Saturday, December 31, 2016

ISIS Gains Advantage In Mosul, Threatens Jordan

Propping up US-Iraqi Mosul flop exposed Baghdad

The US-backed Iraqi campaign launched in October to liberate Mosul from the clutches of the Islamic State is on its last legs, although the Obama administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Haydar al-Abadi are making every effort to disguise the debacle.

Iraqi army’s Mosul operation has run aground, despite solid US military backing, giving the advantage to Islamic State fighters occupying Iraq’s biggest city since the summer of 2015.
This development has major security ramifications - not only for Iraq, but also for Syria, Jordan, Israel and the West at large.

The jihadists staunched the Iraqi army’s advance by releasing in its path hundreds of suicide killers in waves on foot and in bomb cars. This tactic has inflicted crippling losses on the two elite Iraqi divisions leading the offensive, the Golden Division, which is the backbone of Iraq’s Special Operations forces, and the 9th Armored Division. Devastating losses forced both to pull back from the battlefield.

This week, another 1,700 US special operations forces and 4,000 members of the Iraqi federal police and counter-terrorism service (CTS) were urgently sent out to reinforce the crumbling front lines. Their deployment was officially characterized as marking the launch of “the second phase of the operation to retake Mosul.”

Their real function was to prop up the few positions Iraqi forces have captured so far and save the Mosul offensive from crashing.

Western military observers noted Saturday, Dec. 31, that more and more American troops are to be seen on the embattled city’s front lines. US combatants are therefore fighting face to face with ISIS jihadists, a development the Obama administration is loath to admit, never having released the number of American lives lost in the Mosul offensive.

Our military sources add that the Iraqi counter-terrorism force sent to Mosul was previously posted in Baghdad to secure the capital against Islamist terrorist operations and ISIS attempts to seize the center and Iraqi’s national government centers. Its transfer to Mosul, 356km to the north, exposed central Baghdad to terror.

And, inevitably, on Saturday, two suicide bombers blew themselves up on a main street of the capital, killing 28 people and inuring 40 in their first major attack there in three months since the onset of the Mosul offensive..

This happened the day after the Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook released an unwelcome report that US security agencies “do think [Abu Bakr al] Baghdadi is alive and is still leading” the Islamic group and the battle for Mosul.

ISIS for its part issued a menacing new communiqué that jacked up its threat against neighboring Jordan’s King Abdullah II and his security forces, in the wake of its terrorist-cum-hostage assault earlier this month on the southern town of Karak, in which 10 people were killed and 29 injured.

The communiqué reads:“All Jordanian soldiers, police, mosque preachers, information activists and regime supporters are legitimate targets for the muhahideen’s bullets and knives. All of Jordan is an open battlefield!”

ISIS is informing the world of its coming targets, say DEBKAfile’s counterterrorism sources, which are:

1. The overthrow of the Hashemite king and his rule, and
2. The seizure of southern Jordan.

If Baghdadi succeeds in this scheme, he will gain control of a large stretch of land adjacent to Israel and Egyptian Sinai to the west and Saudi Arabia to the south, thereby bringing both under threat and placing itself close enough to block the port of Aqaba, Jordan’s only outlet to the sea.

From the desert region of southern Jordan, ISIS will also achieve proximity to the Sinai desert – through Israeli and Egyptian Bedouin – and be able to control the main Middle East arms-smuggling route and the Sinai center of operations of this illicit and enormously profitable trade

Abbas: 2017 Will Be The Year Of Palestinian Statehood

Abbas: 2017 will be the year of Palestinian statehood

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday told Fatah party officials that 2017 would be “the year of the independent Palestinian state.”
At a torch-lighting ceremony marking the 52nd anniversary of Fatah’s founding, Abbas hailed the recent UN anti-settlement resolution as a diplomatic victory.
“The settlements are illegal, and in recent days, we were given an unprecedented decision regarding this issue,” he told members of his party at the ceremony, held at the grave of former PLO leader Yasser Arafat in Ramallah, Channel 10 news reported.

