Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Is President Obama a Sunni?

Why is President Obama  so intent on destabilizing the Middle East (and Libya) while  fighting along side the extremist  Sunnis? So far he as destabilized Libya, now in controlled by al Qaeda, destabilized Egypt were the President stood up for the Sunni extremist Muslim Brotherhood and now all that's needed for the Sunni Caliphate is the capitulation of Syria. The US assault on Syria is an interesting campaign of retribution, propaganda and the US unholy alliance with (Sunni) Saudi Arabia.  A year ago President Obama  armed and trained (Sunnis) al Qaeda fighters, calling them Syrian Rebel  fighters; known today as  ISIS or the Islamic State. Prior to the Syrian assault, the US and Saudi Arabia consistently blames Syria for allowing terrorists training camps. This was quite the absurdity   as Saudi Arabia probably funds over 90% of the radical Sunni terrorists in the middle East (9 out of 15 of the hijackers on 9/11/2001 were citizens of Saudi Arabia).

When chemical weapons were used on civilians and Syrian soldiers during this assault on Syria, the US was quick to blame it on Assad; with some very questionable evidence and reasoning. However is was thought almost from the beginning that the use of poison gas would only benefit the Syrian Rebels; it was confirmed later by a UN investigation that radical Sunni jihadists in the Syrian Rebel army had gassed their own people in  an agent provocateur act to create international condemnation of Assad. Then there is the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. While it was strategically a US disaster, there is also evidence from numerous sources that confiscated Libyan weapons were being stored in Benghazi by the CIA (there were 31 CIA agents in Benghazi at the time the US embassy was attacked) to arm the Syrian Rebels The Real Benghazi Story ;

It appears the attack occurred when a local al Qaeda wanted the guns for themselves and swarmed the embassy and annex building and seized the weaponry; this is the reason there was so much misdirection form from the White House, trying to create an alternate explanation. When the US followed the Russian lead, ending the assault on Syria, to allow Assad to turn over his chemical arsenal, Saudi Arabia was furious as Obama had promised to remove Assad. The plan now, as I understand is the US is going to arm the Syrian Rebel fighters (of which over 90% are now loyal to ISIS) to fight ISIS?? Only if the endgame is to bring down the Syrian regime does this make any sense. Of course Syria has it's friends like Russia and Iran that may take exception to such an endgame. For right now Assad has been told not to fire on US fighter planes as they are not to attack Syria; for now.   

Six Years Later; Did Bush Crash the Economy?

Over and over the blame Bush Liberals repeatedly excuse Obama for not taking ownership of the economy or even his own policies. You still hear that Clinton handed Bush deficit free economy and Bush's policies crashed the economy (granted after 7 years of relative prosperity). But again he need to go back to the Clinton years to understand the 2008 economic meltdown was years in the making.

The seeds of the great recession were sewn during the Clinton administration. In 1999, the Glass Stegal Act was repealed; the same year Fanny Mae under the control of CEO Franklin Rains (previously the Chairman of the US Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton) launches the American Dream Commitment (ADC) with a stated goal of pledging $2 trillion dollars to increase home ownership for 18 million American families.. At this time Fannie Mae was easing credit requirements for home mortgages loans in response to increasing pressure from congress. The largest mortgage house that pushed these sub prime loans was Countrywide, at the behest of Democrat Senator Chris Dodd. Barney Frank was the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee from 2003 until his retirement, and he served as committee chairman when his party held a House majority from 2007 to 2011. The end result was the housing market collapsed because the borrowers of the sub-prime mortgages defaulted on their loans.

While conservatives do believe in reducing regulations, they also believes in fiscal responsibility; no fiscally response congress would pressure the housing market to give homes away; it was surely put in place by the Democrats and Franklin Rains cooked the books of Fanny Mae; Raines resigned in Dec 2004 when his numbers weren't adding up, it was determined he misstated over $6 billion in profits adding about $90 million to his bonuses. When it was discovered that home sales were significantly below what Raines had claimed, the result was congressional pressure to catch up, championed by Barney Frank.

As far as Clinton's balanced budgets, you have to remember first that the military was being down sized after Desert Storm and he spent immediately spent the entire projected peace dividend; he also used the Social Security surplus ($2.6 trillion that had accumulated the prior 10 years) to pay down the national dept (borrowed money that is just being returned now), Also due to his taxes on the rich, the US trade deficit plummeted and middle class debt skyrocketed The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton ; so once again a Democrat makes the middle class pay. Then Bush had to ramp up the military as a response to 9/11 adding back the money that Clinton used to balance his budgets. So yes, Clinton had a balanced budget, but he raided the cookie jar to do so, leaving Bush 43 holding the bag.

As far as Democrats and better Economic growth, economists have never been able to show that it is a result of Democrat polices. A recent study from Princeton is explained, "Blinder and Watson have shown that the president has little effect on the economy. Economic performance is determined by factors that are largely outside the control of public policy, or at least the kind of policy that is directly controlled by the Commander in Chief. Explaining the mystery of fast economic growth under Democratic presidents"; More than anything else it boils down to economic trends that are out of the Presidents control; "Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy." There is also a Technology benefit, again out of the hands of the President; "The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration.