.jpg)
===
I have often reminded readers American scrap dealers sold metals to Japan and it came back in the form of bombs that sank our fleet at Pear Harbour.
Will capitalism make the same mistake with Iran. (See 1 below.)
===
Man has accomplished miracles through technology but remains incapable of controlling his appetite for self-destruction.
Click on: Awesome Machines
==
Phil Gramm attended my prep school and went on to become an accomplished economist, professor and Senator. I supported his unsuccessful run for the Presidency. His wife, Wendy, is also an accomplished executive. (See 2 below.)
===
A view of Obama's foreign machinations. Not on the same page anymore. (See 3 below.)
===
Hillary just cannot avoid herself. (See 4 below.)
===
Last week I attended a lecture by a Georgetown University professor who is an expert on Iran. During his presentation he said Iran was very close to having enough enriched material to be in a position to make a nuclear bomb and now the White House seems to have altered its own assessment and believe Iran is within several months .
Bibi said as much a month ago and was mocked by The White House. I doubt the JV's in the White House who thought they were being cute will issue an apology so the egg on their face will remain.
===.
Now for some clever humor: https://www.facebook.com/
===
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Americans Eager to Sell Iran the Rope to Hang Them
Back in the 1970s, columnist George Will memorably characterized the eagerness of American businesses to do business in the Soviet Union as proof that they loved commerce more than they loathed Communism. Propping up a tottering evil empire that threatened Western freedom was nothing compared to the chance to make a buck. A generation later, we’re seeing the same phenomenon on display as other groups flock to Iran now that President Obama has made it possible, if not likely that it will be legal for Americans to do business in the Islamic Republic. As the New York Times reports today, though they were chaperoned by minders who kept them out of the presence of dissidents or other victims of the regime, one such group still found it impossible to escape being confronted with evidence of the theocracy’s hate-filled ideology. But, as with other hopeful, profit-minded pilgrims to other totalitarian regimes, participants preferred to see the country as one big market rather than one big prison whose rulers are intent to do harm to the West.
Like the Times’s own disgraceful journalistic tourists to Iran, such as Roger Cohen and Nicholas Kristof, the group featured in today’s article gushed over the welcome they received and the wonders of Iran’s ancient culture, friendly people, and market potential. The delegation of venture capitalists and business executives organized by a group called the Young President’s Organization got a red carpet tour as well as constant assurances that they and their money will be safe in Iran. When they had the temerity to ask about billboards across the country that proclaimed the regime’s trademark “Death to America” slogan, they were told that this was the product of a bygone era and that a “new Iran” was emerging. That seemed to comfort them, as did the likely inference that the presence of American cash would speed along the transformation of Iran.
But it’s likely that along with tourist sites and meetings with Iranians that said the right thing about wanting to re-engage with the West, these young entrepreneurs and executives didn’t find out much about the way the theocracy oppresses dissidents and religious minorities. Nor is likely that they learned much about the way the regime and its various military arms operate businesses that finance international terrorism as well as an arms buildup that threatens the region. It’s likely they also heard the same tripe about Iran’s right to civilian nuclear energy (in a nation overflowing with massive oil reserves).
What business people who want to invest in Iran should understand is that their efforts to open up this market for American commerce serves to strengthen a brutal and anti-Semitic Islamist government that is a driving force behind regional violence. Dollars that go to Iran will help finance Iran’s terrorism as well as a nuclear program that will eventually, even if Tehran abides by a pact with the West, lead to a weapon that could destabilize the Middle East and threaten Israel with destruction. Just as important, it will make it harder, not easier for those who want change in the country to make their voices heard, let alone have an impact on events. Though Americans always tell themselves fairy tales about increased trade being a force for freedom, all they will be doing is putting cash in the coffers of an otherwise tottering government that will make it even more resistant to reform, let alone willing to expand freedom.
But what’s that compared to the chance of making money by doing business with the ayatollahs? To those who participate in such junkets, the answer is obviously not much. Rather than Americans exporting their values, all the effort to promote trade with Iran will do is to compromise their own principles and to legitimize a regime that those who cherish freedom should never seek to support. This story illustrates that the cost of President Obama’s appeasement of Iran cannot be measured solely by the terms of a nuclear deal that will abandon sanctions and grant the regime a path to a bomb. “Death to America” doesn’t mean just death to Americans critical of Iran but all Americans as well as Western freedom. Just as Lenin once boasted that capitalists would sell Communists the rope by which they would be hanged, a new generation of fools appears intent on gifting Iran with the money that will pay for the terrorists that will kill us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
What’s Wrong With the Golden Goose?
‘Secular stagnation’ isn’t to blame for lousy U.S. growth rates. Obama’s higher taxes and regulatory assault are.
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
By PHIL GRAMM
Since the Obama recovery began in the second quarter of 2009, public and private projections of economic growth have consistently overestimated actual performance. Six years later, projections of prosperity being just around the corner have given way to a debate over whether the U.S. has fallen into “secular stagnation,” a fancy phrase for the chronic low growth seen in much of Europe.
This is just another in a long line of excuses. America’s historic ability to outperform Europe is well documented; we call it American exceptionalism. It has always been based on the fact that the U.S has had better, more market-driven economic policies and our economy therefore worked better. But, as the U.S. economy is Europeanized through higher taxes and greater regulatory burdens, American exceptionalism is fading away, taking economic growth with it.
How bad is the Obama recovery? Compared with the average postwar recovery, the economy in the past six years has created 12.1 million fewer jobs and $6,175 less income on average for every man, woman and child in the country. Had this recovery been as strong as previous postwar recoveries, some 1.6 million more Americans would have been lifted out of poverty and middle-income families would have a stunning $11,629 more annual income. At the present rate of growth in per capita GDP, it will take another 31 years for this recovery to match the per capita income growth already achieved at this point in previous postwar recoveries.
When the recession ended, the Federal Reserve projected future real GDP growth would average between 3.8% and 5% in 2011-14. Based on America’s past economic resilience, these projections were well within the norm for a postwar recovery. Even though the economy never came close to those projections in 2011-13, the Fed continued to predict a strong recovery, projecting a 2014 growth rate in excess of 4%. Yet the economy underperformed for the sixth year in a row, growing at only 2.4%.
Implicit in these projections and in the headlines of most economic news stories—which to this day blame cold winters, wet springs, strikes, hiccups and blips for America’s failed recovery—is the belief that there has been no fundamental change in the U.S. economy. Underlying this belief is the assumption that either the economic policies of the Obama administration are not fundamentally different from the policies America has followed in the postwar period or that economic policy doesn’t really matter.
And yet we know that the Obama program represents the most dramatic change in U.S. economic policy in over three-quarters of a century. We also know from the experience of our individual states and the historic performance of other nations that policy choices have profound effects on economic outcomes.
The literature on economic development shows that U.S. states and nations tend to prosper when tax rates are low, regulatory burden is restrained by the rule of law, government debt is limited, labor markets are flexible and capital markets are dominated by private decision making. While many other factors are important, economists generally agree on these fundamental conditions.
As measured by virtually every economic policy known historically to promote growth, the structure of the U.S. economy is less conducive to growth today than it was when Mr. Obama became president in 2009.
Marginal tax rates on ordinary income are up 24%, a burden that falls directly on small businesses. Tax rates on capital gains and dividends are up 59%, and the estate-tax rate is up 14%. While tax reform has languished in the U.S., other nations have cut corporate tax rates. The U.S. now has the highest corporate rate in the world and the most punitive treatment of foreign earnings.
Meanwhile, federal debt held by the public has doubled, so a return of interest rates to their postwar norms, roughly 5% on a five-year Treasury note, will send the cost of servicing the debt up by $439 billion, almost doubling the current deficit.
Large banks, under aggressive interpretation of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, are regulated as if they were public utilities. Federal bureaucrats are embedded in their executive offices like political officers in the old Soviet Union. Across the financial sector the rule of law is in tatters as tens of billions of dollars are extorted from large banks in legal settlements; insurance companies and money managers are subject to regulations set by international bodies; and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, formed in 2011, faces few checks, balances or restraints.
With ObamaCare the government now effectively controls the health-care market—one seventh of the economy. The administration’s anti-carbon policies hamstring the energy market, distort investment and lower efficiency. Despite the extraordinary bounty that has flowed to America from an unfettered Internet, Mr. Obama has dictated that the Web be regulated as a 1930s monopoly, bringing the cold dead hand of government down on what was once called the “new economy.”
During Mr. Obama’s presidency, the number of Americans receiving food stamps has risen by two-thirds and the number of people drawing disability insurance is up more than 20%. Not surprisingly, labor-force participation has plummeted. Crony capitalism and artificially low interest rates have distorted the capital markets, misallocating capital, overpricing assets and underpricing debt.