The PA president said the Palestinians would not tolerate Israeli efforts to fool the international community, Israel Radio reported, and said that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was building “colonies” in the West Bank and was seeking to perpetuate Israeli rule there, and racist discrimination against the Palestinians.
Nonetheless, the Palestinians were ready to work with the incoming Donald Trump presidency to achieve peace via a two-state solution based on the relevant UN decisions and the Arab Peace Initiative, the radio report said. “We want to emphasize our willingness to work with the newly-elected American administration… to achieve peace… based on a two-state solution,” he said.
Netanyahu has insisted he seeks a two-state accord with Abbas, and is ready to negotiate without preconditions. He has blamed Abbas for the failure of past peace efforts, and insists that the Palestinians must ultimately recognize Israel as a Jewish state — a requirement endorsed by Secretary of State John Kerry in his valedictory address on Wednesday and immediately rejected by the Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinians are setting their sights on a Mideast peace conference in France next month in a bid to rally support as they prepare for the uncertainty of the Trump administration.
The Palestinians are hopeful that a strong international endorsement in Paris will insulate them from what they fear will be a close alliance between President-elect Donald Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu.
With their hopes for gaining independence in a deep freeze, the Palestinians had a rare week of optimism. First, the US allowed the UN Security Council to adopt Resolution 2334, which declared Israeli settlements illegal. Then, Kerry delivered a farewell speech that harshly criticized Israeli settlements, saying Israel’s continued construction was imperiling hopes for a peace agreement and endangering the country’s democracy.

Palestinian officials say they are now counting on the French-hosted Mideast peace conference to build on the momentum and set clear terms of reference for any future negotiations with Israel. Some 70 nations are expected to attend, although Israel and the Palestinians will not be participating.
The Palestinians seek the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, for an independent state. They say that Israeli settlements in these areas (including Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem), now home to about 600,000 Israelis, are threatening their hopes for independence by taking in lands where they hope to establish their state.
The latest UN resolution, along with Kerry’s speech, essentially endorsed the Palestinian position by calling for the pre-1967 lines to serve as the reference point for a final border.
Netanyahu, who opposes a return to the 1967 lines, has condemned the moves as “skewed” and “shameful.” He says all disputes must be settled through direct negotiations without any preconditions, and that any international pressure undermines the negotiating process.

Minister of Regional Cooperation Tzachi Hanegbi, a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rejected suggestions that Israel may unilaterally annex the West Bank Saturday, saying such a course of action would be “a disaster” for the country.

Jewish Home party leader Naftali Bennett has frequently called to annex the 60% of the West Bank, Area C, where Israel maintains security and civilian control and where most settlements are located. On Thursday he asserted that government policy once President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20 will be to annex the large settlement city of Ma’ale Adumim.

Zionist Union chairman Isaac Herzog, speaking at a cultural event in Haifa Saturday, said those supporting annexation were “brainwashing the public with lies, such as claiming that we can annex Area C and the world will allow it.”
Herzog said such action would lead to a reality similar to that created by the civil wars in Syria and Bosnia.

The Absolute EPIC Failure Of Liberalism/Socialism/Progressivism/Communism - Things To Come: The Hallmark Of The Tribulation

The Tribulation will bring forth the ultimate in liberalism/socialism/progressivism/communism (L/S/P/C) as a world government and a single world leader will FINALLY bring forth the type of government that the L/S/P/C crowd have been begging for for the last 100+ years. If not so sad and pathetic and inability to connect the dots - it would be funny to watch the ultimate demise, but of course we won't be here to witness this first-hand. But it's coming, despite the recent wins in various elections by the anti-L/S/P/C group. 

It's almost ridiculous that, at this point, despite ALL EVIDENCE revealing the massive and epic failures of the L/S/P/C style of governments - a huge percentage of world populations continue to beg for this form of government. It defies any logic. But they will have their utopia once the Church is removed from the scene:

While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

I’m a former lifelong Democrat, stating here a clear and incontestable fact: Barack Obama is a failed President.
It’s true not just because of the sad realities such as that «Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94 % Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time» — or, as the economists Alan Krueger and Lawrence Katz wrote in the original of that study: «94 percent of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements». («Alternative work arrangements» referred there to Americans who were involuntarily working only part-time jobs — they simply couldn’t find full-time, though that’s what they wanted.) In other words: Obama’s failure isn’t just because of America’s increasingly sales-clerk, and burger-flipping, workforce.
And Obama’s failure is also not just because «Poverty Rose In 96 % Of U.S. House Districts, During Obama’s Presidency». (However, that reality turned out to be decisive in Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on November 8th, as Nate Cohn pointed out in The New York Times on December 23rd, headlining, «How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump». Hillary was running on Obama’s poor record.)
Obama’s failure is also because of other important reasons. Among them is the uncounted thousands of people who were killed in, and the uncounted millions of people who became refugees from, the places where Obama (or else his installed regimes) bombed and caused the residents to either die or flee. George W. Bush’s destructions of Iraq and even Afghanistan were now being followed by the destructions of Libya by Obama and Sarkozy, and of Syria by Obama and Saud and Thani and Erdogan, who armed the tens of thousands of jihadists and sent them into Syria to overthrow and replace Assad — and Bush’s destructions were followed also by Obama’s keeping in power the barbaric junta-regime that replaced the democratically elected Honduran Presiden Manuel Zelaya on 28 June 2009 shortly after Obama entered the White House (and this junta-regime, in turn, caused Honduras’s murder-rate to soar 50% to become the world’s highest, which then caused hundreds of thousands of Hondurans to flee and become undocumented U.S. immigrants, against which Donald Trump campaigned).
The Obama regime has thus created far more misery outside America, than inside it. Failures such as those didn’t cost Hillary Clinton many (if any) votes (because most voters didn’t even know about these foreign-affairs matters), but those failures were actually even bigger than Obama’s failures in purely domestic U.S. policy matters (which voters do know about). Trump campaigned against ‘illegal immigrants’, but he never even called attention to those people’s fleeing the hells that the U.S. regime had created in not only Honduras but earlier in Guatemala and El Salvador — coups and U.S.-trained death squads.
In noting Obama’s failures, I’m not a Republican; I’m no one who is condemning Obama for his allegedly being a ‘Marxist' ‘Muslim’, or some other imaginary distraction from the reality (a reality which is too Republican for Republicans to be able to criticize — so, they’ve insteadignored that reality, and cited fake ‘reasons’ against him, including ‘death panels’ and other fabrications, which Republicans then forgot about after their fraudulent allegations against him became clear, to all but insane people, as being just Republican lies). 
Obama is a failure not because he wasn’t sufficiently conservative or ‘Christian' (as Republicans had constantly accused him of having been), but instead because he wasn’t sufficiently progressive (nowhere close to being a progressive) — and, in many ways, he was actually far more conservative than any of his duplicitous campaign-rhetoric had pretended him to be. He’s an extraordinarily gifted liar — he was phenomenally successful at that.
And I am not blaming Obama for congressional Republicans’ having been more obsessed with making him be a failed President, than they were interested in making America be a successful nation. Republicans lie at least as much as he does, just not nearly as skillfully. (They especially can’t feign compassion as skillfully as he.) This article thus does not blame him for what the overt Republicans were doing to cripple the little good he had actually tried to achieve — such as closing Guantanamo. It’s only about Obama’s failure.
Obama’s failure was all his own — it’s not because of the good things that Republicans had blocked him from doing; it is instead because of the horrible things (such as his failed TPP, TTIP and TISA trade-treaties, and his successful 2011 killing of Gaddafi, and 2014 coup in Ukraine) that were central to his actual agenda — a conservative, even reactionary, agenda, which favored the interests of the hundreds of billionaires who control U.S.-based international corporations, above the interests of the 300+ million American people, whom the U.S. President is supposed to be serving.

Here, then, is Obama’s astounding record of failure:
As that last one documented, the Obama ‘Justice’ Department scored an all-time low number both of financial institution fraud prosecutions, and of white-collar-crime prosecutions. Obama came into power immediately after an economic crash that was loaded especially with financial-institution frauds. He protected the banksters. So, financial-executive-fraud prosecutions didn’t soar, like they should have; instead they plunged. Like Obama told the Wall Street bigs, near the start of his regime, on 27 March 2009, in private, inside the White House: «My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you… I’m going to shield you». And that’s what he did. And, on 20 September 2016, Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America’s Future, headlined «Banks Used Low Wages, Job Insecurity To Force Employees To Commit Fraud», so there was no way that the employees could keep their jobs except to do the crimes that they were being virtually forced by their bosses to do.
The criminality was actually at the very top — where Obama had promised «I’m protecting you». So, the TARP’s Inspector General urged, on 26 October 2016 (since the President was refusing to prosecute those people), «that Congress remove the insulation around Wall Street CEOs and other high-level officials by requiring the CEO, CFO and certain other senior executives to sign an annual certification that they have conducted due diligence within their organization and can certify that that there is no criminal conduct or civil fraud in their organization». The Special Inspector General of TARP, Christy Goldsmith Romero, was proposing this, as being the way to make prosecutions, of these top-level fraud-executives, so easy that the Obama Administration’s claims — that there was no top-level fraud that could be prosecuted — would be an even more blatant, absurdly false, lie, than it had been.
If this country were Ukraine, or even Russia, then Americans (trained by decades of a CIA-controlled ‘free press’) would say «Oh, of course those countries are corrupt, but America isn’t like that». But, at least under Barack Obama, ‘we’ were that. This was America — and ‘our’ President was protecting the elite fraudsters, instead of prosecuting them.
Nonetheless, anyone who would say that the American people are not better off now than they were at the end of Bush’s disastrous Presidency would be either misinformed or lying, because there’s lots of data showing that, finally, eight years after Bush, Americans are better off than they were at the end of Bush’s miserable eight years (even though not yet better off than Americans were prior to Bush’s 2007-2008 crash). And the Administration published on December 15th its record of ‘successes’ «The 2017 Economic Report of the President» which was real but not adjusted for the fact that Obama came into office at the pit of the economic crash, which means that such ‘successes’ are almost inevitable, hardly a credit to Obama. But yet, the reality stands, that the Obama economic recovery was the weakest in the entire post-World-War-II period. Plus, the federal debt doubled on his watch, even while, as that Economic Report mentioned only in passing: «The United States has seen a faster increase in inequality in recent decades than any of the major advanced economies, and despite the historic progress made over the last eight years, the level of U.S. inequality remains high». Normally, after an economic crash, economic inequality reduces; but under Obama it remained at or near its pre-crash high. 
It was an economic record (and an invasion and coup record) of which any Republican President could justifiably have been proud (since conservatives favor inequality, a caste system) — but no Democrat could (except fake ones — such as Obama and the Clintons).

Betraying Israel at the United Nations: Obama’s refusal to block a United Nations vote against Israel, his administration’s shadowy machinations to bring that ugly motion to the floor, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s long-winded broadside against Israel will leave President Trump with a massive political crisis in the Middle East, and quite possibly a security crisis, if terror groups and their “political wings” are emboldened by the rebuke of Israel.
Obama’s Israel maneuver also damages American credibility, teaching would-be allies that the United States is not the best friend to have. America’s erstwhile battlefield allies in Syria can teach the same lesson, assuming any of them are left alive to take the podium. This comes at the very moment aspiring hegemons in China and Russia are showing their allies how Beijing and Moscow will go to the mat for them.
Obama’s team thinks it was clever to saddle Trump with an international edict the U.S. president cannot easily reverse. They might not have thought this all the way through, because some of the options that are available to Trump could leave internationalists, and Palestinian leaders, cursing Barack Obama’s memory.
Note that even some commentators friendly to Obama, and sources within the Obama Administration itself, have described the Israel vote as a deliberate act of sabotage aimed at Trump, because Obama is “alarmed” by some of Trump’s appointees.
A new Cold War with Russia: After eight years of relentlessly mocking anyone who said Russia was a major geopolitical threat to the United States (most famously includinghis 2012 presidential opponent, Mitt Romney) Barack Obama suddenly realized: “You know what? Russia is a major threat!”

He also awoke to the dangers of cyber-warfare, after an entire presidency of treating electronic espionage as a purely political problem to be minimized and spun away, because taking it seriously made him look bad. Who can forget how Obama left victims of the OPM hack twisting in the wind for weeks, because the administration didn’t want to admit how serious the attack was?
But then a top Democrat political operative fell for a crude phishing scam, and the Democratic National Committee got hacked, so Obama… well, he still didn’t take cyber-espionage seriously. He slapped the snooze bar again, because as one anonymous official put it, they thought Hillary Clinton was a cinch to win the 2016 election, “so they were willing to kick the can down the road.”
No, it was Hillary Clinton’s loss in the election, and the desperate push to damage President-elect Trump’s legitimacy, that made the president who politely ignored China hacking 25 million American citizens’ private data get tough on information security. Until now, states involved in cyber-espionage never got anything worse than a few carefully-chosen words of sour disapproval from the expiring administration, but the Russkies received a sprinkling of sanctions, and 35 diplomats were expelled. 
Russia responded by unleashing an army of ducks and trolls from the depths of the Kremlin. The New Cold War is only a few days old, and it’s already weirder than the old one was.
Presumably Obama thinks he’s maneuvered Trump into a position that will make whatever rapprochement he might have entertained with Moscow more difficult, or at least more politically costly for the new President. The end result might be easier relations between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and a lingering memory of how little Barack Obama cared about cybersecurity until it was politically expedient for him to freak out.
Ban on oil drilling: An overt act of sabotage directed at the American economy itself, leaving an especially heavy bootprint on Alaska. Smug administration flacks spent the past couple of weeks assuring media talking heads that Obama’s unprecedented abuse of an obscure law was impossible for his successor to reverse. It’s like they stayed up all night, looking for executive actions that can’t be undone by the new President four weeks later. (Amusingly, Obama dropped this bomb on our energy sector just a few weeks after publicly advising Trump not to abuse executive orders.)
It’s likely that legions of lawyers will battle throughout 2017, and perhaps beyond, to determine if Obama’s “latest poke at Trump” (as Politico put it) really is irreversible. What a lovely parting gift from the departing President to the country that elected him twice: a pile of gigantic wealth-destroying lawsuits!
National-monument land grab: The other theoretically irreversible presidential edict discovered by Obama’s munchkins is the ability to designate national monuments. Another 1.65 million acres in Utah and Nevada was yanked off the market in the last week of December, bring Obama’s Antiquities Act acreage up to an unprecedented 553 million acres.
“This arrogant act by a lame duck president will not stand. I will work tirelessly with Congress and the incoming Trump administration to honor the will of the people of Utah and undo this designation,” thundered Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Sixty-five percent of his state is now under the wise and compassionate environmental protection of the same government that turned the Colorado River into a toxic-waste dump.
Eliminating the national immigration registry: Just in case Trump got any ideas about using it as the basis for the “enhanced vetting” he has promised for immigrants from terrorist-infested regions, the Obama administration killed a long-dormant program called NSEERS that once committed the unforgivable politically-incorrect sin of tracking military-age males from violently unstable Muslim-majority countries.
It’s highly debatable whether the NSEERS program was of any practical use. When it pulled the plug, the Department of Homeland Security noted that the post-9/11 program called for collecting data that is now routinely collected for most foreign visitors, along with more sophisticated biometric information. Almost everyone saw the elimination of these roles as a purely symbolic act — i.e. political sabotage directed at the incoming President. 
The great Guantanamo jailbreak: After paying little more than lip service to his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for much of his presidency, Obama went into overdrive in his last years, transferring over 150 detainees. A shocking number of themended up back on the battlefield.
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) of the House Foreign Affairs Committee wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week to sound the alarm about Obama’s “midnight push to empty out Guantanamo.” 
“The White House has repeatedly released detainees to countries it knew lacked the intent and capability to keep the detainees from returning to terrorism. The results have been deadly,” Royce wrote, challenging the wisdom of such Obama administration brainstorms as dropping al-Qaeda’s top bomb maker into Bosnia, a country with “limited security services” but plenty of radical mosques and unemployed military-age males. Royce’s committee has been investigating allegations the administration tried to pay the bomb-maker $100,000 to refrain from passing his deadly skills along to eager apprentices. Hunting down the rest of the transferred prisoners who transferred themselves right back into the global jihad will be a job for the Trump administration. 
Depicting Trump’s election as a disaster: Let’s not forget Obama’s acts of rhetorical sabotage, such as describing Trump’s presidential campaign as a crime against American class and racial harmony, or his wife wailing that all hope was lost for America’s children. Trump himself has taken note of the “many inflammatory President Obama statements and roadblocks.”
It’s hard to remember a previous instance of the outgoing president attacking the legitimacy of his successor this way, especially during the transition, before the new chief executive has actually done anything. And it’s probably not over yet. The time for big executive orders is growing short, but Obama is always just one day away from calling a press conference and saying something else that will make the transition more difficult. 
Of course he can still talk all he wants after January 20th, and he’s given every indicationhe won’t follow the dignified path of his predecessors and allow the new president time to chart his own course, but there’s no substitute for the bully pulpit of the presidency. The timber of Barack Obama’s political voice will be very different on January 21st than it was on January 19th. More likely than not, he’ll use it before he loses it.

Rapacity performed by an outgoing Democratic president is intentionally downplayed or simply ignored by the mainstream media.  We saw such unbridled rapacity in the atavistic way the Clintons left the White House when they departed in 2000.  They stole and/or vandalized furniture and furnishings of the White House and left it in a deplorable state.  From a perspective of his official actions, Bill Clinton did things such as pardon Tommy Rich and closed a few loopholes to ensure his Clinton Foundation deals did not fall apart after he surrendered the Oval Office.

