“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.”
Sen McCain on Sen. Paul: “The Senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin.” (C-SPAN)
Rand Paul ‘John McCain is proof we need term limits’
RAND PAUL VS. JOHN MCCAIN: RAND REACTS TO MCCAIN’S RUSSIAN AGENT CLAIM!!
Rand Paul: McCain ‘past his prime,’ maybe ‘unhinged’
Pence: Time For Allies To Pay Fair Share For NATO
Other NATO members need to pay their fair share?
Trump complains at NATO countries for not paying defense share
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Steve Bannon Lays Out His AMAZING Political Philosophy
Published on Nov 18, 2016
Speech by Stephen K. Bannon (Steve Bannon), Donald Trump’s senior strategic advisor and architect of his winning 2016 election. In this speech delivered to the Liberty Restoration Foundation, Bannon layed out the poliitical philosophy both he and Trump embrace, and which appealed to the American people in the election. It is conservative, perhaps explaining why the political liberal left has resorted to evidently incorrect allegations of antisemitism or racism to try to derail his appointment. Bannon was a Hollywood producer who invested in the Seinfeld comedy TV series, and later became the chair of the Brietbart News Service, expanding it into one of the leading news sources nationally, as an alternative to liberal media outlets that previously dominated US media. He joined the Trump campaign in June 2016, leading him to victory and the White House. Do you think that Bannon is racist, as the democrats have alleged?
Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending
Uploaded on May 10, 2010
Huge budget deficits and record levels of national debt are getting a lot of attention, but this video explains that unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs are Americas real red-ink challenge. More important, this CF&P mini-documentary reveals that deficits and debt are symptoms of the real problem of an excessive burden of government spending. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org
III – Unfunded Liabilities
Rhett Talks – Is the United States Bankrupt?
Laurence Kotlikoff at MTSU November 5, 2015
‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’
Unfunded Liabilities: James Cox of Silver Bullion interviews Professor Kotlikoff
The Actual Fiscal Gap Is Approximately $210 Trillion Dollars With All The Unfunded Liabilities, The Average Person, Every Man, Woman, And Child Owes……$666,666.667
8 years ago, when Obama took office, the Debt Clock was at 9 TRILLION Dollars.
Today, the US Debt Clock at almost 20 TRILLION Dollars.
This is an 87% increase.
The actual Fiscal Gap is approximately $210 TRILLION Dollars.
with all the unfunded liabilities.
With the population of the US is over 315 MILLION People, this means that the average person, every man, woman, and child owes……$666,666.667
Where does this lead?
Look at Brazil, Argentina, Cyprus, Greece, Italy,……
Who ends up with the bill?
Michelle Lee, a fact checker with the Washington Post, just posted a long and, to my mind, highly political column. Her column, read carefully, undermines Presidential candidate Ben Carson’s absolutely correct claim, made in announcing his candidacy, that the true measure of U.S. fiscal debt is not the $13 trillion our government reports as its debt. Instead, our true debt is over $200 trillion. Obviously, most of this true debt has been kept off the books by our politicians.
In this column, I’m going to defend Dr. Carson’s statement. But I want to point out that I don’t know Dr. Carson. I have never spoken with him. And I don’t yet know enough about Dr. Carson’s positions to have a view about his overall suitability for President. I am, however, impressed that out of the gate he is talking about the right measure of our nation’s fiscal condition.
I spoke at length to Michelle Lee prior to her writing her column. She told me she was a fact checker. But when fact checking turns into disguised political commentary, there’s a problem. Fact checkers are supposed to check the facts with experts. When it comes to economics, the experts are PhD economists, not political organizations or people, without real economics training, parading as economists, both of which she quotes in undermining Dr. Carson’s credibility.
Now let me turn to the substance. In referring to $211 trillion in unfunded mandates, Dr. Carson was referencing my calculation of the U.S. fiscal gap. As I explained in a NY Times op ed, the U.S. fiscal gap is $210 trillion. So Dr. Carson was off by $1 trillion – by less than one half of one percent.
The fiscal gap is the present value of all projected future expenditures less the present value of all projected future taxes. The fiscal gap is calculated over the infinite horizon. But since future expenditures and taxes far off in the future are being discounted, their contribution to the fiscal gap is smaller the farther out one goes. The $210 trillion figure is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 Alternative Fiscal Scenario projections, which I extended beyond their 75-year horizon.
Dr. Carson referenced $211 trillion as the size of “unfunded mandates.” Michelle Lee correctly points out that Dr. Carson was referencing the U.S. fiscal gap, not the present value of mandatory spending. What she knew (because I told her), but failed to say, is that the present value of mandatory spending is far larger than $210 trillion because the fiscal gap is a net, not a gross number.
Michelle Lee is not a PhD economist. Nor is Bruce Barlett, whose truly absurd statement about the debt being an asset she quotes. Yes, it’s an asset, but it’s an asset that young and future generations must pay off. Social Security benefits are also an asset to their recipients, but again, they must be paid off by people who aren’t getting the benefits.
Michelle Lee apparently takes Bruce Bartell’s views more seriously than the views of 17 Nobel Laureates in economics and over 1200 PhD economists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia, Penn, and lesser known universities and colleges around the country. Each of these economists has endorsed The Inform Act, a bi-partisan bill that requires the CBO, GAO, and OMB to do infinite horizon fiscal gap accounting on a routine and ongoing basis.