Despite the largest fiscal stimulus program in history and the most expansive monetary policy in more than 150 years, the U.S. economy is underperforming today because we have bad economic policies. America succeeded in the Reagan and post-Reagan era because of good economic policies. Economic policies have consequences.
With better economic policies America was like the fabled farmer with the goose that laid golden eggs. He kept the pond clean and full, he erected a nice coop, threw out corn for the goose and every day the goose laid a golden egg. Mr. Obama has drained the pond, burned down the coop and let the dogs loose to chase the goose around the barnyard. Now that the goose has stopped laying golden eggs, the administration’s apologists—arguing that we are now in “secular stagnation”—add insult to injury by suggesting that something is wrong with the goose.
Mr. Gramm, a former Republican senator from Texas, is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)A Gulf Perspective on the "Obama Doctrine"
By Abdulaziz Sager
In his recent interview with US journalist Tom Friedman, US President Barack
Obama explained what is characterized as the "Obama doctrine" that has
guided recent US foreign policy moves on Iran and Cuba. He stated that:"We
will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities."
For the Arab world, such words are far from reassuring especially
considering the track record of the Obama administration in the Middle East
so far. Instead of the "new beginning" as outlined by the President in his
much discussed Cairo speech in 2009, US policy in the region remains mired
in a contradiction between principles and action on the ground.
For example, the President asserted in the interview that, "the US's core
interests in the region are not oil, are not territorial ... Our core
interests are that everybody is living in peace, that it is orderly, that
our allies are not being attacked, that children are not having barrel bombs
dropped on them, that massive displacements aren't taking place."
Yet, at the very moment that the President was offering this assessment, US
allies found themselves under serious threat and attack in Yemen, the Syrian
regime was continuing to relentlessly bomb its own citizens, and the Middle
East was faced with the biggest refugee crisis in its history. If the core
US interests in the Middle East are those outlined by President Obama, the
policy to implement them is clearly not working.
There exist grave doubts about whether the current US administration is
indeed ready to deploy the mentioned "capabilities." It seems that the US
will only use such capabilities when its main national security interests
are at stake. And those core interests are limited dealing with terrorism
and nuclear proliferation only and not the broader aspects mentioned by the
President. The use of drone technology, the military strikes being conducted
against the Islamic State, and the framework agreement on the Iranian
nuclear programs are cases in point. A region "living in peace" or as the
President also stated "our interests ... are really just making sure that
the region is working" are clearly not instances in which those capabilities
will be deployed and they are not part of the so-called Obama doctrine.
In the same vein, the Arab world looks at the recently announced framework
agreement with Iran with a sense of suspicion and trepidation. Having
directly experienced the problematic interventionist Iranian policies for
decades, the Arab world is simply not ready to give Tehran the benefit of
doubt on any regional issue. But neither is it ready to trust US assurances
that outside a nuclear agreement, the US will indeed put forward a concerted
strategy to contain Iranian influence throughout the region or to defend the
GCC states against any Iranian threat. Instead, the fear is that as long as
Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the
US will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the
Arab world considers as direct threats. Here, actions speak louder than
words and unfortunately one sees only the latter coming from Washington.
At a time when the region is faced with unprecedented turmoil and
transition, the President even shifted the blame and directed his criticism
toward the Arab world. When he referred to "our Sunni Arab allies" the
President gave an exaggerated picture by saying" populations that, in some
cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is
destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are
no legitimate political outlets for grievances." What the US President
failed to do is to highlight that this statement is in fact also applicable
to Iran. In his interview, he never questioned Iran's appalling record on
human rights, treatment of the political opposition, and minorities' rights,
among other disturbing issues. Moreover the reference to Saudi Arabia being
one of the "Sunni Arab allies" ignores the fact that there are non-Sunnis
living in the Arab Gulf and adds to the existing destructive sectarian
tensions as well as the sensitivity of the non-Sunni Arabs.
Equally, the assertion that "the biggest threats that they [the Arab states]
face may not be coming from Iran invading. It's going to be from
dissatisfaction inside their own countries ..." is another example of the
detachment from reality. When there are 48 militia groups supported by Iran
operating in Iraq and tearing apart the very social fabric of that country,
it is simply naive to suggest there is no Iranian threat.
The bottom line here is that US and Arab national security interests are no
longer on the same page. Ever since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003,
those interests have increasingly diverged to the point that the Arab world
is tired of false promises. The ongoing operation of ten coalition countries
to protect the legitimate government of Yemen is simply the latest move that
underlines the determination of Arab countries to take matters in their own
hands.