The Obamas are not following suit in the manner of the Clintons with pillaging the White House for three reasons.  Firstly, although he committed dozens of offenses that would have merited it, Obama was not impeached, whereas Clinton was.  For those who may hold askance with the conditions of impeachment for Obama, let us remember that under the parameters of the National Defense Authorization Act and the tenets of more than half a dozen overlapping executive orders, the United States (and the world) were “redefined” as a “battlefield” in the war on terror.  The emergency status has never been lifted: that status was affirmed and inculcated under the Bush administration shortly after 9/11 that categorized us as being in a state of war (against terrorism) and a continuous state of emergency.

Under such “wartime” conditions, the words of Obama in 2012 were clearly treasonous and constituted an impeachable offense.

Obama declared on television to Dmitri Medvedev his intention to unilaterally exercise his powers (exceeding his authority) as the President to reduce American missile defenses in Europe (not a “treaty” action for later ratification by the U.S. Senate) without prior Congressional approval.  This was a promise specifically directed to a foreign leader (indirectly through Medvedev) that would weaken America’s defensive capabilities and circumvent Constitutional Law and Congressional approval during wartime.  This is treason.  “Tell Vladimir I’ll have more leeway after the election” is nothing less than treason, as eloquently revealed by Obama’s “hot mike” in 2012.

This is merely one example of dozens, but as previously mentioned, all those dozens of examples are merely thrown eggs, which do not stick to Teflon.

Secondly, Obama is the primary candidate for the Democrats to run for president in 2020. After the inauguration of Trump, there will then only be 3 years and 7 months to go before the next presidential election.  Obama’s campaign for “Yes We Can…Again,” will begin in about 2 ½ years.  If he had been able to run in this last election, he would have won hands down and smoked Trump in the manner of a cheap cigar.  We know it, and he knows it.  If anything, his popularity has risen substantially now that the election is behind us.  The media are now portraying him and his wife in that glowing “Hallmark” type of picture with mist around the gold-leaf framed portrait.

Such a Pravda-like portrayal completely dismisses the torments of the past eight years: the Holodomor-like starvations of Michelle Obama’s enforced school lunch malnutrition crusade inflicted on American children while her daughters dined carte blanche at the Friends Private school on taxpayer dollars; the crippling of the U.S. economy and planned destruction of the manufacturing base; the weakening and reduction of the military; the enrichment of an army of Executives and Oligarchs who fawningly marched in lock-step with the administration’s policies while outsourcing the entire U.S. economy; the continuous onslaught of moral depravity inflicted on families, businesses, and social structures through Draconian edicts and “color of law” rubber stamping by the kangaroo supreme court.

In eight years, Obama has taken the United States of America to the level of a third-world country with crippling debt, massive unemployment, the fostering and increase of a welfare-based society, a deteriorated and ramshackle infrastructure, massive inflation, and an almost worthless fiat currency on the brink of collapse.

On March 23, 2010, he cajoled, pushed, back-doored, and forced the legislative enslavement of every citizen of the United States under the (Un)Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.”  Barack Hussein Obama II has made every citizen beholding to the State, and dependent on the State to certify that person as being in “good standing” and “paid up” under the law – the law that he created.

To digress: any other country’s citizens (Egypt is a prime example with the ousting of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to reverse the Obama administration’s actions) would have risen with clubs and pitchforks, burned the capitol to the ground, arrested and imprisoned every lawmaker, and forced the leader either to flee, to later be captured and tried or to be ripped to pieces and never make it to a courtroom.

But the legend of Obama’s “legacy” is being created by the mainstream media even as we speak, setting the stage for “the statesman” to return.  Do you know when he’ll return?  In a couple of years, akin to MacArthur striding through the surf and onto the beach…campaign time of 2019/2020…after the Oligarchs and the Marxists have sabotaged Trump’s efforts and derailed a recovery…all the while with the media to support the sabotage and foster it.  You don’t think Alec Baldwin (who absolutely hates conservatives) will stop portraying Trump, do you?

All of this falls in line with crisis manufacture, the subverting of public opinion, the creation of public dissent, and then the rise of the messianic figurehead to lead the crying, helpless public out of the doldrums.  Obama will be that figure.  He already is.  They don’t even have to create him; the media simply needs to rekindle a longing for him as a “Father” figure/Mr. Goodbar among the majority of the non-working, non-taxpaying public…a longing to return to “Good Times,” when the administration gave those who produced nothing everything…at the expense of those who produced everything while the administration left them with nothing. 