Read Full Post
What You’ll Find
Comprehensive and meticulously documented facts about the national debt. Learn about various measures of the national debt, contributing factors, consequences, and more. For example:
* The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the powers to tax, spend, and pay the debts of the federal government. Legislation to carry out these functions must either be:
- passed by majorities in both houses of Congress and approved by the President; or
- passed by majorities in both houses of Congress, vetoed by the President, and then passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress; or
- passed by majorities in both houses of Congress and left unaddressed by the President for ten days.
* Other factors impacting the national debt include but are not limited to legislation passed by previous congresses and presidents, economic cycles, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, demographics, and the actions of U.S. citizens and foreign governments.
* In 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the debt that the U.S. government would accumulate under current federal policies. The projection used the following assumptions:
- Unemployment will incrementally decline from 6.8% in 2014 to 5.8% in 2018 and 5.3% in 2027, where it will remain thereafter. (For reference, the average of the previous 40 years is 6.5%.)
- GDP growth will incrementally decline from an average rate of 3.4% above the rate of inflation in 2015 to 1.9% in 2021 and remain constant thereafter. (The average of the previous 40 years is 2.9%.)
- Federal revenues (i.e., taxes) will incrementally increase from 17.4% of GDP in 2014 to 18.0% in 2024 and remain constant thereafter. (The average of the previous 40 years is 17.4%.)
- Federal spending will incrementally increase from 20.4% of GDP in 2014 to 23.6% in 2025 and 31.8% in 2040. (The average of the previous 40 years is 20.5%.)
- Payments for Medicare services will undergo scheduled reductions that would likely cause “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.”
* Combining these projections with historical data yields the following results:
† To measure the entirety of the national debt, it would be preferable to show “gross” debt instead of “publicly held” debt, but this data is not presented in this report. Nonetheless, it would make little difference because the excluded debt primarily resides in federal government trust funds that dwindle and become insolvent during the projection period. Facts regarding why and how the federal government keeps its books in this manner are covered in the section of this research entitled “Government Accounting.”
* Per CBO, postponing action to stabilize the debt will:
- punish younger generations of Americans, because most of the burden would fall on them.
- reward older generations of Americans, because “they would partly or entirely avoid the policy changes needed to stabilize the debt.”
- “substantially increase the size of the policy adjustments needed to put the budget on a sustainable course.”
* The following Ph.D. economists and political scientists have claimed that the level of national debt during World War II is a good reason to not be overly concerned about the modern national debt:
- Paul Davidson, editor of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and author of The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity:
Rather than bankrupting the nation, this large growth in the national debt [during World War II] promoted a prosperous economy. By 1946, the average American household was living much better economically than in the prewar days. Moreover, the children of that Depression–World War II generation were not burdened by having to pay off what then was considered a huge national debt. Instead, for the next quarter century, the economy continued on a path of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity….
- Douglas J. Amy, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College:
Conservatives are also wrong when they argue that deficit spending and a large national debt will inevitably undermine economic growth. To see why, we need to simply look back at times when we have run up large deficits and increased the national debt. The best example is World War II when the national debt soared to 120% of GDP—nearly twice the size of today’s debt. This spending not only got us out of the Great Depression but set the stage for a prolonged period of sustained economic growth in the 50s and 60s.
- Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and Princeton University professor:
Right now, federal debt is about 50% of GDP. So even if we do run these deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II.
Again, the debt outlook is bad. But we’re not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with; we’re looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the U.S. included, have had in the past, and dealt with.
* In the 40 years that followed the end of World War II (1946–1985):
- federal spending as a percent of GDP averaged 42% lower than the last year of the war.
- publicly held debt as a percent of GDP decreased by 72 percentage points.
* In 2010, around the time when the statements above were written, the Congressional Budget Office projected that under current policy and a sustained economic recovery over the next 40 years:
- federal spending as a percent of GDP will average over 78% higher than in the four decades that followed World War II.
- publicly held debt as a percent of GDP will rise by 277 percentage points.
* As alternatives to the CBO’s current policy projections detailed above, the CBO also ran projections for scenarios such as these:
1) Current law:
- Federal revenues will incrementally increase from 17.6% of GDP in 2014 to 18.0% in 2020, 19.9% in 2044, and 23.5% in 2084. At this point, federal revenues (i.e., taxes) will be 35% higher than the average of the previous 40 years.
- Federal spending on all government functions will incrementally increase from 20.4% of GDP in 2014 to 21.5% in 2020, and 26.0% in 2040. At this point, spending will be 27% higher than the average of the previous 40 years.
- Payments for Medicare services will undergo reductions that will likely cause “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.”
2) Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s 2014 budget resolution, called the “The Path to Prosperity”:
- Starting in 2024, Medicare beneficiaries will have a choice to enroll in private plans paid for by Medicare or remain in the traditional Medicare program. Also starting in 2024, the eligibility age for Medicare benefits will incrementally rise to correspond with Social Security’s retirement age. Compared to the projections under the current policy scenario, Medicare spending will be 0.5% lower in 2016, 2% lower in 2020, and 4% lower in 2024.
- Federal Medicaid spending will be converted to an “allotment that each state could tailor to meet its needs, indexed for inflation and population growth.” The expansion of Medicaid manadated by the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) will be repealed. Compared to the projections under the current policy scenario, Medicaid spending will be 9% lower in 2016, 19% lower in 2020, and 24% lower in 2024.