The GCC states may accept the invitation by the US President to come to Camp
David and have an honest discussion with him about the situation in the
region. But they question the value of being invited for purposes of being
reassured when they are already being informed beforehand what is wrong with
them. The truth of the matter is that "the region is not working" and that
misguided US leadership and policies are among the reasons for the enduring
tragedy in this region. Unfortunately, the so-called Obama doctrine does
little to change this and may in fact make matters worse.
Dr. Abdulaziz Sager is Chairman of the Gulf Research Center
3)A Gulf Perspective on the "Obama Doctrine"
By Abdulaziz Sager
In his recent interview with US journalist Tom Friedman, US President Barack
Obama explained what is characterized as the "Obama doctrine" that has
guided recent US foreign policy moves on Iran and Cuba. He stated that:"We
will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities."
For the Arab world, such words are far from reassuring especially
considering the track record of the Obama administration in the Middle East
so far. Instead of the "new beginning" as outlined by the President in his
much discussed Cairo speech in 2009, US policy in the region remains mired
in a contradiction between principles and action on the ground.
For example, the President asserted in the interview that, "the US's core
interests in the region are not oil, are not territorial ... Our core
interests are that everybody is living in peace, that it is orderly, that
our allies are not being attacked, that children are not having barrel bombs
dropped on them, that massive displacements aren't taking place."
Yet, at the very moment that the President was offering this assessment, US
allies found themselves under serious threat and attack in Yemen, the Syrian
regime was continuing to relentlessly bomb its own citizens, and the Middle
East was faced with the biggest refugee crisis in its history. If the core
US interests in the Middle East are those outlined by President Obama, the
policy to implement them is clearly not working.
There exist grave doubts about whether the current US administration is
indeed ready to deploy the mentioned "capabilities." It seems that the US
will only use such capabilities when its main national security interests
are at stake. And those core interests are limited dealing with terrorism
and nuclear proliferation only and not the broader aspects mentioned by the
President. The use of drone technology, the military strikes being conducted
against the Islamic State, and the framework agreement on the Iranian
nuclear programs are cases in point. A region "living in peace" or as the
President also stated "our interests ... are really just making sure that
the region is working" are clearly not instances in which those capabilities
will be deployed and they are not part of the so-called Obama doctrine.
In the same vein, the Arab world looks at the recently announced framework
agreement with Iran with a sense of suspicion and trepidation. Having
directly experienced the problematic interventionist Iranian policies for
decades, the Arab world is simply not ready to give Tehran the benefit of
doubt on any regional issue. But neither is it ready to trust US assurances
that outside a nuclear agreement, the US will indeed put forward a concerted
strategy to contain Iranian influence throughout the region or to defend the
GCC states against any Iranian threat. Instead, the fear is that as long as
Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the
US will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the
Arab world considers as direct threats. Here, actions speak louder than
words and unfortunately one sees only the latter coming from Washington.
At a time when the region is faced with unprecedented turmoil and
transition, the President even shifted the blame and directed his criticism
toward the Arab world. When he referred to "our Sunni Arab allies" the
President gave an exaggerated picture by saying" populations that, in some
cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is
destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are
no legitimate political outlets for grievances." What the US President
failed to do is to highlight that this statement is in fact also applicable
to Iran. In his interview, he never questioned Iran's appalling record on
human rights, treatment of the political opposition, and minorities' rights,
among other disturbing issues. Moreover the reference to Saudi Arabia being
one of the "Sunni Arab allies" ignores the fact that there are non-Sunnis
living in the Arab Gulf and adds to the existing destructive sectarian
tensions as well as the sensitivity of the non-Sunni Arabs.
Equally, the assertion that "the biggest threats that they [the Arab states]
face may not be coming from Iran invading. It's going to be from
dissatisfaction inside their own countries ..." is another example of the
detachment from reality. When there are 48 militia groups supported by Iran
operating in Iraq and tearing apart the very social fabric of that country,
it is simply naive to suggest there is no Iranian threat.
The bottom line here is that US and Arab national security interests are no
longer on the same page. Ever since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003,
those interests have increasingly diverged to the point that the Arab world
is tired of false promises. The ongoing operation of ten coalition countries
to protect the legitimate government of Yemen is simply the latest move that
underlines the determination of Arab countries to take matters in their own
hands.
The GCC states may accept the invitation by the US President to come to Camp
David and have an honest discussion with him about the situation in the
region. But they question the value of being invited for purposes of being
reassured when they are already being informed beforehand what is wrong with
them. The truth of the matter is that "the region is not working" and that
misguided US leadership and policies are among the reasons for the enduring
tragedy in this region. Unfortunately, the so-called Obama doctrine does
little to change this and may in fact make matters worse.