Thirdly, Obama hasn’t left office yet, and he has been actively fostering the passage of “minute to midnight” legislation and actions, such as a no-fly zone in Syria, the demonization and potential criminalization of the alternative media, the solidification of his already-crafted executive actions enabling the EPA and other bureaucracies to continue in theft (I’m sorry, misappropriation of taxpayer monies…commonly termed “reallocation”) and enforcement, and the placing of the United States in precarious positions in numerous theaters where war could commence in the blink of an eye.  He hasn’t left yet, and a lot can happen in a month.

Bill Clinton knew he would not return to the White House.  He was a major “negative” in the cap of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and in true trailer-park fashion, they vandalized the White House and stole furniture.  Keep in mind they would have done more if they could have gotten away with it.  Clinton and his lovely wife stole billions of dollars, sold military secrets to the Chinese (read the book “The Year of the Rat” for further insight into this), and enriched themselves on taxpayer dollars while murdering and destroying people along the way.
But Obama is smarter than them…both he and his wife are quieter, more purposed, more cunning, and more effective.  They are also more patient.  This cycle has happened before.  They just have to stand back and allow Trump either to be derailed or for Trump to make a mistake and derail himself.  Then they will return to campaign again.

The basis for such a possibility is the success that Obama had in destroying the country while ensuring (even with Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the comment to Medvedev as a few of the many examples) that nothing even came close to touching him or threatening him with removal of office.

A 100% success ratio. He just didn’t have enough time to finish.  But he will have another opportunity in 2020, and you better believe that he’ll take that opportunity when the time comes.  He may leave the White House, but that doesn’t mean he will not return to it again.

Friday, December 30, 2016

Putin Stunner: 'We Will Not Expel Anyone; We Refuse To Sink To 'Kitchen Diplomacy', Britain And U.S. In Deepening War Of Words Over Kerry's Anti-Settlement Speech

Putin declines to retaliate on Obama’s sanctions

In a brilliant piece of propaganda that makes President Obama look small and irrelevant, Vladimir Putin plays chess, while Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett play checkers (and Barack Obama vacations in Hawaii again).
 Neil MacFarquhar the New York Times reports:

In a head-spinning turn of events on Friday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia announced that he would not retaliate against the United States’ decision to expel Russian diplomats and impose new sanctions — hours after his foreign minister recommended doing just that.
Mr. Putin, betting on improved relations with the next American president, said he would not eject 35 diplomats or close any diplomatic facilities, rejecting a tit-for-tat response to actions taken by the Obama administration on Thursday.
The switch was remarkable, given that the foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, had just made the recommendation in remarks broadcast live on national television, and given the long history of tit-for-tat expulsions between the two countries. Russian officials have traditionally been sticklers for diplomatic protocol.

“While we reserve the right to take reciprocal measures, we’re not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy,” Mr. Putin said, using a common Russian idiom for quarrelsome and unseemly acts. “In our future steps on the way toward the restoration of Russia-United States relations, we will proceed from the policy pursued by the administration of D. Trump.”

First and foremost, this move disempowers President Obama before he even leaves office. Our chief geopolitical rival – a notion Barack Obama sneered at in a presidential debate with Mitt Romney – has just in effect said to Obama, “Who cares what you do? You’re outta here in 3 weeks, buddy.” Dismissing Obama as not worthy of retaliation projects a loss of face onto the world stage, making a capon out of the outgoing president.
This move (or lack thereof) carries some danger for Donald Trump. He must point out the man instances when the Obama administration sucked up to Russia. That bizarre reset button episode with Hillary grinning like a Bride of Chucky doll is just waiting for attachment to a tweet noting that Democrats only attack Russia out of desperation to blame it for Hillary's loss.

I have little doubt that both he and Putin understand the need for some form of pubic confrontation between the two – and there are plenty of issues available, starting with Aleppo and extending to oil prices that divide the two nations. But the underlying tenor of the relationship has to be one of cooperation against common foes, mixed with confrontation.
Don’t worry: I realize that Putin is a thug from the KGB. The sad fact is that ruthless people occupy a disproportionate number of head-of-government roles in the world. I doubt very much that President-elect Trump has any illusions.
In the meantime, Obama looks smaller and smaller.

Following this morning's reports that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would recommend to Russian President Vladimir Putin a retaliation in kind, and expel 35 American diplomats, saying that “we cannot leave such acts unanswered. Reciprocity is part of diplomatic law"  with Putin spokesman Peskov adding that "there is no doubt that Russia's adequate and mirror response will make Washington officials feel very uncomfortable as well", it was ultimately up to Putin to decide how to respond to the US.
Which he did on Friday morning, when in a stunning reversal, the Russian leader took the high road, rejected the Lavrov proposal, and in a statement posted by the Kremlin said that Russia won’t expel any Americans in retaliation to US moves, in a brutal demonstration of just how irrelevant Obama's 11th hour decision is for US-Russian relations.
In the just released statement, Putin laughed off Obama's 11th hour temper tantrum, and said that Russia won’t cause problems to U.S. diplomats or deport anyone, adding that Russia has the right to respond in tit-for-tat manner, but it will not engage in irresponsible diplomacy.
The punchline, however, was saved for what may be Russia's final slam of the debacle that is Obama's administration saying that "It’s a pity that the current U.S. administration is finishing their work in such a manner" saying that Russia refuses "to sink to the level of this irresponsible "kitchen" diplomacy."
Putin ended the statement by congratulating U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, and the American people on the New Year and invited the hildren of US diplomats to a holiday celebration at the Kremlin.
From the full statement posted on the Kremlin website:
Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.

In other news, the Kremlin said it will send a government plane to the US to evacuate the expelled diplomats and their family members. Earlier, there were reports that the diplomats were having problems buying tickets on such short notice, with airlines already booked by New Year’s travelers.

We regard the recent unfriendly steps taken by the outgoing US administration as provocative and aimed at further weakening the Russia-US relationship. This runs contrary to the fundamental interests of both the Russian and American people. Considering the global security responsibilities of Russia and the United States, this is also damaging to international relations as a whole. 

As it proceeds from international practice, Russia has reasons to respond in kind. Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration. 

The diplomats who are returning to Russia will spend the New Year’s holidays with their families and friends. We will not create any problems for US diplomats. We will not expel anyone. We will not prevent their families and children from using their traditional leisure sites during the New Year’s holidays. Moreover, I invite all children of US diplomats accredited in Russia to the New Year and Christmas children’s parties in the Kremlin. 

It is regrettable that the Obama Administration is ending its term in this manner. Nevertheless, I offer my New Year greetings to President Obama and his family.
My season’s greetings also to President-elect Donald Trump and the American people. 

I wish all of you happiness and prosperity.

The outgoing Obama administration and the British government of Theresa May are engaged in an unprecedented war of words over Secretary of State John Kerry’s blistering critique of Israeli settlements.

Britain voted in favor of last Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemned settlements as illegal and called for a halt in all settlement activity, while the US abstained. But a spokesman for May, who has expressed robust support for Israel in a series of recent speeches and messages, on Thursday castigated Kerry’s subsequent speech, accusing him of a wrong-headed approach and of being unfair to Israel.

Hours after Britain issued its rebuke, the State Department hit back furiously, denying that Kerry’s speech was unfair, hailing the support the secretary had received from other leaders, and implying that Britain was behaving hypocritically.
The diplomatic tussle is highly unusual between the US and UK, and Britain’s decision to attack Kerry for ostensible unfairness to Israel is still more extraordinary, echoing as it does the criticisms of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

May’s spokesman on Thursday rebuked Kerry for what it said was his speech’s singular focus on the settlements as a major impediment to reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and his commentary on the more right-wing members of Netanyahu’s coalition, whom Kerry accused of dragging Israel into more extreme positions.

According to the UK’s Jewish News website, a spokesperson for May said: “We do not believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this cases the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex.

“And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally,” the prime minister’s spokesman added. “The Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community.”

Reuters noted that May’s critique moves British policy closer to President-elect Donald Trump than its other European allies such as Germany and France, pointing out that “Trump has denounced the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel and promised to change course when he is sworn in on Jan. 20.”
“We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the US, but not anymore,” Trump said in a series of tweets on Wednesday, just before Kerry spoke. “Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!”
Along with the UK’s objections to Kerry’s speech, Australia has condemned the UN resolution as one-sided and “deeply unsettling.” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made plain that Australia would not have voted for Resolution 2334, and pledged support for Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East.