- All federal spending related to Obamacare’s exchange subsidies will be repealed.
- Spending on all government functions except for interest payments on the national debt will incrementally decline from 18.9% of GDP in 2015 to 16% in 2025 before increasing to 16.4% in 2035. (The average of the previous 40 years is 18.3%).
- Revenues will increase from 18.2% of GDP in 2015 to 18.4% in 2025, 19% in 2032 and stay constant thereafter. (The average of the previous 40 years is 17.4%.)
* Combining historical data on the national debt with CBO’s projections for current policy, current law, and the Ryan plan yields the following results:
* A poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal in February 2011 found that:
- 80% of Americans are concerned “a great deal” or “quite a bit” about federal budget deficits and the national debt.
- if the deficit cannot be eliminated by cutting wasteful spending, 35% of Americans prefer to cut important programs while 33% prefer to raise taxes.
- 22% think cuts in Social Security spending will be needed to “significantly reduce the federal budget deficit,” 49% do not, and 29% have no opinion or are not sure.
- 18% think cuts in Medicare spending will be needed to “significantly reduce the federal budget deficit,” 54% do not, and 28% have no opinion or are not sure.
* Other than interest on the national debt, most of the long-term growth in federal spending (as a percent of GDP) under the CBO’s current policy and current law scenarios stems from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) subsidies.
* A poll conducted in November 2010 by the Associated Press and CNBC found that:
- 85% of Americans are worried that the national debt “will harm future generations.”
- 56% think “the shortfalls will spark a major economic crisis in the coming decade.”
- when asked to choose between two options to balance the budget, 59% prefer to cut unspecified government services, while 30% prefer to raise unspecified taxes.
* A poll conducted in July 2005 by the Associated Press and Ipsos found that:
- 70% of Americans were worried about the size of the federal deficit.
- 35% were willing to cut government spending.
- 18% were willing to raise taxes.
- 1% were willing to cut government spending and raise taxes.
* During the first session of the 113th Congress (January–December 2013), U.S. Representatives and Senators introduced 168 bills that would have reduced spending and 828 bills that would have raised spending.
* The table below quantifies the costs and savings of these bills by political party. This data is provided by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation:
||Costs/Savings of Bills Sponsored or Cosponsored
in 2013 by Typical Congressman (in Billions)
* Click here to look up any member of Congress and see the annual costs or savings from the legislation he or she has sponsored or cosponsored.
* The table below quantifies the net agendas of the political parties in previous Congresses:
||Costs/Savings of Bills Sponsored or Cosponsored in the First
Sessions of Congress by Typical Congressman (in Billions)
|NOTE: Data not adjusted for inflation.
* In February 2001, Republican President George W. Bush stated:
Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.
* From the time that Congress enacted Bush’s first major economic proposal (June 7, 2001) until the time that he left office (January 20, 2009), the national debt rose from 53% of GDP to 74%, or an average of 2.7 percentage points per year.
* During eight years in office, President Bush vetoed 12 bills, four of which were overridden by Congress and thus enacted without his approval. These bills were projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the deficit by $26 billion during 2008–2022.
* In February 2009, Democratic President Barack Obama stated:
I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay—and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.
* From the time that Congress enacted Obama’s first major economic proposal (February 17, 2009) until September 30, 2016, the national debt rose from 74% of GDP to 105%, or an average of 4.0 percentage points per year.
* As of November 4, 2016, President Obama has vetoed twelve bills, one of which has been overridden by Congress and thus enacted without his approval. This bill is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to “have no significant effect on the federal budget.”
* In April 2011, journalists reported on a $38 billion federal budget cut agreement with the following headlines and phraseology:
- “New Cuts Detailed in Agreement for $38 Billion in Reductions”; “deep budget cuts in programs for the poor, law enforcement, the environment and civic projects” – Los Angeles Times
- “Congress Sends Budget Cut Bill to Obama”; “cutting a record $38 billion from domestic spending” – Associated Press
- “Budget Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown”; “Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats….” – New York Times
* None of these articles reported that this figure of $38 billion in cuts was primarily relative to a portion of the budget called “discretionary non-emergency appropriations.” Relative to the entire federal budget, this cut left a projected spending increase of $135 billion from 2010 to 2011. This equates to an inflation-adjusted increase of $49 billion or 0.1 percentage points of GDP:
* None of the articles quoted above contains a budget-wide frame of reference for the cuts. A spending reduction of $38 billion equates to 1.0% of the estimated 2011 budget or 2.7% of the projected deficit:
* In February 2010, Fareed Zakaria of CNN stated:
Now, please understand that the Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit.
* In 2010, the Bush tax cuts lowered federal revenues by about $283 billion. This was equivalent to 8% of the federal budget or 22% of the deficit.
* Per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Most parameters of the tax code are not indexed for real income growth, and some are not indexed for inflation.” Thus, if tax cuts are not periodically implemented, average federal tax rates “increase in the long run.”
* In 2000, the year before the first Bush tax cuts were passed, the federal government collected revenues equal to 20.4% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), the highest level in the history of the United States. Over the previous 30 years, federal revenues averaged 18.3% of GDP.
* In 2000, the stock market “dot.com” bubble burst, the NASDAQ lost 39% of its value, and profits for nonfinancial corporations fell by 18%. In the first quarter of 2001, the nation’s GDP contracted and a recession began.