Dr. Abdulaziz Sager is Chairman of the Gulf Research Center
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton is making her life more difficult than it needs to be.
When the secretary of state has a policy of pay-to-play, that is bad enough. It reinforces the impression that Mrs. Clinton is a tangle of corruption, dishonest and untrustworthy, and playing by rules that apply to her and her husband but not to others. That has happened time and again with the Clintons; it’s the pattern and habits of a lifetime. And there’s no indication it will change. The portrait of Mrs. Clinton is that of a hardened, brittle, unreflective, and self-justifying individual. Whatever problems she faces are always the result of others, often the “right-wing conspiracy” she has invented in her over-active imagination.
But that’s not the only complicating factor for Mrs. Clinton. The other is that she has badly damaged her ability to wage a culture war/”war on women” campaign against Republicans. Because whatever outlandish charge she makes against Republicans, they will sound positively enlightened compared to the repression of women and gays that occurs in nations (like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar,et cetera) that have given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. It looks for all the world as if those nations gave money to buy the silence of the Clintons–and their investment paid off.
One can only imagine the political firestorm if the tables were turned and nations that brutally oppress women and gays had funneled money to a foundation of a Republican running for president in order to gain favor while he served as America’s chief diplomat–not to mention the deletion of 30,000 emails on a secret (and inappropriate) server. The coverage would be intense and unremittingly negative.
On top of all that, the Schweitzer book says that even as Hillary Clinton is portraying herself as a “champion for everyday Americans,” from 2001 to 2012 the Clintons’ income was (at least!) $136.5 million. Not bad after claiming she and her husband were“dead broke” after they left the White House. During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions” with foreign governments and individuals, Schweitzer writes. “Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.” (“Of the 13 [Bill] Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more,” Schweizer writes, “only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”)
Unlike her husband, Mrs. Clinton is not a naturally likable public figure. Her ethical transgressions make her less so. Which means Republicans are likely to face a person with thoroughly average political skills running with a considerable amount of ethical baggage but also a mountain of cash (estimates are that her campaign will raise up to $2.5 billion). Beating her in 2016 won’t be easy, but it’s certainly doable.
I’m speaking in this instance of the donations by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation. As Jonathan made note of yesterday, a New York Times story on the forthcoming book by Peter Schweitzer, Clinton Cash, asserts that “foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.”
When the secretary of state has a policy of pay-to-play, that is bad enough. It reinforces the impression that Mrs. Clinton is a tangle of corruption, dishonest and untrustworthy, and playing by rules that apply to her and her husband but not to others. That has happened time and again with the Clintons; it’s the pattern and habits of a lifetime. And there’s no indication it will change. The portrait of Mrs. Clinton is that of a hardened, brittle, unreflective, and self-justifying individual. Whatever problems she faces are always the result of others, often the “right-wing conspiracy” she has invented in her over-active imagination.
But that’s not the only complicating factor for Mrs. Clinton. The other is that she has badly damaged her ability to wage a culture war/”war on women” campaign against Republicans. Because whatever outlandish charge she makes against Republicans, they will sound positively enlightened compared to the repression of women and gays that occurs in nations (like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar,et cetera) that have given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. It looks for all the world as if those nations gave money to buy the silence of the Clintons–and their investment paid off.
One can only imagine the political firestorm if the tables were turned and nations that brutally oppress women and gays had funneled money to a foundation of a Republican running for president in order to gain favor while he served as America’s chief diplomat–not to mention the deletion of 30,000 emails on a secret (and inappropriate) server. The coverage would be intense and unremittingly negative.
On top of all that, the Schweitzer book says that even as Hillary Clinton is portraying herself as a “champion for everyday Americans,” from 2001 to 2012 the Clintons’ income was (at least!) $136.5 million. Not bad after claiming she and her husband were“dead broke” after they left the White House. During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions” with foreign governments and individuals, Schweitzer writes. “Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.” (“Of the 13 [Bill] Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more,” Schweizer writes, “only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”)
Unlike her husband, Mrs. Clinton is not a naturally likable public figure. Her ethical transgressions make her less so. Which means Republicans are likely to face a person with thoroughly average political skills running with a considerable amount of ethical baggage but also a mountain of cash (estimates are that her campaign will raise up to $2.5 billion). Beating her in 2016 won’t be easy, but it’s certainly doable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment