Did Obama Just Make A Deal With Israel To Delay The War With Iran Until After The Election? []

Barack Obama cares about Barack Obama far more than he does about either Israel or Iran.  And as far as Barack Obama is concerned, delaying the coming war between Israel and Iran until after the election is what is best for Barack Obama.  Just think about it.  If Israel attacked Iran right now, who would that please?  It would mostly please hardcore Republicans, and they are not going to vote for Obama anyway.  To independents and liberals, Obama would look like a guy that couldn’t stop war from happening in the Middle East.  If the U.S. showed support for the Israeli attack, that would greatly discourage his anti-war supporters from going to the polls.  If the U.S. did not show support for the Israeli attack, Obama would potentially lose many of the Jewish voters that he desperately needs in swing states such as Florida.  A war between Israel and Iran is a no-win situation for Obama right now, and as I wrote about yesterday, the Obama administration has been trying to discourage Israel from attacking Iran for weeks.  Well, now it is being reported in major international news sources that a deal has been reached between Obama and Israel.  Obama is going to publicly declare what the “red lines” are that will cause the U.S. to strike Iran’s nuclear program, and the U.S. military is going to send some of their most advanced bunker busting bombs to Israel.  Those bombs will come in very handy in getting at the Iranian nuclear facilities that are hidden underground.  In return, Israel has apparently agreed to delay the attack on Iran until after the election.  So would Barack Obama really play politics with war in the Middle East?  Of course he would.  Barack Obama is obsessed with winning a second term and he would make a deal with just about anyone if it will get him closer to his goal.

The Israelis really did not want to go ahead with an attack on Iran without U.S. support anyway.  They feel like time is running out to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, but without the support of the United States it would have been hard to justify an attack to the rest of the world.

So in the end, it looks like both sides are going to get what they want.  At some point there will be an attack on Iran’s nuclear program, and Obama gets it delayed until after the election.

According to Fox News, Israeli officials have admitted that they have been involved in talks with the Obama administration about Iran’s nuclear program….

Israeli officials said Tuesday they are in close discussions with the United States over how to deal with the Iranian nuclear program, seeking to ease tensions that have emerged between the two allies over a possible Israeli military strike against Iran.

The dialogue, in which Israel is looking for President Barack Obama to take a tough public position against Iran, suggests the odds of an Israeli attack in the near term have been reduced.

But I have not found a U.S. news source that is reporting on the details of the deal that has apparently been reached.  The following is from an Israeli news source….

 

Read more

Buffett Rule Hypocrisy

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com 

It looks like President Barack Obama is making the tax proposal called the Buffett Rule (also known as the “Paying a Fair Share Act”) into a wedge issue.  This weekend, the President was pushing the tax proposal, named after billionaire Warren Buffett, as a way to reduce the deficit.   The pending legislation says anyone making more than $1 million a year should pay no less than 30% federal tax.   Democrats are going to try to vote on the Buffett Rule this week, but it probably will not get very far in the Senate, and it is a non-starter in the Republican controlled House.

The reason why I say this is merely a “wedge issue” is because it will not do much to reduce the $15.6 trillion deficit.  It will set up another totally false narrative that will not help the country.  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which provides the official Congressional analysis of tax legislation, the Buffett Rule will only raise $4.7 billion a year over the next ten years.  Mr. Buffett’s plan is nothing more than a proverbial drop in the bucket.  Counting TARP, QE 1, QE 2 and the $16.1 trillion the Federal Reserve pumped out after the 2008 meltdown, we are well on our way to the $23.7 trillion Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, predicted the crisis would cost back in 2009.  But, even that number, as big as it is, does not tell a complete story, and Mr. Buffett knows it.

The banks are continually being bailed out in many backdoor ways, and to be fair, neither party will say a word about it.  The recent $25 billion “Robo signing/foreclosure fruad” settelement was a form of a bank bailout.  Foreign bank bailouts are also American bank bailouts in disguise.  Take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for instance.  Taxpayers now own a 100% stake in these two failed mortgage giants.  Last year, Fannie and Freddie either forgave or bought a total of nearly $200 billion in mortgage debt liability from Bank of America–alone(I wrote about this before.)  Let that sink in, and then consider Warren Buffet invested $5 billion, last year, into B of A at $7.14 a share.  Friday, the stock price closed at $8.63 a share.  If Buffett sold B of A today, he’d make about $750 million by my calculation.  Give me a break!  Would Mr. Buffett have invested the money into B of A if he knew the bailout party would stop?  I think not.  Why doesn’t Buffett talk about one of the real problems facing America and that is the continuing bailouts for billionaires!   These bailouts have greatly contributed to the ballooning $15.6 trillion U.S. deficit.  Now, there is talk of committing another $100 billion to Fannie and Freddie to add to the $170 billion already blown in backdoor banker bailouts. (Click here for more on that story.)

Other companies Mr. Buffett invested in or owns include: American Express, Goldman Sachs, General Electric, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo and US Bankcorp.  All of these companies have or continue to get financial help from taxpayers.  If the government would not have stepped in and bailed out these companies (and others), Mr. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway fund would have been decimated!  Had there been no bailouts, no zero percent interest rates and no government sanctioned accounting fraud with the suspension of “mark to market” accounting by FASB in 2009,   I’ll bet it would be difficult for Mr. Buffet to still be called the “Oracle of Omaha.”  Party on, Mr. Buffett.  Party on at the taxpayer expense.  I think this is exactly what is meant by “privatize the profits and socialize the losses.”  Of course, no one on financial TV would ever call Mr. Buffett out on this shame called the “Buffett Rule.”

I think Mr. Buffett is directing the debate away from the obscene corporate bailouts that have been going on since the financial crisis of 2008 and on to a contrived issue of class warfare that will do little to address America’s severe financial problems.    If we are really serious about fixing the deficit, then let’s stop the bailouts.  Mr. Buffett is supposed to be an expert investor. So, why do so many of the companies he owns or invests in need to be bailed out!  What kind of strategy is this?  It looks to me like Buffett made some bad bets, and when they blew up, he became an advisor to the administration.  Then, he watched as the bailouts not only saved his bacon, but made him and his shareholders even more insanely rich than they already were.

Read more

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,933 other followers