* In June 2001 and May 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed laws that implemented various tax cuts.
* After the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented, federal revenues were 17.8% of GDP in 2005, 18.5% in 2006, and 18.6% in 2007. Average federal revenues for the 30 years preceding the Bush tax cuts were 18.4%.
* The Great Recession began in December 2007, and federal revenues declined to 17.7% of GDP in 2008.
* In February 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed a law that implemented various tax cuts.
* Federal revenues declined to 15.7% of GDP in 2009 and 16.4% in 2010.
* Federal spending rose from 21.0% of GDP in 2007 to 26.5% in 2010. Average federal spending for the 30 years preceding the Great Recession was 21.8%.
* In April 2011, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post posted a graph of spending and revenue projections based upon CBO’s “current law” scenario and wrote that it:
shows what happens if we do … nothing. The answer, as you can see, is that the budget comes roughly into balance.
* Klein’s graph and commentary omitted the interest and outcome of the national debt under this plan. In the “do nothing” scenario, outlays were projected to exceed revenues every year through 2084, and the publicly held debt was projected to increase from 62% of GDP in 2010, to 74% in 2030, 90% in 2050, and 113% in 2084.
* In the same commentary, Klein wrote that the “current law” scenario is “a pretty good plan” that contains:
a balanced mix of revenues, through returning tax rates to Clinton-era levels and implementing the taxes in the Affordable Care Act, and program cuts … in Medicare….
* Under this scenario:
- Certain elements of the tax code are not indexed for inflation or wage growth. Consequently, taxpayers are shifted over time into higher tax brackets.
- According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020 revenues “reach higher levels relative to the size of the economy than ever recorded in the nation’s history.”
- Revenues as a portion of GDP continue climbing through 2084, rising 69% higher than the average of the past 40 years and 47% higher than ever recorded in the history of the United States.
- As a portion of GDP, federal spending without interest on the national debt rises by 2084 to 68% higher than the average of the past 40 years.
* Without mentioning the role of Congress in taxes, spending, or the national debt, PolitiFact (in the same article cited above) wrote that the national debt increased by $5.73 trillion “under” George W. Bush whereas there were budget surpluses “at the end of the Clinton administration.”
* Below are the fluctuations in national debt organized by the tenures of recent presidents and congressional majorities:
|Average Annual Change in National Debt
(Percentage Points of GDP)
|Bill Clinton with Democratic House and Senate
||1/20/93 – 1/4/95
|Bill Clinton with Republican House and Senate
||1/4/95 – 1/19/01
|George W. Bush with Republican House and Senate
||1/19/01 – 6/6/01, 11/12/02 – 1/4/07
|George W. Bush with Republican House and Democratic Senate
||6/6/01 – 11/12/02
|George W. Bush with Democratic House and Senate
||1/4/07 – 1/20/09
|Barack Obama with Democratic House and Senate
||1/20/09 – 1/4/11
|Barack Obama with Republican House and Democratic Senate
||1/5/11 – 1/6/15
* Other factors impacting the national debt include but are not limited to: legislation passed by previous congresses and presidents, economic cycles, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, demographics, and the actions of U.S. citizens and foreign governments.
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
Bye Bye Birdie HONESTLY SINCERE 1963 Jesse Pearson Ann Margret
American People Making It Clear To THEIR REPRESENTATIVES They Do NOT Want War With Syria!
The Truth About War With Syria
Americans Oppose US Intervention In Syria But…
Why Americans are Against War on Syria
What do Americans think about War with Syria
Syria: Obama Joins Al-Qaeda…
Syria: Iraq Part Deux…
Screw the Economy!!! We’re Going to WAR!!!!
“US out of the Middle East”: anti-war protests gain momentum
There’s no public support for a Syrian war
Poll: majority of French oppose military intervention in Syria
Ann Coulter Syria Shows ‘You Cannot Trust Democrats to Be Commander in Chief’
Obama Talks Syria With McCain, Graham at WH
Bill Kristol: Obama Gave ‘Hawks’ Like McCain and Graham an Opening
Chris Wallace: Full Rand Paul Interview on Fox News – Congress Authorize Strike on Syria? – 9/8/13
Crisis in Syria Debated on the Fox News Sunday Panel – Chris Wallace – 9- 8-13
Ann-Margret BYE BYE BIRDIE title song
Barry McGuire – Eve of Destruction
Pete Seeger: Where Have All the Flowers Gone?
Obama’s Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel
The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.
By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.
Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
Item for consideration: a new column by the Syria analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the chief think tank of the Israel lobby. Andrew Tabler headlines his piece: “Attacking Syria Is the Best Way to Deal with Iran.” In it, he says:
At first glance, the festering Syria crisis seems bad news for diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. In actuality, however, achieving U.S. objectives in the Syria crisis is an opportunity to pressure Iran into making hard choices not only in Syria, but regarding its nuclear program as well. More U.S. involvement to achieve its objectives in Syria will inevitably run counter to Tehran’s interests, be it to punish the Assad regime for chemical weapons use or to show support for the Syrian opposition in changing Assad’s calculus and forcing him to “step aside” at the negotiating table or on the battlefield.
Many in U.S. policymaking circles have viewed containing swelling Iranian influence in Syria and preventing Iran from going nuclear as two distinct policy discussions, as the Obama Administration only has so much “bandwidth” to deal with Middle East threats. But the recent deepening of cooperation between Tehran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime, combined with their public acknowledgement of these activities, indicates that they themselves see these activities as furthering the efficacy of the “resistance axis.”
