determination of the best Russian-speaking population and close, cross-border cooperation between the regions of Lugansk and Donetsk with the neighboring Russian border areas should be committed. The areas to the east should have the right to the formation of local police forces

This was simply inevitable and should have been the political solution from the outset. This idea of territorial integrity rather than the desire of the people in any region is old-world thinking that has to stop.

Feb 12 2015

Franc Float Wrecks Euro


If the Euro collapses the dollar will not be far behind!

Feb 7 2015

IS RUSSIA PLANNING A GOLD-BASED CURRENCY?


Russia is ahead of the rest in the West that continue to “print'” money it will not be much longer when that will not work and that is the Reset” that many fear!