Like every alliance, its members will only make hard policy choices if the costs of its current policies far outweigh the benefits. U.S. strikes on the Assad regime, if properly calibrated as part of an overall plan to degrade the regime, would force Tehran to become more involved in Syria in order to rescue its stalwart ally. This would be costly for Iran financially, militarily and politically. Those costs would make the Iranian regime and its people reassess aspirations to go nuclear.
Needless to say, such a strategy is bound to be counterproductive, since—by slamming Syria, never mind toppling Assad—Washington is likely to undermine doves and bolster hawks in Tehran and undermine the chances for successful negotiations with Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, who’ll be speaking at the UN General Assembly later this month.
In fact, both Russia and Iran have signaled recently, in the wake of Syria’s obvious deployment and use of sarin gas and other deadly weapons that they might be getting ready to join the rest of the world in condemning Syria’s chemical warfare, and that makes it far more likely that the much-postponed US-Russia “Geneva II” peace conference on Syria might work. The hawkish Washington Post today notes Rouhani’s new administration in Tehran is softening its tone on Syria, and it reports that the new Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has acknowledged the Syria has erred, saying: “We believe that the government in Syria has made grave mistakes that have, unfortunately, paved the way for the situation in the country to be abused.”
Meanwhile, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, while issuing scathing denunciations of the coming U.S. attack on Syria, has dropped broad hints that he might be willing to join with other nations if and when the United Nations weapons team concludes that Assad used nerve gas, suggesting that Russia might not block a UN Security Council resolution against Syria. In his much-reported interview with the Associated Press, Putin insisted on waiting for the UN report:
“If there is evidence that chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council. And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn’t be based on some rumors and information obtained by intelligence agencies through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.”
Then, according to the Washington Post, Putin declared that he might join a UN-sponsored coalition on Syria:
He said he “doesn’t exclude” backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression. Russia can veto resolutions at the U.N. Security Council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.
But a change in tone on the part of Russia and Iran—the latter of whom the Obama administration still refuses to invite to Geneva II if and when it occurs—won’t mean a thing if the object of war with Syria is to send a message to Iran. As Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for Bloomberg, says, for Israel it’s all about Iran:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel would prefer that Obama enforce his red line on chemical weapons use, because he would like to see proof that Obama believes in the red lines he draws. From Netanyahu’s perspective, Israel isn’t unduly threatened by Assad. Syria constitutes a dangerous, but ultimately manageable, threat.
Netanyahu believes, of course, that Iran, Syria’s primary sponsor, poses an existential threat to his country, and so would like the Iranians to understand very clearly that Obama’s red lines are, in fact, very red. As Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me last night, the formula is simple: “If the Iranians do not fear Obama, then the Israelis will lose confidence in Obama.”
In his round-robin television appearances on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry—now the administration’s über-hawk—repeatedly said that bombing Syria would send a message to Iran. As he told Fox News on Sunday:
Read Full Post
“The fact is that if we act and if we act in concert, then Iran will know that this nation is capable of speaking with one voice on something like this, and that has serious, profound implications, I think, with respect to the potential of a confrontation over their nuclear program. That is one of the things that is at stake here.”
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
“In war, truth is the first casualty.”
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”
~George Washington, 1st President of the United States, Farewell Address
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.”
~Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”
~John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States (1825-29)
Obama Warns Syria’s Assad Chemical Weapons A ‘RED Line’
‘Poison Gas’ Claims in Syria Crossing Obama’s Red Line?
Syria Chemical attack claims reignites Obama’s ‘Red Line’ intervention in Syria Aug 21, 2013
Jon Stewart harnesses of Obama about the Red Line from Syria
Chemical Weapon Use In Syria – Special Report All Star Panel
‘US fixing intelligence around Syria as unsure who’s behind chemical attack’
Too Little Too Late UN Inspectors Allowed to Visit Syria
Did John Kerry Orchestrate The Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria?
Syrian Girl Clears The Air on Chemical Attack in Syria
UPDATE: False Flag! World War 3 is upon us! (Expect more false flags soon!)
WW3 UPDATE – West Hell Bent On War Despite Syria Opening “Chemical Attack” Site To Inspectors
World War 3 : Iran warns of War, threatens U.S. as Warships draw close to Syria (Aug 24, 2013)
URGENT: U.S Green Light For Attack On Syria and World War 3
US strengthens naval force off Syrian coast
Did Syria Use Chemical Weapons on Its People?
Chemical expert breaks down attack in Syria
GRAPHIC VIDEO: Poison Gas Attack In Syria
Syria : Chemical attack claims reignites Obama’s ‘Red Line’ intervention in Syria (Aug 21, 2013)
Ramp Up to Syrian Invasion Hits DEFCON 3
Syria: Obama Admin Tells Congress ‘We’ll Inform You What We Decide’ to Wage War
Toxic Warfare: Rebels caught with sarin gas amid Syria arms supply scandal
TOP SECRET – ( RED-ALERT-WW3) Russia,China, Iran Send 90000 Troops to Syria 12 Warships
Syria Polls Find Most Americans Are Wary Of Intervention
By JENNIFER AGIESTA 08/27/13
As the U.S. weighs a response to Syria, recent polling has shown Americans largely opposed to military action and few paying close attention to the ongoing conflict. But that could change with the Syrian government’s use of what the Obama administration says were chemical weapons.
No polling has been conducted on the public’s views of Syria since that government was accused of using chemical weapons. But the trend lines against military action have been clear:
_ Seventy percent told Pew Research Center pollsters in June that they opposed sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups in Syria. That poll was conducted around the time the Obama administration announced it would be providing military aid to the anti-government forces.
_ An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released earlier in June showed that two-thirds of Americans preferred that the U.S. provide only humanitarian assistance or take no action, compared with just a quarter who favored either providing arms or taking military action.
_ A Gallup survey in May found 68 percent thought the U.S. should not intervene militarily to end the conflict should economic and diplomatic efforts to end it fail.
Even with that consensus, a Washington Post/ABC News poll in December suggested that the government’s use of chemical weapons against its own people could change public opinion. In that poll, just 17 percent thought the U.S. military should get involved in the conflict as it was at the time, but 63 percent said they would support military intervention if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people.
The Pew Research Center has tracked public attention to news about the conflict in Syria since May 2011, and has consistently found most Americans are tuned out. Each time they’ve asked, a majority said they were not following closely.
So far, few have said they think the U.S. has a responsibility to intervene in Syria. A June CBS News/New York Times poll found just 28 percent said the U.S. had a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria, while 61 percent said it did not.
While the fighting in Syria has stretched on and escalated, Americans’ views on the U.S. duty to act have changed little. Several news organizations have asked the same question about Syria, and a February 2012 CNN/ORC International poll was the first, finding just 25 percent thought the U.S. had a duty to act. That sense of responsibility peaked in May 2012 at 33 percent.
Since the end of the Cold War, Americans have felt an obligation to get involved in just a few conflicts that did not directly involve the U.S. – about half said the nation had a duty to intervene in Somalia in 1993 and Darfur in the mid-2000s, and most said the U.S. had a responsibility to act in Kosovo in 1999.
The pattern with Syria is similar to the public’s long-standing skepticism about U.S. involvement in the Bosnian war in the mid-1990s. CBS News and The New York Times tracked public opinion on the fighting between Serbs and Bosnians in the former Yugoslavia, and from 1993 through 1995, regardless of the intensity of the conflict, those who felt no responsibility to act outnumbered those who did.
As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.
About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.
More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days – just as Syria’s civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.
Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans’ resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.
The results – and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June – suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad’s regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some foreign and U.S. officials – notably Republican Senator John McCain, whom Obama defeated for the presidency in 2008 – have called Obama too hesitant in deciding whether to act in Syria. But several Americans surveyed in this week’s poll, including Charles Kohls, 68, a former U.S. military officer from Maryland, praised Obama’s caution.
“The United States has become too much of the world’s policeman and we have become involved in too many places that should be a United Nations realm, not ours,” Kohls said in an interview. “I don’t think we ought to” intervene in Syria.
Kohls said the possibility of a chemical attack did not alter his belief that the United States should stay out of Syria, or any war for that matter.
CROSSING THE ‘RED LINE’
Obama has called the suspected chemical attack near Damascus on Wednesday “an event of great concern” and directed U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate the allegations of chemical use as he weighs potential responses.
The president met with his national security advisers on Saturday but U.S. officials said he has not decided whether to intervene.
U.S. defense officials, meanwhile, have repositioned naval forces in the Mediterranean to give Obama the option for a missile strike on Assad’s regime, which has been backed by Russia and China.
Obama has been reluctant to intervene in the Syria war, where rebel forces opposed to Assad are made up of dozens of militant factions, some not friendly to the United States.
The president warned Syria’s government last year that any attempt to deploy or use chemical or biological weapons would cross a “red line.”
The White House said that Assad’s military appeared to cross such a threshold in June, and responded to reports of Syrian troops using chemical weapons by agreeing to offer military aid to vetted groups of Syrian rebels.
It does not appear that any U.S. weapons have been delivered to rebels so far. As the war has escalated, Obama’s administration has come under increasing pressure from various governments, including those in France and Israel, to respond more forcefully to what many have called an unfolding humanitarian and political crisis.
LIKE OBAMA, AMERICANS CAUTIOUS
However, Obama does not appear to be feeling much pressure over Syria from the American people.
In this week’s Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,448 people, just 27 percent said they supported his decision to send arms to some Syrian rebels; 47 percent were opposed. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for each number.
About 11 percent said Obama should do more to intervene in Syria than sending arms to the rebels, while 89 percent said he should not help the rebels.
Obama is considering a range of options. The most popular option among Americans: not intervening in Syria at all. That option is backed by 37 percent of Americans, according to the poll.
Less popular options include air strikes to help the rebels (supported by 12 percent of Americans); imposing a “no-fly” zone over Syria that would ground Assad’s air force (11 percent); funding a multi-national invasion of Syria (9 percent), and invading Syria with U.S. troops (4 percent).
Deborah Powell, 58, of California, said she initially opposed any involvement by the United States but now supports arming the rebels.
“I was against any involvement after watching a (television) program that said if we give (rebels) the weapons they could turn them against us, but I think now we need to give them the weapons,” Powell said.
Asked what changed her mind, she said: “What’s going on over there is terrible.” However, Powell praised Obama’s wariness toward getting the United States involved in another war.
Some Americans believe the use of chemical weapons has changed the game in Syria, and that the United States should get involved as long as other countries did, too.
Jonathan Adams, 56, of California, said that he was “happy that we didn’t get involved from the start and I’m glad Obama was cautious. But I think we have gotten past the point of where we should’ve been involved in some way.”
He said reports of chemical weapons use “went way past the line.”
**To see the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll on whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria if chemical weapons are used there, go to polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM43/type/day/dates/20130531-current
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
Bill Moyers: LBJ’s Path to War (1)
Bill Moyers: LBJ’s Path to War (2)
Bill Moyers: LBJ’s Path to War (3)
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident Declassified
What Really Happened at Tonkin Gulf? 60 Minutes opening
Robert McNamara admits Gulf of Tonkin attack did not happen
Iran: A Path to War?
Straits of Hormuz – U.S. Navy fires on fishing boat
BREAKING NEWS – US Navy Kill Innocent Man On Fishing Vessel Near Dubai
Global World War to Erupt In Syria SOON?! (July 15, 2012)
‘Attack on Iran after Syria falls major goal of the West’
All roads lead to Iran
Ron Paul, When will we attack Syria?
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Background Articles and Videos
The Fifty Years War – Israel and the Arabs – [1/2]
The Fifty Years War – Israel and the Arabs – [2/2]
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
Ron Paul Doubles Down On War Stance
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!
Newt’s Nightmare Trifecta [Gingrich loves Teddy Roosevelt, FDR & Woodrow Wilson]
Glenn Beck – The Case Against Newt Gingrich
The Real Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich: Selling Access
Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Ron Paul Ad – Betrayal
Rick Santorum a Progressive Conservative?
Rick Santorum on Illegal Immigration – NOT Conservative
Rick Santorum Doesn’t Believe in … Freedom? ( Freedom Watch Judge Napolitano 1-5-2012 )
Big Government Liberal Rick Santorum Exposed
Matt Welch Discusses Rick Santorum’s Anti-Libertarian Beliefs on Freedom Watch
Ron Paul OWNS Rick Santorum!
Mitt Romney: I’m Progressive
MITT ROMNEY eX- posed:The Great Flip Flopper and Fed Shill
Mitt Romney on Taxes, Guns, Abortion
Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?
Ron Paul: Counterfeit Conservatives
Ron Paul: Absolutely “No Deal” with Romney
Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”
No One But Paul — Can Beat Obama
My political philosophy is classical liberalism or what is commonly referred to in the United States as libertarianism.
Starting with Barry Goldwater in 1964 I have been a member of the conservative movement.
Today I am also a supporter of the tea party movement.
I consider myself to be a libertarian conservative, although I am comfortable with both traditional conservatives and national defense conservatives.
A limited constitutional government in scope, size and power with balanced or surplus budgets is the number one issue with me.
Since 2006 I have been an independent.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties are not fiscally responsible.
I will never vote for a progressive and/or neoconservative whether Republican or Democratic.
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
SA@TAC – Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism
Ron Paul, the ONLY Constant Conservative
Big government progressive Republicans in the past include Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Robert Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain.
Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are all big government progressive neoconservative Republicans.
The only true libertarian conservative president that won two landslide victories was President Ronald Reagan.
Only one candidate would cut the U.S government budget by $1 trillion or $1,000 billion in fiscal year 2013, close five federal departments and balance the budget in three years–Ron Paul– a libertarian conservative.
Ron Paul Ad – Secure
Ron Paul Ad – Plan
This is what the conservative and tea party movements want most of all.
Only one candidate of either party has the wisdom, vision and courage to propose such a plan.
If you want another war, great depression/recession, escalating gas and food prices and food stamps–a warfare and welfare state– than vote for Gingrich, Romney, Santorum or Obama.
If you want a peace and prosperity economy and your freedom vote for Ron Paul.
I will support and vote for Ron Paul as a Republican or as a candidate on another party’s ticket.
I will never vote for any progressive and/or neoconservative in either political party.
Unfortunately, most voters including conservatives, vote for the candidate they like and identify with instead of examining a candidate’s political philosophy and position on the issues.
SA@TAC – Identity vs. Philosophy
Largely out of ignorance they fall for fake conservative candidates that are big government progressives and/or neoconservatives.
Gingrich, Santorum and Romney are undeniably big government progressive neoconservatives as evidenced by their own words and actions.
The American people are slowly but surely waking up to the fact that progressive politicians control both political parties in the United States.
Neither libertarian conservatives nor traditional conservatives will support big government progressive conservatives.
They will mostly stay home if the choice is between Obama, Gingrich, Santorum and Romney.
The conservative and tea party movements must rally behind Ron Paul.
No candidate is perfect, but Ron Paul is a consistent libertarian conservative and a man of character and integrity.
He is the best candidate the American people have for he truly understands how dire the economic situation really is and knows what needs to be done to avoid another Great Depression.
Joe Scarborough Credits Ron Paul for Predicting the Housing Bubble
Peter Schiff – “Remember, I Supported Ron Paul”
Peter Schiff – “Ron Paul Only Candidate I Trust”
Jim Rogers – none of the candidates have clue except Ron Paul
Support and vote for Ron Paul.
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
Ron Paul CBS Debate Bias
Obama’s great white hope – Ron Paul
Professor Murray Sabrin admits Ron Paul is silenced by the media because of the Federal Reserve
Jerry Doyle: Exposes CBS Bias and the GOP Candidates Copying Paul’s Views (11-14-11)
CBS 90 Seconds Or Less
Ron Paul Gets 89 Seconds To Speak: Silenced by CBS
CNBC 600 Seconds or More
Ron Paul Responses At Debate (11-9-11)
Info News 2011-11-14 Monday Part 1/6
Ron Paul – CBSNews.com Post-Debate Poll plus General Poll – Results 11-14-11
Ron Paul 2012 Wins Again Nov 12th 2011 CBS Debate CORRUPT MEDIA (UPDATED)
Who won the GOP Debate? Take our poll
The GOP Post-Debate Poll
Paul Got Over 35 Percent of The Vote!
Ron Paul “Super Brochures” On Sale @ RonPaulProducts
Paul Joseph Watson
November 13, 2011
“…Congressman Ron Paul was a victim of what later transpired to be a deliberate policy on behalf of CBS News to restrict the air time of certain candidates during last night’s Republican debate, after he was afforded just 90 seconds of speaking time during the course of the event in South Carolina last night.
“…Obviously, that policy of limiting air time to certain candidates was also applied to Congressman Ron Paul, despite the fact that he has consistently won straw polls and proven himself as a top tier candidate in national polls.
As we have documented, despite his popularity the establishment media has deliberately downplayed and sidelined Paul’s campaign.
After Ron Paul finished a close second to Bachmann in the highly regarded Ames straw poll, and was subsequently blacklisted by the corporate press, Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”
“We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race,” CNN host Howard Kurtz responded. …”
CBS on defensive after Republican debate
By Josh Lederman
“…”CBS’ coverage of the Republican Debate from Wofford College in Spartanburg was scheduled by the network to air for one hour on the CBS affiliates around the country with any overage to air Sunday morning on Face the Nation,” said Rob Romine, the station’s general manager. “We are sorry for the inconvenience this has caused and for any confusion Mr. Pelley’s comments have caused by telling South Carolina viewers to stay tuned for more debate coverage.”
The other major line of attack came from the candidates, many of whom complained during the debate that strict adherence to 60-second time limits and 30-second rebuttals prevented them from fully articulating any policy and kept many of the minor candidates in the shadows. Jon Huntsman joked that he felt like he was in Siberia; Rick Santorum concurred.
Ron Paul’s campaign was the first to cry foul after the debate, with his chairman, Jesse Benton, accusing CBS News of arrogance and of thinking they could choose the next president. Two hours later, Paul supporters received a message with the subject line “What a joke.”
“Ninety seconds. That’s how much of the first hour of tonight’s GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds,” wrote campaign manager John Tate.
But it was Michele Bachmann whose complaint came backed up by evidence that concerns about candidates’ being sidelined were raised even before the debate took place.
Just after the debate ended, Bachmann’s campaign accused CBS News of deliberately keeping her questions to a minimum and planning a biased debate, with campaign manager, Keith Nahigian, reportedly calling CBS’s newly anointed political director, John Dickerson, a “piece of s**t.” …”
Background Articles and Videos
Ron Paul: Principle, Patriotism and Constitutional Government
This is a classic edition of Conservative Roundtable from 1997, the nationally broadcast conservative television program hosted by Howard Phillips, and produced by The Conservative Caucus. Producer: Art Harman.
Unlike “politicians,” statesman Ron Paul never lost his belief that government is the problem, not the answer; you’ll see here that his positions are as sound today as when this was recorded in 1997!
Alan Keyes discusses media bias with Bernard Goldberg
VOICES OF REASON – Bernard Goldberg
Pelley’s Liberal Path to the Anchor Chair
“…On Monday, June 6, 2011, Scott Pelley took over as anchor of the CBS Evening News, following the departure of Katie Couric. A review of the MRC’s archive reveals Pelley will most likely continue the long tradition of liberal bias advanced by his anchor predecessors Couric, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite.
From celebrating the likes of liberal heroes like Hillary Clinton, saying that she is of the rare few that can match Barack Obama’s “global star power” to even offering praise of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, depicting him as a “genuinely humble” figure with “no fancy clothes, fancy cars” who was “absolutely incorruptible,” Pelley’s new stint as anchor promises to be one filled with biased platitudes for those on the left and harsh criticism of the right. Below are just a dozen examples of Pelley’s slanted take over the years as a CBS correspondent for the Evening News and 60 Minutes. …”
“…The Bolsheviks, originally also Bolshevists (Russian: большевики, большевик (singular) Russian pronunciation: [bəlʲʂᵻˈvʲik], derived from bol’shinstvo, “majority”) were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split apart from the Menshevik faction at the Second Party Congress in 1903. 
The Bolsheviks were the majority faction in a crucial vote, hence their name. They ultimately became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia during the October Revolution phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917, and founded the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic which would later in 1922 become the chief constituent of the Soviet Union.
The Bolsheviks, founded by Vladimir Lenin, were by 1905 a mass organization consisting primarily of workers under a democratic internal hierarchy governed by the principle of democratic centralism, who considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary working class of Russia. Their beliefs and practices were often referred to as Bolshevism. Bolshevik revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky commonly used the terms “Bolshevism” and “Bolshevist” after his exile from the Soviet Union to differentiate between what he saw as true Leninism and the regime within the state and the party which arose under Stalin. …”
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )