Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You bet. Funds from the Clinton Foundation went to into this and that means to me........... foreign donors. Can't see that as being legal. If they want to trash Trump for being a legitimate worldwide businessman, why is Shrillary allowed to use foreign donations that were paid for influence while Secretary of State and after when she was going to run for President be used here?.....
Thought these memorials were supposed to be about historically significant figures in our country's history. Where is George Shultz? Madeline Albright? Waaay more significant than 'fly by Hillary'.
These dims really want to make themselves something more than they ever were. How many more speeches after his next 'last' speech is BO going to make as he stays in DC after he leaves his office to coordinate the leftist mission to destroy Republicans.
All out war on Republicans throughout our country, we haven't seen anything yet.
Hillary Used Corporate Cronies To Finance State Dept. Pavilion Named After Herself
(The hits just keep on coming)
By Dick Morris on January 10, 2017
Anxious to etch her name in glass if she cannot do so in history, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will speak today at the dedication of the Hillary Clinton Pavilion at the U.S. State Department. It seems that while she was selling favors for access at the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, she took time out during her busy tenure to raise $37 million from the usual corporate and foreign donors to construct a new entrance pavilion at the State Department named after herself. Now visitors to Foggy Bottom will enter through the Hillary Clinton Pavilion, to be festooned with artifacts of her time as Secretary.
The glass pavilion was financed by corporate and foreign donors most of whom have issues before the State Department, Four oppressive Middle East governments — the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Brunei — all with close ties to the Clinton Foundation and important issues before State contributed as did the usual coterie of corporations that regularly support Clinton’s favored causes.
The largest gifts of $2.5 million or more came from four companies: FedEx, Boeing, PepsiCo and Intel. All four also contributed to the Clinton Foundation. Boeing was particularly generous, giving not only $2.5 million for the would-be Hillary Center and $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation. These donations came after Clinton personally and successfully intervened to try to persuade Russia to buy $3.7 billion of Boeing aircraft.
Other contributors included Cisco, Bank of America, Caterpillar, Citigroup, eBay, General Electric, Microsoft, Walmart, and co-founder of Blackstone , all of whom gave between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to the Hillary Center project. All, except Schwarzman, were also Clinton Foundation donors. (Schwarzman’s partner, Pete Peterson, gave between $1 million and $5 million to the foundation).
Apart from the questionable propriety of collecting money to get a building named after yourself, what is wrong with this ego trip?
It’s very similar to what Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did, an action that led to his censure by the House and his loss of the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee. Rangel used his congressional staff, resources and official stationery to solicit funds for a graduate center to be named after him at the City University of New York. The charge was improperly using government resources to raise money. According to The New York Times, “Some of the donors, the committee found, were businesses and foundations with issues before the House Ways and Means Committee. The contributions left the impression that the money was to influence legislation, although Rangel was not charged with taking any action on behalf of donors.”
Hillary too raised the money from corporations, to quote the Times story on Rangel, that “had issues before [the committee].” Is it not true that here, as with Rangel, the donations “left the impression that the money was to influence legislation?” And, Hillary, too, used the services of her State Department official staff to raise the funds, relying on Special Adviser to the secretary Elizabeth Bagley.
Is there any difference between what Clinton did and what Rangel was censured and humiliated for doing?
This continued evidence of pay-for-play can only stoke the investigations into Hillary’s tenure and add fuel to the efforts of Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Chair of the House Government Reform Committee, to look into her shenanigans.
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillary-used-corporate-cronies-finance-state-dept-pavilion-named/
More water......
Biden: God save the Queen.
Joe Biden, it's over.
http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/vp-biden-says-its-over/
BO, a legend in his own mind...........
Most extremely difficult to correct. Could take decades, beyond our life span. Thanks BO, you fingered it out........
Will post the correct signature on next post.
Obama’s Legacy Of Deceit
by Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, January 5, 2017
In its remaining days in power, the Obama administration suddenly punished Vladimir Putin’s Russia for allegedly interfering in the U.S. presidential election. It claimed that Russian or Russian-hired hackers tapped into the records of the Democratic National Committee as well as the correspondence of John Podesta, a Clinton advisor.
But what the Obama administration did not say was that such cyber-crimes are by now old hat. Both the Russian and Chinese governments have been hacking into far more important U.S. records and government archives for years without earning retaliation
The administration also did not mention that the election hacking occurred largely because of Podesta’s own carelessness in using his security password. Moreover, it failed to acknowledge that the Republican National Committee was likewise targeted, but apparently had enough safeguards to prevent successful entry into its records. Finally, the administration refused to mention that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange went on the record saying that he did not receive the email trove from the Russians.
The truth is that Obama, throughout his presidency, has appeased Putin. As president, Obama ended the previously agreed-on Eastern European missile defense; he made open-mic promises to be more flexible with Putin after his reelection; he barely responded to Russia’s aggression toward Crimea and Ukraine; and he constantly criticized both George W. Bush and Mitt Romney for being inordinately tough on Russia.
Until now, he saw no reason to stop enabling Russia. Had Hillary Clinton won the election, Putin’s alleged hacking would not have earned any administration attention. But this time around, an emboldened Putin allegedly went too far and crossed the only red line that Obama might have enforced by supposedly enabling the release of information that might have turned off some voters on Clinton. Blaming Putin for Clinton’s loss was a more convenient narrative than admitting that Obama’s own policies have turned off even traditional Democratic constituencies and for now reduced the Democratic Party to a minority coastal party.
All administrations play fast and loose with the truth. It is the nature of high politics to fib, cover up, and fudge in order to ensure the success of a so-called noble agenda for the greater good. But not since the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations have we seen a president so institutionalize misrepresentation.
There are ample examples. It was clear from Clinton’s own leaked emails and from real-time memos from intelligence agencies that the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not a spontaneous riot over an insensitive video produced by a reactionary Coptic zealot residing in the United States, as the administration claimed. But such a concoction fit Obama’s 2012 reelection narrative: the recklessness of right-wing Islamophobes endangers national security abroad. In contrast, the reality—a preplanned al-Qaeda-affiliated attack on an unprepared and semi-covert American consulate—challenged Obama’s reelection myth that Al Qaeda was “on the run” and that the administration was vigilant in ensuring security for our diplomatic personnel in the Middle East.
The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. at the time, Susan Rice, went on five Sunday morning talk shows to insist, quite wrongly, that the deaths of four Americans in the attack were the tragic result of ad hoc furor over intolerance. The video-maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was abruptly jailed on probation violation charges, in a display of swift American justice never matched by a commensurately prompt arrest and prosecution of real terrorists.
Another example of Obama administration’s misrepresentation concerns U.S. army soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who went AWOL from his post in Afghanistan and ended up a captive of Taliban affiliates from June 2009 until his release in May 2014. The Obama administration conducted lengthy and stealthy negotiations to return the deserter to U.S. custody. As part of the bargain, it agreed to release five Taliban terrorists from the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. In an about-face, an Army command announced last year that Bergdahl will soon be facing charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Yet to gain Bergdahl’s release, the Obama administration fabricated a completely different narrative to justify the embarrassing swap and concessions to the Taliban. Bergdahl, in National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s words, “served the United States with honor and distinction.”
Upon his release, Bergdahl parents were brought to the White House for photo-ops, where his father appeared with a long beard and shaved lip—not unlike the facial hair worn by his son’s Taliban captors. Bill Bergdahl thanked the concerned parties and broke into rudimentary Pashto and Urdu, praising Allah for his son’s release. The staged press conference was designed to underscore the administration’s view that the son of a multicultural family had naively and innocently wondered off from his compound. But now, young Bergdahl was safe with his family, due to the Obama administration. The disturbing truth was more likely that the administration traded prisoners for a U.S. deserter, while pushing the false narrative of returning an American patriot to his parents.
The far more important Iran nuclear deal of summer 2015 followed a similar pattern of dissimulation. “Bold” and “courageous” Middle East diplomacy nonetheless required White House subterfuge and deceitfulness. Ostensibly only Barack Obama was unaffected by past presidents’ prejudices against the revolutionary regime in Iran and thus could appreciate the mutual advantages of a breakthrough agreement to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb—as part of a larger diplomatic effort to return Shiite and Persian Iran to its natural role as a balancing force in the otherwise largely Sunni and Arab Middle East
In exchange for the U.S. and its allies dropping sanctions and commercial penalties—some of them approved by the UN—the theocracy purportedly agreed to reduce its installed centrifuges for 10 years. It promised to put limits on the purity of its enriched uranium and to reduce existing stockpiles. It agreed not to expand its enrichment facilities, while allowing on-site inspections.
But after 18 months, the true character of the deal has been revealed through slow leaks. In a secret side deal, Iran can update and improve its centrifuges; it can also inspect its own enrichment centers and report the results to international authorities; beyond that, Iran received a $400 million ransom payment on the exact day that Iranian-held U.S. hostages were let go.
More recently we learned that Iran got the sanctions lifted before it met all its obligations outlined in the deal. Ben Rhodes, an architect of the swap and deputy national security advisor, boasted about the administration’s affinity for deceit. Rhodes, described by a New York Times interviewer as “a storyteller who uses a writer’s tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal,” explained the methods of concocting an Iran narrative to a guidable media: “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” Rhodes intoned. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. . . The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
Rhodes’s cynicism was reminiscent of the boasts of another administration advisor, the MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who bragged of the administration’s ability to get passed the Patient Protection and affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), largely through deliberate deceit about the inevitable consequences of higher premiums and deductibles, the dropping of existing coverage and doctors, and increases in federal outlays. Some of the bill’s more obvious and unpopular elements—such as the employer mandate—were not enforced until after Obama’s 2012 reelection bid. Gruber admitted that the law was composed “in a tortured way” to delude people into accepting that “healthy people pay in and sick people get money”—a subterfuge that was both necessary and worked because of “the stupidity of the American voter,” a fact confirming that the “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage”
Other examples of dissimulation exist—from Obama’s about-face on border enforcement, in which he redefined deportation and reneged on his promises to enforce existing law, to the linguistic gymnastics he employed to mask the disastrously abrupt pullout of peacekeepers from Iraq (ISIS as “the “jayvees”). Most recently, the administration has not been candid about the details of its latest estrangement with Israel. Obama and his foreign policy team hid the fact that they had helped to engineer a UN resolution condemning Israel, by suggesting to the public that they were unaware of the depths of apparently spontaneous expressions of anti-Israeli anger.
Why does the Obama administration contort reality and mask the consequences of its initiatives?
Two reasons come to mind. One, Obama advanced an agenda to the left of that shared by most past presidents. Obamacare, the Benghazi catastrophe, the Iran deal, his strange stance toward radical Islam, and the Bergdahl swap were unpopular measures that required politically-driven recalibrations to escape American scrutiny.
Second, Obama’s team believes that the goals of fairness and egalitarianism more than justify the means of dissimulation by more sophisticated elites. Thus Gruber (“the stupidity of the American voter”) and Rhodes (“They literally know nothing”) employ deception on our behalf. Central to this worldview is that the American people are naive and easily manipulated, and thus need to be brought up to speed by a paternal administration that knows what is best for its vulnerable and clueless citizenry.
Such condescension is also why the administration never believes it has done anything wrong by hiding the facts of these controversies. Its players believe that because they did it all for us, the ensuing distasteful means will be forgotten once we finally progress enough to appreciate their enlightened ends.
http://www.hoover.org/research/obamas-legacy-deceit?utm_source=hdr&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2017-01-06
Obama’s Legacy Of Deceit
by Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, January 5, 2017
In its remaining days in power, the Obama administration suddenly punished Vladimir Putin’s Russia for allegedly interfering in the U.S. presidential election. It claimed that Russian or Russian-hired hackers tapped into the records of the Democratic National Committee as well as the correspondence of John Podesta, a Clinton advisor.
But what the Obama administration did not say was that such cyber-crimes are by now old hat. Both the Russian and Chinese governments have been hacking into far more important U.S. records and government archives for years without earning retaliation
The administration also did not mention that the election hacking occurred largely because of Podesta’s own carelessness in using his security password. Moreover, it failed to acknowledge that the Republican National Committee was likewise targeted, but apparently had enough safeguards to prevent successful entry into its records. Finally, the administration refused to mention that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange went on the record saying that he did not receive the email trove from the Russians.
The truth is that Obama, throughout his presidency, has appeased Putin. As president, Obama ended the previously agreed-on Eastern European missile defense; he made open-mic promises to be more flexible with Putin after his reelection; he barely responded to Russia’s aggression toward Crimea and Ukraine; and he constantly criticized both George W. Bush and Mitt Romney for being inordinately tough on Russia.
Until now, he saw no reason to stop enabling Russia. Had Hillary Clinton won the election, Putin’s alleged hacking would not have earned any administration attention. But this time around, an emboldened Putin allegedly went too far and crossed the only red line that Obama might have enforced by supposedly enabling the release of information that might have turned off some voters on Clinton. Blaming Putin for Clinton’s loss was a more convenient narrative than admitting that Obama’s own policies have turned off even traditional Democratic constituencies and for now reduced the Democratic Party to a minority coastal party.
All administrations play fast and loose with the truth. It is the nature of high politics to fib, cover up, and fudge in order to ensure the success of a so-called noble agenda for the greater good. But not since the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations have we seen a president so institutionalize misrepresentation.
There are ample examples. It was clear from Clinton’s own leaked emails and from real-time memos from intelligence agencies that the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not a spontaneous riot over an insensitive video produced by a reactionary Coptic zealot residing in the United States, as the administration claimed. But such a concoction fit Obama’s 2012 reelection narrative: the recklessness of right-wing Islamophobes endangers national security abroad. In contrast, the reality—a preplanned al-Qaeda-affiliated attack on an unprepared and semi-covert American consulate—challenged Obama’s reelection myth that Al Qaeda was “on the run” and that the administration was vigilant in ensuring security for our diplomatic personnel in the Middle East.
The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. at the time, Susan Rice, went on five Sunday morning talk shows to insist, quite wrongly, that the deaths of four Americans in the attack were the tragic result of ad hoc furor over intolerance. The video-maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was abruptly jailed on probation violation charges, in a display of swift American justice never matched by a commensurately prompt arrest and prosecution of real terrorists.
Another example of Obama administration’s misrepresentation concerns U.S. army soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who went AWOL from his post in Afghanistan and ended up a captive of Taliban affiliates from June 2009 until his release in May 2014. The Obama administration conducted lengthy and stealthy negotiations to return the deserter to U.S. custody. As part of the bargain, it agreed to release five Taliban terrorists from the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. In an about-face, an Army command announced last year that Bergdahl will soon be facing charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Yet to gain Bergdahl’s release, the Obama administration fabricated a completely different narrative to justify the embarrassing swap and concessions to the Taliban. Bergdahl, in National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s words, “served the United States with honor and distinction.”
Upon his release, Bergdahl parents were brought to the White House for photo-ops, where his father appeared with a long beard and shaved lip—not unlike the facial hair worn by his son’s Taliban captors. Bill Bergdahl thanked the concerned parties and broke into rudimentary Pashto and Urdu, praising Allah for his son’s release. The staged press conference was designed to underscore the administration’s view that the son of a multicultural family had naively and innocently wondered off from his compound. But now, young Bergdahl was safe with his family, due to the Obama administration. The disturbing truth was more likely that the administration traded prisoners for a U.S. deserter, while pushing the false narrative of returning an American patriot to his parents.
The far more important Iran nuclear deal of summer 2015 followed a similar pattern of dissimulation. “Bold” and “courageous” Middle East diplomacy nonetheless required White House subterfuge and deceitfulness. Ostensibly only Barack Obama was unaffected by past presidents’ prejudices against the revolutionary regime in Iran and thus could appreciate the mutual advantages of a breakthrough agreement to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb—as part of a larger diplomatic effort to return Shiite and Persian Iran to its natural role as a balancing force in the otherwise largely Sunni and Arab Middle East
In exchange for the U.S. and its allies dropping sanctions and commercial penalties—some of them approved by the UN—the theocracy purportedly agreed to reduce its installed centrifuges for 10 years. It promised to put limits on the purity of its enriched uranium and to reduce existing stockpiles. It agreed not to expand its enrichment facilities, while allowing on-site inspections.
But after 18 months, the true character of the deal has been revealed through slow leaks. In a secret side deal, Iran can update and improve its centrifuges; it can also inspect its own enrichment centers and report the results to international authorities; beyond that, Iran received a $400 million ransom payment on the exact day that Iranian-held U.S. hostages were let go.
More recently we learned that Iran got the sanctions lifted before it met all its obligations outlined in the deal. Ben Rhodes, an architect of the swap and deputy national security advisor, boasted about the administration’s affinity for deceit. Rhodes, described by a New York Times interviewer as “a storyteller who uses a writer’s tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal,” explained the methods of concocting an Iran narrative to a guidable media: “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” Rhodes intoned. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. . . The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
Rhodes’s cynicism was reminiscent of the boasts of another administration advisor, the MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who bragged of the administration’s ability to get passed the Patient Protection and affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), largely through deliberate deceit about the inevitable consequences of higher premiums and deductibles, the dropping of existing coverage and doctors, and increases in federal outlays. Some of the bill’s more obvious and unpopular elements—such as the employer mandate—were not enforced until after Obama’s 2012 reelection bid. Gruber admitted that the law was composed “in a tortured way” to delude people into accepting that “healthy people pay in and sick people get money”—a subterfuge that was both necessary and worked because of “the stupidity of the American voter,” a fact confirming that the “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage”
Other examples of dissimulation exist—from Obama’s about-face on border enforcement, in which he redefined deportation and reneged on his promises to enforce existing law, to the linguistic gymnastics he employed to mask the disastrously abrupt pullout of peacekeepers from Iraq (ISIS as “the “jayvees”). Most recently, the administration has not been candid about the details of its latest estrangement with Israel. Obama and his foreign policy team hid the fact that they had helped to engineer a UN resolution condemning Israel, by suggesting to the public that they were unaware of the depths of apparently spontaneous expressions of anti-Israeli anger.
Why does the Obama administration contort reality and mask the consequences of its initiatives?
Two reasons come to mind. One, Obama advanced an agenda to the left of that shared by most past presidents. Obamacare, the Benghazi catastrophe, the Iran deal, his strange stance toward radical Islam, and the Bergdahl swap were unpopular measures that required politically-driven recalibrations to escape American scrutiny.
Second, Obama’s team believes that the goals of fairness and egalitarianism more than justify the means of dissimulation by more sophisticated elites. Thus Gruber (“the stupidity of the American voter”) and Rhodes (“They literally know nothing”) employ deception on our behalf. Central to this worldview is that the American people are naive and easily manipulated, and thus need to be brought up to speed by a paternal administration that knows what is best for its vulnerable and clueless citizenry.
Such condescension is also why the administration never believes it has done anything wrong by hiding the facts of these controversies. Its players believe that because they did it all for us, the ensuing distasteful means will be forgotten once we finally progress enough to appreciate their enlightened ends.
http://www.hoover.org/research/obamas-legacy-deceit?utm_source=hdr&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2017-01-06
John Kerry blames British Parliament for derailing US plans to strike Syria
(classic leading from behind again. fits the lib 'orientation'.)
Raf Sanchez, Middle East correspondent
6 January 2017 • 2:19pm
The British Parliament’s vote against bombing Syria derailed America’s own plans to use force against the Assad regime in response to its use of chemical weapons, John Kerry has said.
It has long been speculated that Barack Obama backed away from his plan to strike Syria because of David Cameron’s defeat in the House of Commons in 2013, but the outgoing US Secretary of State confirmed it officially in a farewell press conference.
Asked about the moment Mr Obama decided not to enforce his “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Mr Kerry said on Thursday that the British vote meant the US President felt he had no choice but to secure approval from the US Congress.
“The President decided that he needed to go to Congress because of what had happened in Great Britain,” Mr Kerry said.
“We were marching towards that time when, lo and behold, on a Thursday of a week before the Friday decision, Prime Minister David Cameron went to Parliament … he sought a vote of approval for him to join in the action that we were going to engage in. And guess what? The Parliament voted no. They shot him down.”
Parliament voted 285-272 against the strikes in August 2013.
Mr Obama’s decision to try to secure Congressional approval for strikes drastically slowed down what appeared to be a rapid march towards war.
While the White House was lobbying members of Congress to vote in favour, a deal was struck in which the Assad regime agreed to give up its chemical weapons. In the end the US did not launch any strikes.
The dramatic weeks in the summer of 2013 were a defining moment in Mr Obama’s presidency.
Critics both in the US and in the Middle East said the failure to enforce “the red line” shattered America’s credibility and encouraged adventurism by America’s enemies.
They argue that Russia’s decision to annex Crimea the following year was informed by it and that the Assad regime was emboldened to carry out atrocities against civilians in Syria.
Mr Obama and his supporters argue that the credible threat of military intervention forced Mr Assad into giving up his chemical arsenal, removing the danger that the weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/john-kerry-blames-british-parliament-derailing-us-plans-strike/
The difference is Cameron is required to go to Parliament. BO was the Commander and Chief and didn't have to as demonstrated throughout his terms. Excuses are like aholes, everyone has one.... They still used chemical weapons and let Putin have the open door to the region, first time since 1970ish....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/john-kerry-blames-british-parliament-derailing-us-plans-strike/
John Kerry blames British Parliament for derailing US plans to strike Syria
(classic leading from behind again. fits the lib 'orientation'.)
Raf Sanchez, Middle East correspondent
6 January 2017 • 2:19pm
The British Parliament’s vote against bombing Syria derailed America’s own plans to use force against the Assad regime in response to its use of chemical weapons, John Kerry has said.
It has long been speculated that Barack Obama backed away from his plan to strike Syria because of David Cameron’s defeat in the House of Commons in 2013, but the outgoing US Secretary of State confirmed it officially in a farewell press conference.
Asked about the moment Mr Obama decided not to enforce his “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Mr Kerry said on Thursday that the British vote meant the US President felt he had no choice but to secure approval from the US Congress.
“The President decided that he needed to go to Congress because of what had happened in Great Britain,” Mr Kerry said.
“We were marching towards that time when, lo and behold, on a Thursday of a week before the Friday decision, Prime Minister David Cameron went to Parliament … he sought a vote of approval for him to join in the action that we were going to engage in. And guess what? The Parliament voted no. They shot him down.”
Parliament voted 285-272 against the strikes in August 2013.
Mr Obama’s decision to try to secure Congressional approval for strikes drastically slowed down what appeared to be a rapid march towards war.
While the White House was lobbying members of Congress to vote in favour, a deal was struck in which the Assad regime agreed to give up its chemical weapons. In the end the US did not launch any strikes.
The dramatic weeks in the summer of 2013 were a defining moment in Mr Obama’s presidency.
Critics both in the US and in the Middle East said the failure to enforce “the red line” shattered America’s credibility and encouraged adventurism by America’s enemies.
They argue that Russia’s decision to annex Crimea the following year was informed by it and that the Assad regime was emboldened to carry out atrocities against civilians in Syria.
Mr Obama and his supporters argue that the credible threat of military intervention forced Mr Assad into giving up his chemical arsenal, removing the danger that the weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/john-kerry-blames-british-parliament-derailing-us-plans-strike/
The difference is Cameron is required to go to Parliament. BO was the Commander and Chief and didn't have to as demonstrated throughout his terms. Excuses are like aholes, everyone has one.... They still used chemical weapons and let Putin have the open door to the region, first time since 1970ish....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/john-kerry-blames-british-parliament-derailing-us-plans-strike/
How Trump Can Solidify a New Majority Coalition
He won because of the electorate’s intense desire for change. If he can satisfy that desire, he’ll keep winning going forward.
By John McLaughlin & Jim McLaughlin — January 4, 2017
As we enter the first week of 2017, it’s important to put aside some of the myths from 2016 and look at what’s really at stake in the new year for President-elect Donald Trump and the nation.
The results from our post-election survey of November 8th and our December national poll (sponsored by Secure America Now) show that public opinion is moving strongly in favor of Trump. During the 2016 campaign, polls frequently showed that well more than 50 percent of voters viewed him unfavorably. But by December, he had a net-positive job-approval rating, with 48 of Americans approving of him and only 41 percent disapproving. This suggests that Trump has maintained the momentum that allowed him to win the White House.
At year’s end, Trump voters enthusiastically approved of the job being done by the President-elect, 91 percent to 3 percent; Republicans approved 83 percent to 11 percent; conservatives approved 73 percent to 15 percent; and those who disapproved of the job President Obama has done approved of Trump 77 percent to 12 percent. But Trump’s polling surge is generating a negative reaction from Democratic elites and the liberal media, who wish to see him fail. They fear that if Donald Trump increases his job approval above 50 or even 60 percent, he’ll have the kind of political capital that Ronald Reagan had to pass his conservative, populist agenda. Here’s what really worries them: 14 percent of Clinton voters now approve of Trump, as do 21 percent of the Democrats 25 percent of voters who approve of the job Obama is doing, 24 percent of African American voters, 31 percent of liberals, 44 percent of the under-40 vote, and 44 percent of Hispanics.
In short, Trump is making significant inroads into his opposition’s base, and if he can sustain them he could create a new majority governing coalition. That’s what’s at stake at this very early date.
The partisan efforts by Washington Democrats, liberal media elites, and even President Obama to delegitimize President-elect Trump before he’s sworn in are transparent. They are also so far failing, because the powerful trends that helped elect Trump remain in his favor.
Back on Election Day, we pegged Trump’s favorable rating at 43 percent and his unfavorable rating at 55 percent. Hillary Clinton had a slightly worse 42 percent favorable rating and 56 percent unfavorable rating. What ultimately put Trump over the top was the electorate’s intense desire for change. On Election Day, 63 percent of voters said the country was on the wrong track. There was no mandate to keep the country headed in the direction that President Obama had led us. The national media’s Election Day exit polling showed that only 36 percent of all voters said the economy was good; 62 percent said that it was unhealthy, and they voted for Trump 63 percent to 31 percent. The country wanted something new, and Trump provided it.
From our first involvement in the Trump campaign during the primaries, we advised Mr. Trump to make change the foundation of his message on every issue, and to target those uncommitted battleground-state voters whom our polling identified as wanting change. He did so enthusiastically, and it won him one of the great upsets in American political history. The strategy of the Trump campaign united the Sun Belt with the Rust Belt into a new heartland coalition that isolated and beat the ruling elites of Washington, D.C.
Now it’s critical that he personify the change he was elected to provide from Day One of his presidency. In our December poll, all voters said that they want change, 52 percent to 39 percent; Trump voters want change 90 percent to 8 percent; Republicans want change 84 percent to 12 percent; and conservatives want change 82 percent to 12 percent. The opposition’s base feels the same: 16 percent of Clinton voters want change; 17 percent of Democrats want change; 18 percent of African Americans want change; 33 percent of Hispanics want change; and 40 percent of voters under 40 want change. By satisfying the country’s broad desire for a course correction, Trump can raise his popularity and create a durable majority coalition.
There’s more bad news for liberals: The evidence suggests that the kind of change most Americans want is the kind of change Trump, with a united Republican government behind him, is uniquely positioned to provide. Just as two in three Americans have thought that the country is on the wrong track for the past few years, a five-to-three majority — 55 percent to 31 percent on Election Day, and 53 percent to 31 percent in December — preferred a smaller government with fewer services to a larger government with many services. Sixty percent approved of repealing and replacing Obamacare, versus only 33 percent who disapproved. Fifty-one percent of voters wanted President Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal due to the lack of US inspections, versus only 22 percent who wanted him to keep it in place. A 62 percent to 27 percent majority would cut off federal funds to cities that refuse to turn in criminal illegal aliens. And 66 percent support a moratorium on accepting Middle Eastern refugees until we can be sure that they are not a threat to community safety, national security, or the health of our economy.
In other words, the list of majority-supported positions in Trump’s platform is long. But given the enormity of the swamp he’s promised to drain in D.C., he will need to proceed with caution in crafting his list of priorities. After Senate Democrats lost their majority in 2014, the man who would become their leader, Charles Schumer, “slammed his party . . . for pursuing health-care reform in 2009 and 2010, arguing that Democrats hurt themselves politically by not focusing instead on policies aimed at helping a ‘broader swath’ of middle-class Americans.” Simply put, Schumer believed that the Democrats should have focused on economic growth and jobs before health care when Obama first took office.
Ironically, President Trump and the Republicans may be in the same situation now.
When we asked voters what should be the top priority for President Trump and the new Congress, almost half of them, 47 percent, cited creating jobs and reducing taxes. The next largest voter segment, 34 percent, cited security issues. Although there is broad support among the electorate for repealing and replacing Obamacare, it’s a secondary priority to economic growth and security issues; only 13 percent said it should be first on Trump’s to-do list.
Keeping America secure and safe from terror is clearly important to Trump’s base; 49 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Trump voters cited security issues as their top priority. But 65 percent of Clinton voters, 61 percent of Democrats, and 54 percent of Independents named creating jobs and reducing taxes as the most important thing. So obstructing economic growth and job creation will be the top goal for Democrats in Congress, lest they lose their base.
The reality is that creating economic growth, strengthening security, and repealing and replacing Obamacare are all positions that should be put in motion in the very first year. These issues are not mutually exclusive; they represent much of Trump’s platform. But as the most immediate priority for most voters, economic growth and job creation need to be addressed first, before the 2018 midterm election and the 2020 presidential campaign.
Those of us who remember that the Reagan economic plan didn’t go into effect until 1983 know that, as the recession continued in 1982, Republicans lost 27 House seats and seven governors to Democrats. A similar outcome in 2018 would cost the GOP its House majority and its majority of governors just as it comes time for another round of redistricting. Trump and the Republican party he leads should do everything in their power to avoid such a loss over the next two years. And that means focusing on prosperity and peace — familiar goals that after the previous administration will be a challenge to achieve. It won’t be easy, but it can be done, and it is what Americans wanted when they elected Trump president.
— John McLaughlin and Jim McLaughlin are Republican strategists and partners in the national polling firm McLaughlin & Associates, which polled for the Trump campaign in 2016.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443516/donald-trump-majority-coalition-change-agent-agenda
How Trump Can Solidify a New Majority Coalition
He won because of the electorate’s intense desire for change. If he can satisfy that desire, he’ll keep winning going forward.
By John McLaughlin & Jim McLaughlin — January 4, 2017
As we enter the first week of 2017, it’s important to put aside some of the myths from 2016 and look at what’s really at stake in the new year for President-elect Donald Trump and the nation.
The results from our post-election survey of November 8th and our December national poll (sponsored by Secure America Now) show that public opinion is moving strongly in favor of Trump. During the 2016 campaign, polls frequently showed that well more than 50 percent of voters viewed him unfavorably. But by December, he had a net-positive job-approval rating, with 48 of Americans approving of him and only 41 percent disapproving. This suggests that Trump has maintained the momentum that allowed him to win the White House.
At year’s end, Trump voters enthusiastically approved of the job being done by the President-elect, 91 percent to 3 percent; Republicans approved 83 percent to 11 percent; conservatives approved 73 percent to 15 percent; and those who disapproved of the job President Obama has done approved of Trump 77 percent to 12 percent. But Trump’s polling surge is generating a negative reaction from Democratic elites and the liberal media, who wish to see him fail. They fear that if Donald Trump increases his job approval above 50 or even 60 percent, he’ll have the kind of political capital that Ronald Reagan had to pass his conservative, populist agenda. Here’s what really worries them: 14 percent of Clinton voters now approve of Trump, as do 21 percent of the Democrats 25 percent of voters who approve of the job Obama is doing, 24 percent of African American voters, 31 percent of liberals, 44 percent of the under-40 vote, and 44 percent of Hispanics.
In short, Trump is making significant inroads into his opposition’s base, and if he can sustain them he could create a new majority governing coalition. That’s what’s at stake at this very early date.
The partisan efforts by Washington Democrats, liberal media elites, and even President Obama to delegitimize President-elect Trump before he’s sworn in are transparent. They are also so far failing, because the powerful trends that helped elect Trump remain in his favor.
Back on Election Day, we pegged Trump’s favorable rating at 43 percent and his unfavorable rating at 55 percent. Hillary Clinton had a slightly worse 42 percent favorable rating and 56 percent unfavorable rating. What ultimately put Trump over the top was the electorate’s intense desire for change. On Election Day, 63 percent of voters said the country was on the wrong track. There was no mandate to keep the country headed in the direction that President Obama had led us. The national media’s Election Day exit polling showed that only 36 percent of all voters said the economy was good; 62 percent said that it was unhealthy, and they voted for Trump 63 percent to 31 percent. The country wanted something new, and Trump provided it.
From our first involvement in the Trump campaign during the primaries, we advised Mr. Trump to make change the foundation of his message on every issue, and to target those uncommitted battleground-state voters whom our polling identified as wanting change. He did so enthusiastically, and it won him one of the great upsets in American political history. The strategy of the Trump campaign united the Sun Belt with the Rust Belt into a new heartland coalition that isolated and beat the ruling elites of Washington, D.C.
Now it’s critical that he personify the change he was elected to provide from Day One of his presidency. In our December poll, all voters said that they want change, 52 percent to 39 percent; Trump voters want change 90 percent to 8 percent; Republicans want change 84 percent to 12 percent; and conservatives want change 82 percent to 12 percent. The opposition’s base feels the same: 16 percent of Clinton voters want change; 17 percent of Democrats want change; 18 percent of African Americans want change; 33 percent of Hispanics want change; and 40 percent of voters under 40 want change. By satisfying the country’s broad desire for a course correction, Trump can raise his popularity and create a durable majority coalition.
There’s more bad news for liberals: The evidence suggests that the kind of change most Americans want is the kind of change Trump, with a united Republican government behind him, is uniquely positioned to provide. Just as two in three Americans have thought that the country is on the wrong track for the past few years, a five-to-three majority — 55 percent to 31 percent on Election Day, and 53 percent to 31 percent in December — preferred a smaller government with fewer services to a larger government with many services. Sixty percent approved of repealing and replacing Obamacare, versus only 33 percent who disapproved. Fifty-one percent of voters wanted President Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal due to the lack of US inspections, versus only 22 percent who wanted him to keep it in place. A 62 percent to 27 percent majority would cut off federal funds to cities that refuse to turn in criminal illegal aliens. And 66 percent support a moratorium on accepting Middle Eastern refugees until we can be sure that they are not a threat to community safety, national security, or the health of our economy.
In other words, the list of majority-supported positions in Trump’s platform is long. But given the enormity of the swamp he’s promised to drain in D.C., he will need to proceed with caution in crafting his list of priorities. After Senate Democrats lost their majority in 2014, the man who would become their leader, Charles Schumer, “slammed his party . . . for pursuing health-care reform in 2009 and 2010, arguing that Democrats hurt themselves politically by not focusing instead on policies aimed at helping a ‘broader swath’ of middle-class Americans.” Simply put, Schumer believed that the Democrats should have focused on economic growth and jobs before health care when Obama first took office.
Ironically, President Trump and the Republicans may be in the same situation now.
When we asked voters what should be the top priority for President Trump and the new Congress, almost half of them, 47 percent, cited creating jobs and reducing taxes. The next largest voter segment, 34 percent, cited security issues. Although there is broad support among the electorate for repealing and replacing Obamacare, it’s a secondary priority to economic growth and security issues; only 13 percent said it should be first on Trump’s to-do list.
Keeping America secure and safe from terror is clearly important to Trump’s base; 49 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Trump voters cited security issues as their top priority. But 65 percent of Clinton voters, 61 percent of Democrats, and 54 percent of Independents named creating jobs and reducing taxes as the most important thing. So obstructing economic growth and job creation will be the top goal for Democrats in Congress, lest they lose their base.
The reality is that creating economic growth, strengthening security, and repealing and replacing Obamacare are all positions that should be put in motion in the very first year. These issues are not mutually exclusive; they represent much of Trump’s platform. But as the most immediate priority for most voters, economic growth and job creation need to be addressed first, before the 2018 midterm election and the 2020 presidential campaign.
Those of us who remember that the Reagan economic plan didn’t go into effect until 1983 know that, as the recession continued in 1982, Republicans lost 27 House seats and seven governors to Democrats. A similar outcome in 2018 would cost the GOP its House majority and its majority of governors just as it comes time for another round of redistricting. Trump and the Republican party he leads should do everything in their power to avoid such a loss over the next two years. And that means focusing on prosperity and peace — familiar goals that after the previous administration will be a challenge to achieve. It won’t be easy, but it can be done, and it is what Americans wanted when they elected Trump president.
— John McLaughlin and Jim McLaughlin are Republican strategists and partners in the national polling firm McLaughlin & Associates, which polled for the Trump campaign in 2016.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443516/donald-trump-majority-coalition-change-agent-agenda
What is the future of the U.S.-China relationship?
Questions arise in advance of the incoming administration of Donald Trump; Stanford experts offer their perspective.
By Alex Shashkevich
The relationship between the U.S. and China has been recently put in the spotlight after President-elect Donald Trump reportedly talked to the president of Taiwan, aggravating some Chinese leaders.
Two Stanford experts talked with Stanford Report about what the future holds for U.S.-China relations.
Nicholas Hope is the former director of the Stanford Center for International Development; he has directed the Center’s China research program since 1998.
Adm. Gary Roughead is the Robert and Marion Oster Distinguished Military Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. He served as the 29th chief of naval operations after holding six operational commands and is one of only two officers in the navy’s history to have commanded both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.
How might the election of Donald Trump change the U.S.-China relationship?
Chess pieces with American and Chinese flags
Stanford experts Nicholas Hope and Gary Roughead analyze the next administration’s possible moves and countermoves with China. (Image credit: avdeev707 / Getty Images)
Hope: The future of the relationship is, in a word, unpredictable. Certainly, a lot of pre-election rhetoric – the anti-trade rhetoric from both candidates – pointed toward the relationship with China potentially getting rockier, certainly so for Trump, who made pretty outrageous statements about trade.
Roughead: From my perspective, it’s a bit too early to say how that relationship will shape up. Clearly the early comments that were made and Trump’s phone call with Taiwan really put the relationship in the spotlight. The new administration is still building its team, and his national security leadership has yet to set an approach and priorities and to formulate policies. I think it will take some time until we see a more coherent approach that highlights the policies that will be put in place when it comes to U.S.-China relations. Trump’s picks for state, commerce and defense positions are key players here.
China appeared upset after Trump talked to Taiwan’s leader, which was the first time a U.S. president or president-elect has had contact with Taiwan’s leadership since 1979. Why is Taiwan a sensitive subject for China?
Hope: I can’t help but feel that Trump is listening to the wrong Republican advisers on this issue. His initial discussion with China’s president, Xi Jinping, was seen as positive. But then he muddied the water with his conversation with Taiwan’s president. Anybody who deals with China recognizes that all Chinese regard Taiwan as an integral part of their country. There is a visceral reaction even at the thought that an external agent would intervene between Taiwan and China. My view is that if you want to get into a shooting war with China, you just have to continue to promote the idea of Taiwanese independence.
Roughead: Until Trump’s phone call Taiwan was not that prominent in U.S. discourse, but as an issue it has always been there, it’s always been important to China. Mention Taiwan in China or to a Chinese delegation and you’re off to the races. The view that Taiwan is an integral part of China is an absolutely inflexible position on the part of the People’s Republic of China.
Trump also recently suggested possibly moving away from the long-standing American position that Taiwan is part of “one China.” Why has this policy existed and what could happen if the policy is changed?
Hope: Now, there is real concern in China about the state of the “one China” policy, which was the basis for the Nixon-Kissinger recognition of the People’s Republic of China in the 1970s. The policy was created to promote peace and its aim was to minimize the possibility of a military conflict between Taiwan and China. This policy enabled China and the U.S. to develop peaceful and constructive relations, despite periodic tensions, over ensuing decades. If that policy is abandoned, Chinese-U.S. relations could be damaged irretrievably. Whether or not that could provoke a war is hard to say, but why would you risk it?
Roughead: Moving away from that policy would be an unacceptable turn of events for China. It would fundamentally challenge China’s view of the integrity of the state and would be interpreted as the U.S. trying to tear apart the fabric of the “one China” policy that has been maintained for decades.
Are these recent developments an attempt by Trump to address trade issues between the U.S. and China, which he has talked about?
Hope: If that’s Trump’s intention, he is foolish. A trade war would be so damaging for everybody that I have to believe his suggestions about imposing punitive tariffs on Chinese goods and tearing up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have to be bluster. Taiwan is not a chess piece; the Chinese view it as a sacred part of the motherland. They’re not going to barter that position for concessions on trade. If that is what the transition team is thinking, then they delude themselves. They should be heeding George Shultz’s wise injunction from an earlier Republican administration: “one country; peaceful means.”
Roughead: It’s possible that by putting this on the table it was a not-so-subtle signal that the relationship between the two countries could potentially be different. Is Taiwan a bargaining chip? Only the president-elect and his team know that. If Taiwan was to be used as a chess piece as far as trade, it will be a much bigger issue for China than just trade.
What are the biggest challenges between China and the U.S.?
Hope: The history of the 21st century is going to be determined by whether China and the U.S. develop a cooperative relationship for the good of us all or whether they don’t. They don’t have to become great friends, but they have to recognize and respect each other’s interests and be willing to compromise.For a good part of the past 70 years, the U.S. drove the bus. What was good for the U.S. was presumed to be good for everybody else in the non-Communist world. That’s changing. Going forward, China will not accept the U.S. telling it what to do. In all probability the Russians and many other countries won’t either. It’s up to the U.S. to exercise leadership in a way that promotes a peaceful, productive world.
Roughead: It’s the most strategic issue for the U.S.: Who will be the dominant power in Asia and therefore what rule set will be in place? It’s the answer that cuts across economics and security in the region and globally. How do you deal with the intertwined economic interests of both of our countries? How do these two powers – and you have to recognize China as a significant power in Asia – deal with one another? How do we continue to benefit one another? Another aspect important to consider is the growth of Chinese military capabilities over the past two decades. In fact, by 2020 they’re projected to have the second largest Navy in the world, and by 2030 they’ll be as big as us. The strategic relationship between China and Russia is also an important point. It could make the security environment a lot more complex.
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/04/stanford-experts-debate-future-u-s-china-relationship/
What is the future of the U.S.-China relationship?
Questions arise in advance of the incoming administration of Donald Trump; Stanford experts offer their perspective.
By Alex Shashkevich
The relationship between the U.S. and China has been recently put in the spotlight after President-elect Donald Trump reportedly talked to the president of Taiwan, aggravating some Chinese leaders.
Two Stanford experts talked with Stanford Report about what the future holds for U.S.-China relations.
Nicholas Hope is the former director of the Stanford Center for International Development; he has directed the Center’s China research program since 1998.
Adm. Gary Roughead is the Robert and Marion Oster Distinguished Military Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. He served as the 29th chief of naval operations after holding six operational commands and is one of only two officers in the navy’s history to have commanded both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.
How might the election of Donald Trump change the U.S.-China relationship?
Chess pieces with American and Chinese flags
Stanford experts Nicholas Hope and Gary Roughead analyze the next administration’s possible moves and countermoves with China. (Image credit: avdeev707 / Getty Images)
Hope: The future of the relationship is, in a word, unpredictable. Certainly, a lot of pre-election rhetoric – the anti-trade rhetoric from both candidates – pointed toward the relationship with China potentially getting rockier, certainly so for Trump, who made pretty outrageous statements about trade.
Roughead: From my perspective, it’s a bit too early to say how that relationship will shape up. Clearly the early comments that were made and Trump’s phone call with Taiwan really put the relationship in the spotlight. The new administration is still building its team, and his national security leadership has yet to set an approach and priorities and to formulate policies. I think it will take some time until we see a more coherent approach that highlights the policies that will be put in place when it comes to U.S.-China relations. Trump’s picks for state, commerce and defense positions are key players here.
China appeared upset after Trump talked to Taiwan’s leader, which was the first time a U.S. president or president-elect has had contact with Taiwan’s leadership since 1979. Why is Taiwan a sensitive subject for China?
Hope: I can’t help but feel that Trump is listening to the wrong Republican advisers on this issue. His initial discussion with China’s president, Xi Jinping, was seen as positive. But then he muddied the water with his conversation with Taiwan’s president. Anybody who deals with China recognizes that all Chinese regard Taiwan as an integral part of their country. There is a visceral reaction even at the thought that an external agent would intervene between Taiwan and China. My view is that if you want to get into a shooting war with China, you just have to continue to promote the idea of Taiwanese independence.
Roughead: Until Trump’s phone call Taiwan was not that prominent in U.S. discourse, but as an issue it has always been there, it’s always been important to China. Mention Taiwan in China or to a Chinese delegation and you’re off to the races. The view that Taiwan is an integral part of China is an absolutely inflexible position on the part of the People’s Republic of China.
Trump also recently suggested possibly moving away from the long-standing American position that Taiwan is part of “one China.” Why has this policy existed and what could happen if the policy is changed?
Hope: Now, there is real concern in China about the state of the “one China” policy, which was the basis for the Nixon-Kissinger recognition of the People’s Republic of China in the 1970s. The policy was created to promote peace and its aim was to minimize the possibility of a military conflict between Taiwan and China. This policy enabled China and the U.S. to develop peaceful and constructive relations, despite periodic tensions, over ensuing decades. If that policy is abandoned, Chinese-U.S. relations could be damaged irretrievably. Whether or not that could provoke a war is hard to say, but why would you risk it?
Roughead: Moving away from that policy would be an unacceptable turn of events for China. It would fundamentally challenge China’s view of the integrity of the state and would be interpreted as the U.S. trying to tear apart the fabric of the “one China” policy that has been maintained for decades.
Are these recent developments an attempt by Trump to address trade issues between the U.S. and China, which he has talked about?
Hope: If that’s Trump’s intention, he is foolish. A trade war would be so damaging for everybody that I have to believe his suggestions about imposing punitive tariffs on Chinese goods and tearing up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have to be bluster. Taiwan is not a chess piece; the Chinese view it as a sacred part of the motherland. They’re not going to barter that position for concessions on trade. If that is what the transition team is thinking, then they delude themselves. They should be heeding George Shultz’s wise injunction from an earlier Republican administration: “one country; peaceful means.”
Roughead: It’s possible that by putting this on the table it was a not-so-subtle signal that the relationship between the two countries could potentially be different. Is Taiwan a bargaining chip? Only the president-elect and his team know that. If Taiwan was to be used as a chess piece as far as trade, it will be a much bigger issue for China than just trade.
What are the biggest challenges between China and the U.S.?
Hope: The history of the 21st century is going to be determined by whether China and the U.S. develop a cooperative relationship for the good of us all or whether they don’t. They don’t have to become great friends, but they have to recognize and respect each other’s interests and be willing to compromise.For a good part of the past 70 years, the U.S. drove the bus. What was good for the U.S. was presumed to be good for everybody else in the non-Communist world. That’s changing. Going forward, China will not accept the U.S. telling it what to do. In all probability the Russians and many other countries won’t either. It’s up to the U.S. to exercise leadership in a way that promotes a peaceful, productive world.
Roughead: It’s the most strategic issue for the U.S.: Who will be the dominant power in Asia and therefore what rule set will be in place? It’s the answer that cuts across economics and security in the region and globally. How do you deal with the intertwined economic interests of both of our countries? How do these two powers – and you have to recognize China as a significant power in Asia – deal with one another? How do we continue to benefit one another? Another aspect important to consider is the growth of Chinese military capabilities over the past two decades. In fact, by 2020 they’re projected to have the second largest Navy in the world, and by 2030 they’ll be as big as us. The strategic relationship between China and Russia is also an important point. It could make the security environment a lot more complex.
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/04/stanford-experts-debate-future-u-s-china-relationship/
Why the Anti-Israel Sentiment?
World opinion against Israel comes from a great many factors — especially a certain ancient one.
By Victor Davis Hanson — January 5, 2017
Secretary of State John Kerry, echoing other policymakers in the Obama administration, blasted Israel last week in a 70-minute rant about its supposedly self-destructive policies.
Why does the world — including now the U.S. — single out liberal and lawful Israel but refrain from chastising truly illiberal countries?
Kerry has never sermonized for so long about his plan to solve the Syrian crisis that has led to some 500,000 deaths or the vast migrant crisis that has nearly wrecked the European Union.
No one in this administration has shown as much anger about the many thousands who have been killed and jailed in the Castro brothers’ Cuba, much less about the current Stone Age conditions in Venezuela or the nightmarish government of President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, an ally nation.
President Obama did not champion the cause of the oppressed during the Green Revolution of 2009 in Iran. Did Kerry and Obama become so outraged after Russia occupied South Ossetia, Crimea, and eastern Ukraine?
Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power was never so impassioned over the borders of Chinese-occupied Tibet, or over Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus.
In terms of harkening back to the Palestinian “refugee” crisis that started in the late 1940s, no one talks today in similar fashion about the Jews who survived the Holocaust and walked home, only to find that their houses in Eastern Europe were gone or occupied by others. Much less do we recall the 11 million German civilians who were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe in 1945 by the Soviets and their imposed Communist governments. Certainly, there are not still “refugee” camps outside Dresden for those persons displaced from East Prussia 70 years ago.
More recently, few nations at the U.N. faulted the Kuwaiti government for the expulsion of 200,000 Palestinians after the liberation of Kuwait by coalition forces in 1991.
Yet on nearly every issue — from “settlements” to human rights to the status of women — U.N. members that routinely violate human rights target a liberal Israel.
RELATED: Anti-Semitism, Brought to You by the United Nations
When President Obama entered office, among his first acts were to give an interview with the Saudi-owned news outlet Al Arabiya championing his outreach to the mostly non-democratic Islamic world and to blast democratic Israel on “settlements.”
Partly, the reason for such inordinate criticism of Israel is sheer cowardice. If Israel had 100 million people and was geographically large, the world would not so readily play the bully.
Instead, the United Nations and Europe would likely leave it alone — just as they give a pass to human-rights offenders such as Pakistan and Indonesia. If Israel were as big as Iran, and Iran as small as Israel, then the Obama administration would have not reached out to Iran, and would have left Israel alone.
RELATED: Why the Left Hates Jews
Israel’s supposed Western friends sort out Israel’s enemies by their relative natural resources, geography, and population — and conclude that supporting Israel is a bad deal in cost/benefit terms.
Partly, the criticism of Israel is explained by oil — an issue that is changing daily as both the U.S. and Israel cease to be oil importers.
Still, about 40 percent of the world’s oil is sold by Persian Gulf nations. Influential nations in Europe and China continue to count on oil imports from the Middle East — and make political adjustments accordingly.
Partly, anti-Israel rhetoric is due to herd politics.
The Palestinians — illiberal and reactionary on cherished Western issues like gender equality, homosexuality, religious tolerance, and diversity — have grafted their cause to the popular campus agendas of race/class/gender victimization.
RELATED: The Resilience of Israel
Western nations in general do not worry much about assorted non-Western crimes such as genocides, mass cleansings, or politically induced famines. Instead, they prefer sermons to other Westerners as a sort of virtue-signaling, without any worries over offending politically correct groups.
Partly, the piling on Israel is due to American leverage over Israel as a recipient of U.S. aid. As a benefactor, the Obama administration expects that Israel must match U.S. generosity with obeisance. Yet the U.S. rarely gives similar “how dare you” lectures to less liberal recipients of American aid, such as the Palestinians for their lack of free elections.
Partly, the cause of global hostility toward Israel is jealousy. If Israel were mired in Venezuela-like chaos, few nations would care. Instead, the image of a proud, successful, Westernized nation as an atoll in a sea of self-inflicted misery is grating to many. And the astounding success of Israel bothers so many failed states that the entire world takes notice.
But partly, the source of anti-Israelism is ancient anti-Semitism.
If Israelis were Egyptians administering Gaza or Jordanians running the West Bank (as during the 1960s), no one would care. The world’s problem is that Israelis are Jews. Thus, Israel earns negative scrutiny that is never extended commensurately to others.
Obama and his diplomatic team should have known all this. Perhaps they do, but they simply do not care.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2017 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443523/
Why the Anti-Israel Sentiment?
World opinion against Israel comes from a great many factors — especially a certain ancient one.
By Victor Davis Hanson — January 5, 2017
Secretary of State John Kerry, echoing other policymakers in the Obama administration, blasted Israel last week in a 70-minute rant about its supposedly self-destructive policies.
Why does the world — including now the U.S. — single out liberal and lawful Israel but refrain from chastising truly illiberal countries?
Kerry has never sermonized for so long about his plan to solve the Syrian crisis that has led to some 500,000 deaths or the vast migrant crisis that has nearly wrecked the European Union.
No one in this administration has shown as much anger about the many thousands who have been killed and jailed in the Castro brothers’ Cuba, much less about the current Stone Age conditions in Venezuela or the nightmarish government of President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, an ally nation.
President Obama did not champion the cause of the oppressed during the Green Revolution of 2009 in Iran. Did Kerry and Obama become so outraged after Russia occupied South Ossetia, Crimea, and eastern Ukraine?
Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power was never so impassioned over the borders of Chinese-occupied Tibet, or over Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus.
In terms of harkening back to the Palestinian “refugee” crisis that started in the late 1940s, no one talks today in similar fashion about the Jews who survived the Holocaust and walked home, only to find that their houses in Eastern Europe were gone or occupied by others. Much less do we recall the 11 million German civilians who were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe in 1945 by the Soviets and their imposed Communist governments. Certainly, there are not still “refugee” camps outside Dresden for those persons displaced from East Prussia 70 years ago.
More recently, few nations at the U.N. faulted the Kuwaiti government for the expulsion of 200,000 Palestinians after the liberation of Kuwait by coalition forces in 1991.
Yet on nearly every issue — from “settlements” to human rights to the status of women — U.N. members that routinely violate human rights target a liberal Israel.
RELATED: Anti-Semitism, Brought to You by the United Nations
When President Obama entered office, among his first acts were to give an interview with the Saudi-owned news outlet Al Arabiya championing his outreach to the mostly non-democratic Islamic world and to blast democratic Israel on “settlements.”
Partly, the reason for such inordinate criticism of Israel is sheer cowardice. If Israel had 100 million people and was geographically large, the world would not so readily play the bully.
Instead, the United Nations and Europe would likely leave it alone — just as they give a pass to human-rights offenders such as Pakistan and Indonesia. If Israel were as big as Iran, and Iran as small as Israel, then the Obama administration would have not reached out to Iran, and would have left Israel alone.
RELATED: Why the Left Hates Jews
Israel’s supposed Western friends sort out Israel’s enemies by their relative natural resources, geography, and population — and conclude that supporting Israel is a bad deal in cost/benefit terms.
Partly, the criticism of Israel is explained by oil — an issue that is changing daily as both the U.S. and Israel cease to be oil importers.
Still, about 40 percent of the world’s oil is sold by Persian Gulf nations. Influential nations in Europe and China continue to count on oil imports from the Middle East — and make political adjustments accordingly.
Partly, anti-Israel rhetoric is due to herd politics.
The Palestinians — illiberal and reactionary on cherished Western issues like gender equality, homosexuality, religious tolerance, and diversity — have grafted their cause to the popular campus agendas of race/class/gender victimization.
RELATED: The Resilience of Israel
Western nations in general do not worry much about assorted non-Western crimes such as genocides, mass cleansings, or politically induced famines. Instead, they prefer sermons to other Westerners as a sort of virtue-signaling, without any worries over offending politically correct groups.
Partly, the piling on Israel is due to American leverage over Israel as a recipient of U.S. aid. As a benefactor, the Obama administration expects that Israel must match U.S. generosity with obeisance. Yet the U.S. rarely gives similar “how dare you” lectures to less liberal recipients of American aid, such as the Palestinians for their lack of free elections.
Partly, the cause of global hostility toward Israel is jealousy. If Israel were mired in Venezuela-like chaos, few nations would care. Instead, the image of a proud, successful, Westernized nation as an atoll in a sea of self-inflicted misery is grating to many. And the astounding success of Israel bothers so many failed states that the entire world takes notice.
But partly, the source of anti-Israelism is ancient anti-Semitism.
If Israelis were Egyptians administering Gaza or Jordanians running the West Bank (as during the 1960s), no one would care. The world’s problem is that Israelis are Jews. Thus, Israel earns negative scrutiny that is never extended commensurately to others.
Obama and his diplomatic team should have known all this. Perhaps they do, but they simply do not care.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2017 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443523/
Don’t Let The Door Hit You
Posted By John Linder On 1:05 AM 01/03/2017 In | No Comments
For all of the raging on the Left about what an unpredictable President Trump may do to hurt America in the world, there is an uncomfortable quiet over President Obama’s petulant actions in his last days in office. For lame ducks world wide, this is embarrassing.
After insisting for eight years that he reset relations between the United States and Russia, the president now confronts Russia for doing digitally what they have been doing with other methods for 70 years – attempting to disrupt democratic elections. His expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats is very little very late and a poor substitute for failing to develop a cybersecurity policy over eight years. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by ridiculing Obama’s irrelevancy. He’ll wait for President Trump.
On Wednesday of this week Secretary of State John Kerry ranted for over an hour in a failing effort to blame Israeli settlements for the president’s decision to alter 40 years of policy with respect to Israel. With no public discussion whatever, President Obama took a few minutes off the golf course in Hawaii last weekend to instruct our United Nations ambassador to abstain from voting on a UN Security Council resolution blaming Israel for centuries of Arab hatred of Jews.
For 40 years the policy of the United States has been that final boundary lines between the Palestinians and the Israelis must be determined by those two peoples in bilateral negotiations. Last Saturday in a 14-0 vote the United Nations decided that, among other things, the iconic Jewish Wailing Wall is now illegally occupying Muslim land.
This is a huge change in policy in the Middle East. It guarantees that criminal charges against Israeli leaders will soon be filed in the International Criminal Court under the Geneva Convention. It eliminates any reason for the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis for further cessation of tension between the parties. They will wait for the UN to declare them a state and admit them as a member.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded harshly to Kerry’s screed pointing out that the United States’ role in this travesty went well beyond allowing it to pass. He claims to have iron-clad proof that the United States was complicit in the drafting of the resolution and actively sought support for it from the other 14 members of the Security Council. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko received a phone call from Vice President Joe Biden which succeeded in changing Ukraine’s vote from an expected abstention to a yes. Netanyahu responded by cancelling Poroshenko’s visit to Israel next week. And so it goes. This will not be the end.
The land in question was captured by Israel in the 16-day war 49 years ago, when it was attacked in a coordinated military assault by Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Some land was taken from each and an argument could be made that it should be returned to them. None can be made for awarding it to the Palestinian Authority to whom it never belonged.
During Kerry’s speech @RubinReport tweeted a this:
“Yes John Kerry. If only this orange sliver was smaller there would be peace.”
The map he included covered an area bounded by Istanbul 1000 miles to Israel’s North, Senagal 4500 miles to the West, Somalia 2000 miles to the South and Kyrgyzstan 2500 miles to the East.
Approximately 20 million square miles of Muslims committed to the extermination of the Jewish people who occupy 8000 square miles in their midst. And if we could just force Israel to give up a few more acres the Arabs will be satisfied and there will be peace.
As he is going out the door President Obama’s petulant actions only create problems for President Trump. For Israel it is a matter of life and death.
If you would like to be added to John Linder’s distribution list please send your email address to: linderje@yahoo.com or follow on Twitter: @linderje
Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/03/dont-let-the-door-hit-you/
The Duchess of Cambridge advises Michelle Obama to use anti-ageing cream
The 34-year-old royal - who has three-year-old son Prince George and eight-month-old daughter Princess Charlotte with her husband Prince William - is believed to have advised the 52-year-old First Lady of America on the best skincare products to slow down the appearance of wrinkles.
According to Michelle's make-up artist, Carl Ray, the brunette beauty - who is also known as Catherine or Kate Middleton - recommended Michelle used Biotulin Supreme Skin Gel on her face.
Speaking to Celebrities Style magazine about Michelle's beauty regime, Carl said: "Michelle Obama has been using this organic Botox gel regularly on the recommendation of Kate Middleton."
And Carl has revealed Michelle uses the serum on a "regular basis" and has found the product "unbelievable".
Carl continued: "The First Lady uses this bio Botox gel on a regular basis. The effect is unbelievable. One of the constituents of this gel is Spilanthol, a biological local anesthetic extracted from the plant Acmella Oleracea (paracress). Biotulin, as this gel is called, smooths out wrinkles within just one hour."
Meanwhile, Catherine and Michelle have both been credited as the most inspirational women girls aged between six to 12 years old look up to in a study undertaken by Disney UK.
Whilst Catherine was pitted highly in the study after receiving eight per cent of the vote, her mother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth, only just scraped into the Top 10 and was ranked ninth place after actress Emma Watson, Angelina Jolie, TV presenter Holly Willoughby and author J.K. Rowling.
(Mooche getting the spotlight now that Barry's has blown out....)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/style/the-duchess-of-cambridge-advises-michelle-obama-to-use-anti-ageing-cream/ar-BBxQ7WE?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp
Obama's Losing Victory Lap
By Nate Jackson
Jan. 3, 2017
The arrogance of Barack Obama knows no bounds. Despite seeing his party completely decimated1 by the 2016 elections (not to mention 2014 and 2010), Obama couldn’t resist yet another victory lap on his way out the door. Over the Christmas holiday, Obama boasted, “I am confident in [my] vision because I’m confident that if I — if I had run again and articulated it — I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.” Translation: Hillary Clinton really blew it, but Obama would’ve beaten Donald Trump.
The thing to remember is that all throughout the presidential race, Obama actively campaigned for Clinton, telling voters that though he wasn’t on the ballot his policies were. Voters responded accordingly, yet he now insists that his presence would’ve changed the results.
To continue this theme, Obama used his final weekly address2 of 2016 to recount all the ways in which he’s blessed America: He saved jobs and the auto industry, as well as brought marriage “equality.” Abroad, he killed Osama bin Laden, ended the war in Iraq, drew down from Afghanistan, made the greatest deal ever with Iran and became best friends with Raul Castro. As he walks out the door, he’s effectively saying, “You’re welcome, America.”
But again, the reality is that the economy has struggled through a record stretch of sub-3% growth thanks to his redistributive policies. Religious liberty is in jeopardy courtesy of the Rainbow Mafia’s marriage win. And the Middle East is a disaster thanks to his malfeasance. Not that he’ll ever admit it, but by electing Trump, America said, “Thanks Obama, but no thanks.”
https://patriotpost.us/posts/46681
Obama's Losing Victory Lap
By Nate Jackson
Jan. 3, 2017
The arrogance of Barack Obama knows no bounds. Despite seeing his party completely decimated1 by the 2016 elections (not to mention 2014 and 2010), Obama couldn’t resist yet another victory lap on his way out the door. Over the Christmas holiday, Obama boasted, “I am confident in [my] vision because I’m confident that if I — if I had run again and articulated it — I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.” Translation: Hillary Clinton really blew it, but Obama would’ve beaten Donald Trump.
The thing to remember is that all throughout the presidential race, Obama actively campaigned for Clinton, telling voters that though he wasn’t on the ballot his policies were. Voters responded accordingly, yet he now insists that his presence would’ve changed the results.
To continue this theme, Obama used his final weekly address2 of 2016 to recount all the ways in which he’s blessed America: He saved jobs and the auto industry, as well as brought marriage “equality.” Abroad, he killed Osama bin Laden, ended the war in Iraq, drew down from Afghanistan, made the greatest deal ever with Iran and became best friends with Raul Castro. As he walks out the door, he’s effectively saying, “You’re welcome, America.”
But again, the reality is that the economy has struggled through a record stretch of sub-3% growth thanks to his redistributive policies. Religious liberty is in jeopardy courtesy of the Rainbow Mafia’s marriage win. And the Middle East is a disaster thanks to his malfeasance. Not that he’ll ever admit it, but by electing Trump, America said, “Thanks Obama, but no thanks.”
https://patriotpost.us/posts/46681
A Tale of Two Hackings
Thomas Gallatin · Jan. 3, 2017
On Thursday, Barack Obama, through the office of the U.S. Treasury Department, announced his response to the alleged Russian hackings of the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The U.S. will expel 35 Russian diplomats and intelligence agents, sanction three Russian businesses and close access to two Russian government-owned compounds in Maryland and New York. Obama blamed the highest levels of government in Moscow for the hacks, claiming they were done to interfere in the U.S. election.
Democrats are predictably heaping praise on Obama’s decision, while several Republicans, long supportive of taking action against Moscow, have questioned the timing. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) stated, “While today’s action by the administration is overdue, it is an appropriate way to end eight years of failed policy with Russia.”
What is troubling about Obama’s recent actions is indeed the timing. Why now? While Obama decries Russian interference and the need for retaliation and greater security, the truth is, had Hillary Clinton won the election, he wouldn’t have even considered lifting a finger. Perhaps this was the yin to his 2012 yang, when he promised more flexibility with Russia after that election.
Furthermore, consider Obama’s response to China’s unprecedented hacking of the Office of Personnel Management. China stole personal data on more than 21.5 million government workers and Obama said almost nothing. In fact, the New York Times reported at the time that government officials “were under strict instructions to avoid naming China as the source of the attack.” How times have changed.
Obama’s newfound concern over the nation’s cybersecurity has far less to do with protecting the U.S. against future cyberattacks than bitter political retaliation against Donald Trump. Obama’s actions belie his lack of respect and trust in the U.S. system of government. He is primarily motivated not by concern for the well-being and security of the nation, but by protecting his own legacy and agenda. Since an incoming Trump presidency is a greater threat to Obama’s legacy than a nefarious geopolitical power such as Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Obama clearly wanted to complicate rather than support future foreign policy efforts by the incoming president. Some legacy.
https://patriotpost.us/posts/46688
Obama and Kerry Leave Legacy of Loathing Israel
By Paul Albaugh
Jan. 3, 2017
Many have worried that Barack Obama would do as much damage as he could before leaving office. As if the damage he’s already done to American foreign policy isn’t enough, right before Christmas, Obama and his administration compounded it by snubbing our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel.
Actually, calling it “snubbing” is far too polite, especially since Obama had told a crowd of Jewish supporters four years ago, “When the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.” As Charles Krauthammer put it1, “Obama took the measure of Israel’s back and slid a knife into it.” We are of course referring to Obama’s decision for the U.S. to abstain from the UN Security Council vote that permitted passage of a resolution condemning Israel over its “settlements.”
Gary Bauer explains2, “[The] U.N. resolution delegitimizes Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem. These are places where Jews have lived and worshipped for thousands of years, since before the birth of Jesus. Now the U.N., with the blessing of the Obama Administration, has declared that Jews have no right to live there. For Christians, these are places with tremendous significance. Great events of our faith took place in this land of the Jews. The effort to delegitimize the Jewish history and current presence in these places is also an attack on Christianity and its history.”
Obama pretends that abstaining isn’t harmful and that the U.S. has long opposed Israeli “settlements.” This simply is not true. Krauthammer notes, “For the last 35 years, every administration, including a re-election-seeking Obama himself in 2011, has protected Israel with the U.S. veto because such a Security Council resolution gives immense legal ammunition to every boycotter, anti-Semite and zealous European prosecutor to penalize and punish Israelis.”
Further, what about the last 50 years of U.S. Middle East policy of land for peace? The U.S, veto of the resolution would have protected this policy, but because there was no U.S. veto, the territories that belong to Israel can no longer be used in future negotiations since Palestinians can now lay claim to those territories.
As if this blow to Israel wasn’t bad enough, Secretary of State John Kerry last Wednesday delivered an anti-Israel tirade3. He called the Israeli government “the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements.” Should we be surprised by such a statement from the most extreme left-wing government in American history?
Kerry further lamented that the Western Wall and Temple Mount are illegally occupied by Israelis, before summoning the chutzpah to declare, “This administration has been Israel’s greatest friend and supporter.”
Kerry also accused Israel of undermining any hope of a two-state solution. He claimed that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state or perpetual occupation,” and asserted, “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both.” That statement completely contradicts U.S. policy with other countries in the Middle East. With Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government pleaded and pushed for those countries to adopt constitutions that allowed them to be democratic and Islamic.
But as National Review’s Andrew McCarthy points out4, in these “Islamic democracies” even Muslim minorities are not granted equal rights. Turkey is becoming less democratic and “less respectful of minority rights as it becomes more Islamic.” In fact, McCarthy notes, “It is only in Israel, a Jewish state, that Muslims live with full democratic rights. Yet, in Obama-world, Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic. Evidently, you need Sharia for that.”
Kerry’s speech was another reminder5 of why the Obama administration’s foreign policy has been such a disaster. Russia and Iran have been slaughtering thousands of civilians in Syria, while the Islamic State is still committing ruthless acts of terror in the region and inspiring it worldwide. Yet the administration has been more concerned with accommodating our adversaries and, in its final days, has decided to isolate and undermine Israel. In other words, Obama and Kerry have made the U.S. no different than the UN.
As Jonah Goldberg astutely writes, “It needs to be remembered that the U.N. hates Israel because it is in the political interests of member states, particularly Arab states, which use Palestinians as a distraction from their own despotisms, to hate Israel. Think of all the horrors and crimes committed by evil governments around the world. Now think about the fact that from 2006 to 2015 alone the U.N. has condemned Israel 62 times. All of the other nations combined have received 55 condemnations. Iran? Five. The genocidal Sudanese? Zero. Anarchic Somalia? Zero. Saudi Arabia? Zero. Pakistan? Zero. China? Zero. Russia? Zero.”
In fact, one should blame the UN for the Palestinian “refugee” crisis. They are the only post-World War II refugee group to remain unsettled and causing trouble.
Perhaps the only correct statement Kerry uttered was that Obama’s policies6 have a short shelf life. Despite being short-lived, however, there will be long-lasting — including violent — consequences to Obama’s betrayal of Israel.
Fortunately for Israel, Donald Trump has already signaled that he will reverse Obama’s horrendous policies, including a promise to move the U.S embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect,” Trump said after Kerry’s speech. “They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. … Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!” Indeed it is, and for Israel and the U.S. that date can’t arrive soon enough.
Links
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/46663
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/46643
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443392/john-kerry-secretary-state-failure-weakness
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443390/john-kerry-speech-israel-jewish-democratic-one-state-solution-islam
http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/28/kerry-takes-a-parting-shot-at-israel-in-mideast-speech/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443397/john-kerry-un-israeli-settlement-resolution-statement
https://patriotpost.us/articles/46687
Obama and Kerry Leave Legacy of Loathing Israel
By Paul Albaugh
Jan. 3, 2017
Many have worried that Barack Obama would do as much damage as he could before leaving office. As if the damage he’s already done to American foreign policy isn’t enough, right before Christmas, Obama and his administration compounded it by snubbing our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel.
Actually, calling it “snubbing” is far too polite, especially since Obama had told a crowd of Jewish supporters four years ago, “When the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.” As Charles Krauthammer put it1, “Obama took the measure of Israel’s back and slid a knife into it.” We are of course referring to Obama’s decision for the U.S. to abstain from the UN Security Council vote that permitted passage of a resolution condemning Israel over its “settlements.”
Gary Bauer explains2, “[The] U.N. resolution delegitimizes Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem. These are places where Jews have lived and worshipped for thousands of years, since before the birth of Jesus. Now the U.N., with the blessing of the Obama Administration, has declared that Jews have no right to live there. For Christians, these are places with tremendous significance. Great events of our faith took place in this land of the Jews. The effort to delegitimize the Jewish history and current presence in these places is also an attack on Christianity and its history.”
Obama pretends that abstaining isn’t harmful and that the U.S. has long opposed Israeli “settlements.” This simply is not true. Krauthammer notes, “For the last 35 years, every administration, including a re-election-seeking Obama himself in 2011, has protected Israel with the U.S. veto because such a Security Council resolution gives immense legal ammunition to every boycotter, anti-Semite and zealous European prosecutor to penalize and punish Israelis.”
Further, what about the last 50 years of U.S. Middle East policy of land for peace? The U.S, veto of the resolution would have protected this policy, but because there was no U.S. veto, the territories that belong to Israel can no longer be used in future negotiations since Palestinians can now lay claim to those territories.
As if this blow to Israel wasn’t bad enough, Secretary of State John Kerry last Wednesday delivered an anti-Israel tirade3. He called the Israeli government “the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements.” Should we be surprised by such a statement from the most extreme left-wing government in American history?
Kerry further lamented that the Western Wall and Temple Mount are illegally occupied by Israelis, before summoning the chutzpah to declare, “This administration has been Israel’s greatest friend and supporter.”
Kerry also accused Israel of undermining any hope of a two-state solution. He claimed that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state or perpetual occupation,” and asserted, “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both.” That statement completely contradicts U.S. policy with other countries in the Middle East. With Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government pleaded and pushed for those countries to adopt constitutions that allowed them to be democratic and Islamic.
But as National Review’s Andrew McCarthy points out4, in these “Islamic democracies” even Muslim minorities are not granted equal rights. Turkey is becoming less democratic and “less respectful of minority rights as it becomes more Islamic.” In fact, McCarthy notes, “It is only in Israel, a Jewish state, that Muslims live with full democratic rights. Yet, in Obama-world, Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic. Evidently, you need Sharia for that.”
Kerry’s speech was another reminder5 of why the Obama administration’s foreign policy has been such a disaster. Russia and Iran have been slaughtering thousands of civilians in Syria, while the Islamic State is still committing ruthless acts of terror in the region and inspiring it worldwide. Yet the administration has been more concerned with accommodating our adversaries and, in its final days, has decided to isolate and undermine Israel. In other words, Obama and Kerry have made the U.S. no different than the UN.
As Jonah Goldberg astutely writes, “It needs to be remembered that the U.N. hates Israel because it is in the political interests of member states, particularly Arab states, which use Palestinians as a distraction from their own despotisms, to hate Israel. Think of all the horrors and crimes committed by evil governments around the world. Now think about the fact that from 2006 to 2015 alone the U.N. has condemned Israel 62 times. All of the other nations combined have received 55 condemnations. Iran? Five. The genocidal Sudanese? Zero. Anarchic Somalia? Zero. Saudi Arabia? Zero. Pakistan? Zero. China? Zero. Russia? Zero.”
In fact, one should blame the UN for the Palestinian “refugee” crisis. They are the only post-World War II refugee group to remain unsettled and causing trouble.
Perhaps the only correct statement Kerry uttered was that Obama’s policies6 have a short shelf life. Despite being short-lived, however, there will be long-lasting — including violent — consequences to Obama’s betrayal of Israel.
Fortunately for Israel, Donald Trump has already signaled that he will reverse Obama’s horrendous policies, including a promise to move the U.S embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect,” Trump said after Kerry’s speech. “They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. … Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!” Indeed it is, and for Israel and the U.S. that date can’t arrive soon enough.
Links
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/46663
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/46643
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443392/john-kerry-secretary-state-failure-weakness
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443390/john-kerry-speech-israel-jewish-democratic-one-state-solution-islam
http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/28/kerry-takes-a-parting-shot-at-israel-in-mideast-speech/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443397/john-kerry-un-israeli-settlement-resolution-statement
https://patriotpost.us/articles/46687
A Tale of Two Hackings
Thomas Gallatin · Jan. 3, 2017
On Thursday, Barack Obama, through the office of the U.S. Treasury Department, announced his response to the alleged Russian hackings of the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The U.S. will expel 35 Russian diplomats and intelligence agents, sanction three Russian businesses and close access to two Russian government-owned compounds in Maryland and New York. Obama blamed the highest levels of government in Moscow for the hacks, claiming they were done to interfere in the U.S. election.
Democrats are predictably heaping praise on Obama’s decision, while several Republicans, long supportive of taking action against Moscow, have questioned the timing. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) stated, “While today’s action by the administration is overdue, it is an appropriate way to end eight years of failed policy with Russia.”
What is troubling about Obama’s recent actions is indeed the timing. Why now? While Obama decries Russian interference and the need for retaliation and greater security, the truth is, had Hillary Clinton won the election, he wouldn’t have even considered lifting a finger. Perhaps this was the yin to his 2012 yang, when he promised more flexibility with Russia after that election.
Furthermore, consider Obama’s response to China’s unprecedented hacking of the Office of Personnel Management. China stole personal data on more than 21.5 million government workers and Obama said almost nothing. In fact, the New York Times reported at the time that government officials “were under strict instructions to avoid naming China as the source of the attack.” How times have changed.
Obama’s newfound concern over the nation’s cybersecurity has far less to do with protecting the U.S. against future cyberattacks than bitter political retaliation against Donald Trump. Obama’s actions belie his lack of respect and trust in the U.S. system of government. He is primarily motivated not by concern for the well-being and security of the nation, but by protecting his own legacy and agenda. Since an incoming Trump presidency is a greater threat to Obama’s legacy than a nefarious geopolitical power such as Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Obama clearly wanted to complicate rather than support future foreign policy efforts by the incoming president. Some legacy.
https://patriotpost.us/posts/46688
Glad it's working.
Watching Bloomberg Surveillance featuring Abby Joseph Cohen was on and seems optimistic about Trump. Finally, someone who knows something about the economy and isn't interested in controlling societies behavior through massive regulations and penalties for breathing....
Wonderful memories. Last year, we were having lunch at the Jerome and my wife was coming back to the table, it was very busy and a gentleman touched her on the shoulder as they were waiting to get to their respective tables. It was Robert Wagner. She turned, surprised and complemented him saying, 'You're looking great' and he said 'Thanks! with a big smile. Jill was sitting at their table with two other guests and soon both were able to get through the crowd. Fun moment. Have stayed at the Jerome too. Last year,
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g29141-d1867550-Reviews-Residences_at_The_Little_Nell-Aspen_Colorado.html
We have stayed at the Little Nell but the Residences are next door and liked it more. Privacy, fewer people, nice service. Stayed numerous times at the St. Regis in their suites. Have to get reservations early to get them.
And the state is having major problems governing the 'new industry', wishing they had not approved it. Too bad, we go to Aspen each summer and will again this year for their Security Conference. Not as touched by the issue as other parts of the state but the stores in Aspen now.
Ignore is a great button you seem to be intent on activating. Generally, highways go in both directions and generally the cars aren't bumping each other to take the lead.
As we saw over the holidays, it seems we have those who want to destroy Jews and Christians are continuing their efforts. Maybe we should invade their water system and see if we can put an additive in that won't allow them to breed..............
Why Do American Companies Leave America?
America is the world's largest economy, and yet many American companies are moving jobs and factories overseas. Why? Find out in this short video.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/economics/why-do-american-companies-leave-america
Why Do American Companies Leave America?
America is the world's largest economy, and yet many American companies are moving jobs and factories overseas. Why? Find out in this short video.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/economics/why-do-american-companies-leave-america
The Middle East conflict is framed as one of the most complex problems in the world. But, in reality, it's very simple. Israelis want to live in peace and are willing to accept a neighboring Palestinian state. And most Palestinians do not want Israel to exist. As Dennis Prager explains, this is really all you need to know. In 5 minutes, understand how Israel was founded, and how, since that auspicious day in 1948, its neighbors have tried to destroy it, again and again.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/foreign-affairs/middle-east-problem
The Middle East conflict is framed as one of the most complex problems in the world. But, in reality, it's very simple. Israelis want to live in peace and are willing to accept a neighboring Palestinian state. And most Palestinians do not want Israel to exist. As Dennis Prager explains, this is really all you need to know. In 5 minutes, understand how Israel was founded, and how, since that auspicious day in 1948, its neighbors have tried to destroy it, again and again.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/foreign-affairs/middle-east-problem
The Ancient Foreign Policy
Nations are collections of human beings, and human nature has not changed, despite Obama’s pleadings.
By Victor Davis Hanson — December 27, 2016
For the last eight years, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, and Susan Rice have sought to rewrite the traditional approach to foreign policy. In various ways, they have warned us about the dangers that a reactionary Trump presidency would pose, on the assumption that their new world order now operates more along the lines of an Ivy League conference than according to the machinations and self-interests of the dog-eat-dog Manhattan real-estate cosmos.
It would be nice if the international order had safe spaces, prohibitions against micro-aggressions, and trigger warnings that warn of hurtful speech, but is the world really one big Harvard or Stanford that runs on loud assertions of sensitivity, guilt, apologies, or even the cynical progressive pieties found in WikiLeaks?
The tempo abroad in the last eight years would suggest that the answer is no: half a million dead in Syria, over a million young Muslim men flooding into Europe, an Iraq in ruins (though Biden once bragged it would be the Obama administration’s “greatest achievement”), the Benghazi catastrophe, North Africa a wasteland and terrorist incubator, Israel and the Gulf states estranged from America, Iran empowered and soon to be nuclear, Russia hell-bent on humiliating the U.S., China quietly forming its own updated Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, an impoverished Cuba and much of Latin America gnawing the limp wrist of U.S. outreach, and the European Union gradually imploding.
Obama’s lead-from-behind foreign policy has becoming something like the seduction of an old house. Its wiring, plumbing, and foundation are shot, but the majestic structure, when given a thin coat of new paint by the seller, proudly goes on the market as “restored” — at least until the new buyer discovers that the Potemkin façade is about to collapse from lax maintenance and deliberate indifference. In other words, Obama’s periodic declamations, Nobel Prize, and adulation from a toady press are all veneers of shiny paint; the Middle East, Russia, China, Iran, and ISIS terrorism are the insidious frayed wiring, corroded pipes, and termites that are about to take down the entire structure from the inside out. Note that the unrepentant seller is always loudly petulant that the new owner, as he makes endless vital repairs, did not appreciate the paint job he inherited.
It was not always so. Ancient American foreign policy that got us from the ruin of World War II to the most prosperous age in the history of civilization was once guided by an appreciation of human nature’s constancy across time and space. Diplomacy hinged on seeing foreign leaders as roughly predictable — guided as much by Thucydidean emotions such as honor, fear, and perceived self-interest as by cold reason. In other words, sometimes nations did things that seemed to be stupid; in retrospect their actions looked irrational, but at the time, they served the needs of national honor or assuaged fears.
Vladimir Putin, for example, in his effort to restore Russian power and regional hegemony, is guided by his desire to recapture the glories of the Soviet Union, not just its Stalinist authoritarianism or geographical expanse. He also seeks to restore the respect that long ago greeted Russian diplomats, generals, and leaders when sent abroad as proud emissaries of a world-class power.
In that context, talking down to a Putin serves no purpose other than to humiliate a proud leader whose guiding principle is that he will never allow himself to be publicly shamed. But Obama did exactly that when he scolded Putin to “cut it out” with the cyber attacks (as if, presto, Putin would follow his orders), and when he suggested that Putin’s tough-guy antics were sort of a macho shtick intended only to please Russians, and when he mocked a sullen Putin as a veritable class cut-up at photo-ops (as if the magisterial Obama had to discipline an unruly adolescent).
Worse still, when such gratuitous humiliations are not backed by the presence of overwhelming power, deft statecraft, and national will, opportunists such as Putin are only emboldened to become irritants to the U.S. and its former so-called global order. We should not discount the idea that leaders become hostile as much out of spite as out of conflicting national interests.
Throughout history, it has not gone well for powerful leaders when they have been perceived as being both loudly sanctimonious and weak (read Demosthenes on Athenian reactions to Philip II), as if the nation’s strength enervates the leader rather than empowers his diplomacy. Worse still is when a leader aims to loudly project strength through rhetoric while quietly fearing to do so through ships and soldiers.
Think again of Neville Chamberlain at Munich, who gave Hitler everything — including lectures on proper international behavior. Anthony Eden remarked at the time that British statesmen thought Hitler and Mussolini were like typical British elites with whom they could do business; the British diplomats mistakenly believed they could appeal to the dictators’ reason and common interests, and thus they were bound to be sorely disappointed. A man does not reach the pinnacle of Russian power only to nod agreeably when ordered to “cut it out.” And a thug such as Bashar al-Assad does not give up his lucrative family crime syndicate for the gallows because Obama flippantly announces to the world that “Assad must go.” The worst thing about Obama’s red-line threat to Syria was not just that Obama ignored it when it was crossed, but that he then denied he’d ever issued the threat in the first place.
Putin ignored the gift of the plastic “reset” button, the cancellation of missile defense with the Czechs and the Poles, Obama’s trash-talking of George W. Bush, the open-mic promises to be flexible, and all the other assorted appeasing gestures. Instead he kept focused on Obama’s insults, and he grew enraged that a strong U.S. acted both weakly and insolently. Therefore, partly out of emotion, partly from rational calculation, Putin tried his luck from Ukraine to Syria — and perhaps beyond.
In the ancient era before Obama, there used to be constants between nations, such as deterrence or the Neanderthal idea that nations sought to become militarily and economically strong, to warn would-be aggressors that it would certainly be a stupid thing to attack such stronger powers. From Vegetius’s Si vis pacem, para bellum to Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength,” the common wisdom was to be ready for war and thereby, and only by that way, avoid war, not to talk bellicosely and to act pacifistically. Our rewrite, Si vis bellum, para pacem (“if you want a war, then prepare for peace”), is not leading to a calm world.
Deterrence (and with it peace) often was not defined only in material terms; it rested also on a psychological readiness to use overwhelming power to confront an aggressor. Hitler knew in May 1940 that the French and British armies and armor were superior to his own, but after nine months of loud inaction, he assumed that the French would rather not risk losing some to save many. Therefore, he gambled on plowing through the Ardennes and defeating numerically superior Anglo-French forces that had less desire to replay their winning role in the prior war than he had to replay Germany’s losing one.
Occasional unpredictability was unfortunately always a plus, since belligerents never quite knew whether their intended targets might go rogue if provoked — and therefore it was often wiser not to provoke them. Again, deterrence (“the act of frightening away”) rested not just on quantifiable power but also on a likelihood to use it. It is often said that occasional perceived craziness is a plus in both poker and high-stakes geostrategic diplomacy.
In contrast, when a national leader repeatedly lectures the world on peace, takes options off the table, uses the megaphone to blast his own country’s flaws and distance himself from its supposedly checkered past, heralds soft power, and in psychodramatic fashion issues rhetorical red lines, deadlines, and step-over lines, then he erodes deterrence (in becoming predictably passive). And the while, his empty sanctimoniousness grates rivals and invites gratuitous adventurism. The gunslingers of the world vie to gain a reputation by showing other outlaws how enervated the once-robust sheriff has become, despite his trash-talking — and sometimes they stage a shoot-out on Main Street for no apparent reason other than that they can.
Balance of power is another now-despised concept — as if lecturing China on human rights while it creates military bases on artificial islands in the South China Seas, or sermonizing to Russia as it absorbs Eastern Ukraine, is more effective than treating each nuclear power differently in order to remind China and Russia that neither may predict exactly with whom the U.S. will side. It was apparently beyond Obama to suggest to Putin that he had no interests in seeing China block international sea lanes, or to suggest to China that allowing Russia to sponsor another nuclear power in the region was not in China’s long-term interests.
Loyalty and consistency are also now-forgotten diplomatic tools. To paraphrase the Sophoclean code, it is wise to help your friends and hurt your enemies. Turning the other cheek is the proper New Testament aspiration for individuals to live by, but the Sermon on the Mount is deadly for nations, at least until the nature of man changes.
For better or for worse, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States are mostly friendly; Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are clearly not. Israel is a strong ally; Islamist Turkey (despite Obama’s “special relationship” with Erdogan) is not. Britain and France are age-old partners; Cuba and Nicaragua are belligerents. But when both friendship and enmity count for nothing, and there’s no reward for being a friend of the U.S., and no danger in posing as our enemy, then we shall have lots of enemies and very few friends. Diplomacy is like the tax code: Subsidize hostility and you get more hostile actors; tax friendship and you get fewer friends.
The criticism of Obama’s foreign policy is not only that it was utopian, self-righteous, and naïve, though it was all that and more.
Rather, it assumed that nations were not collections of people with predictable and all too human aspirations and behaviors. When the Obama administration discovered that tragic human nature still governed foreign policy, it objected petulantly, insisting that an American messiah had come into the world to save it. But the world, for some strange reason, was not impressed. Instead, it took advantage of the light-bringer’s childish narcissism.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443347/
Agree, lock Barry up!.......
Trump should go into office and void every executive order Barry is throwing out to hand tie DT. Barry thinks he can break the law? So can Trump by just revoking them all and looking at them later to see if there is anything worthy of a speck of help.
A Preview of Obama’s Post-Presidency
He’s grumbling about Fox News and talk radio while feigning that he isn’t partisan.
By Karl Rove
Dec. 28, 2016 6:39 p.m. ET
In two interviews over the holidays, President Obama signaled how he’s likely to conduct himself once out of office: whiny, self-justifying and bursting with excuses.
Mr. Obama grumbled to Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic that he suffered “concentrated vilification” by “Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the whole conservative-media ecosystem.” But he is hardly the first president to be attacked, and much of his coverage has bordered on worshipful. Still, Mr. Obama complained, conservative criticisms “had an impact in terms of how a large portion of white voters would see me.”
Most whites, he acknowledged, don’t vote based on race. But he argued that “good people” can be “made afraid, and suspicious and fearful.” The president said that many voters are “responding to a fictional character named Barack Obama who they see on Fox News or who they hear about through Rush Limbaugh.” As a result, many whites think “this black president is trying to hurt you or take something from you and looking out for ‘his own.’ ”
To illustrate his point, the president claimed that “the whole debate about Obamacare” was framed as “He’s trying to take something from you to give free stuff.” That isn’t what happened. Googling “Obamacare, free stuff” produces about a half a million hits. Searching “like your plan, keep your plan” generates nearly 1,000 times that number.
Mr. Obama admitted that some conservatives may oppose his agenda “because they have a coherent and sincere view” about the proper role of Washington. Then he quickly warned that “the relationship between the federal government and the states was very much mixed up with attitudes towards slavery, attitudes towards Jim Crow, attitudes towards antipoverty programs and who benefited and who didn’t.”
The president rarely accepts that people have honest disagreements with his policies. Instead, he insists they are putting party above country and intimates that racism is at the core of much of the opposition of white Americans.
Fox News (to which I contribute) may upset Mr. Obama by covering both sides of issues that much of the media ignores. Mr. Limbaugh may discomfort him by entertaining and educating millions. But neither is what led 47% in this election’s exit polls to say they wanted a more conservative new president while only 28% wanted someone to continue Mr. Obama’s policies.
In a podcast with his former adviser David Axelrod, Mr. Obama indicated the form his revisionism will take. He recalled his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention, in which he said “there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.” After he won the White House, Mr. Obama said, Republicans like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R. Ky.) “mobilized a backlash to this vision,” deciding to “just say no” and “throw sand in the gears” to thereby win back House and Senate seats.
This is malarkey. The GOP’s ability to throw sand was nil in Mr. Obama’s first years. Democrats held massive congressional majorities, and the president marginalized Republicans instead of co-opting them. He dismissed GOP suggestions for his stimulus bill by saying “I won.” While Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee worked toward a possible compromise on health-care legislation, the White House made known that it would not respect any bipartisan agreement they arrived at.
It was only after nearly two years of abuse like this that Mr. McConnell declared in late October 2010 “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Democrats have already admitted that’s their goal for President-elect Donald Trump.
Mr. Obama still doesn’t understand that the GOP’s victories in ’10, ’14 and ’16 were repudiations of his policies. In the podcast, he argued that rural voters were wrong to vote Republican because his administration “devoted more attention, more focus, put more resources into rural America.” The idea that Democrats “abandoned the white working class,” he added, is “nonsense.” In other words, country folks should stay bought and the working class is too dumb to understand what’s good for them.
While saying it was time for “new voices and fresh legs,” Mr. Obama threatened that if “some foundational issues about our democracy” arise after he leaves office, he might “weigh in.” He also promised his presidential center would help young people become “organizers, journalists, politicians” by providing “tools for them to bring about progressive change.”
The IRS may get indigestion at such partisan use of a nonprofit, but Republicans should do cartwheels about these pledges, since it was Mr. Obama’s leadership that helped produce the biggest GOP dominance in nearly a century.
Mr. Obama will be the first ex-president since Woodrow Wilson to remain in Washington. Given the tone of his interviews, he could well become a carping, persistent presence in our nation’s capital.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-preview-of-obamas-post-presidency-1482968362
6 Things Obama Doesn’t Want You to Know About the Islamic State
Sebastian Gorka, PhD on 24 June 2016 at 13:38
It’s official. The Administration of President Barack Obama does not want you to understand the danger that you, your friends, your family, and your loved ones are in.
With the recent attempt at the Cabinet level of the U.S. Government by Attorney General Loretta Lynch to censor what the terrorist responsible for the greatest terror attack since 9/11 was saying on the phone to the 911 dispatcher during the Orlando massacre, we have the smoking gun of Orwellian “Newspeak” in America.
Barack Obama and his political appointees and cabinet members have been trying for more than five years to explain away the jihadi threat to America and misdirect your understanding of how serious the dangers are. To quote my good friend Tom Joscelyn at The Long War Journal, it is a systematic effort to make you, “disconnect the dots.”
Here are the things that the Obama Administration does NOT want you to know.
One: America is losing the war against the global jihadi ideology.
Although written by a liberal scholar using politically correct verbiage, the facts detailed in a recent report published by Duke University titled “Muslim-American Involvement in Violent Extremism, 2015” cannot be denied. Figure One shows how many jihadi plots there have been in America since September 11th. As you can see, 2015 saw the greatest number of jihadi plots on U.S. soil since those horrific events in Manhattan, Washington, and Pennsylvania. This is despite the fact that just days before the San Bernardino attack, both President Obama and Secretary Kerry announced that ISIS is “contained” and “we are winning!”
Two: There is no such thing as lone wolf terrorism.
The idea that we have disparate individuals across America that just decide one day to kill their fellow Americans is utterly and absolutely fallacious. Whether it is the first nineteen terrorists responsible for the original September 11th attacks, whether it is Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood Shooter; or the Tsarnaev brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon Bombing; Malik and Farook, the San Bernardino killers; or last weekend’s attacker, Omar Mateen – these individuals are all connected. The connective tissue between them is the ideology of Global Jihadism, their belief that they are fighting for Allah (not “God,” as Loretta Lynch would have you believe, but Allah, the God of Islam).
Three: ISIS is much more powerful and much more dangerous than al Qaeda.
Unlike al Qaeda, ISIS has managed to achieve that which no other jihadi terrorist group has ever been able to achieve: the declaration of a theocratic Islamic state in the 21stCentury. At the end of June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared from the pulpit of the Grand Mosque in Mosul that the Islamic Empire is back and he is its new emperor, or Caliph. Unclassified U.S. Government estimates state that ISIS has been making between $2 and $4 million every day from its illicit activities, it has recruited more than 85,000 jihadi fighters, more than 6,000 of whom are Westerners, including Americans, and it now has 6 million people living on its territory in multiple countries. This is no “JV Team.” ISIS has taken their team to the Superbowl.
Four: ISIS is here in America.
Omar Mateen, the jihadi responsible for the Orlando atrocity, is the 103rd terrorist interdicted on U.S. soil since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared the Caliphate than two years ago. This is not a question of a threat 8,000 miles away in Mesopotamia or in Afghanistan; this is a threat that is already well entrenched on the shores of the United States. If you examine the details in the report I co-authored with my wife, ISIS: The Threat to the United States, the most disturbing fact of all is that, of all the people we have interdicted on U.S. soil, a full third of them had no interest in traveling to the Middle East to be jihadis in Iraq or Syria, but had decided the best way to serve the new caliph, the new emperor of Islam, would be to kill American infidels on U.S. soil. The threat is not an if, it is NOW. And if the White House doesn’t change its strategy, there will be more attacks like Orlando.
Five: As a nation, we are weaker than we have ever been since September 11th.
Although America is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, the systematic subversion of our national security establishment under the banner of inclusivity, cultural awareness, and political correctness has continued to increasingly endanger Americans. In a memo sent from the White House in 2011 to the then-Attorney General and the General of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Executive ordered that, in the name of multiculturalism and mutual respect, any mention of Islam was to be excised from government counterterrorism training within all of the armed services, and even federal law enforcement, including the FBI, and our various intelligence agencies. This means that even words like ‘jihad,’ which are the terms used by the terrorists to describe themselves, are and have been banned from use within the U.S. federal government. This means that our law enforcement, intelligence, and military operators have been denied access to accurate information and relevant training for several years. Subsequently, they are not in a position to understand our Enemy and defeat them.
Six: Lastly, the Obama Administration does not want you to know that the ideology of global jihad is more powerful than it has ever been.
ISIS has captured the brand of Global Jihadism from its former master, al Qaeda. Today, not only has it established a Caliphate in the Middle East, but it has also convinced tens of thousands of young Muslims that the End Times have begun, since the territory they have captured—referred to as “al Sham” in the Islamic eschatology—is the equivalent of Megiddo for Muslims, i.e. the site of the last Holy War before Judgement Day. As a result of this very effective exploitation of an apocalyptic religious theme being broadcast daily over social media (ISIS posts more than 55,000 social media posts every 24 hours), ISIS now has at least 43 affiliates in 19 countries, and they show no sign of losing momentum.
Loretta Lynch said this week, after the Orlando massacre, that our most powerful weapon against people like Omar Mateen is “love.” She is wrong. Love would not have worked against the Nazis or the totalitarians in the Kremlin. We are facing another totalitarian enemy that will not be negotiated with and that will not stop unless every “infidel” is enslaved or crushed. That truth is impossible for the President and his bubble-dwelling coterie to believe. As a result, Americans will continue to face an escalating risk until we have a change of administration.
The question is, will the new Commander-in-Chief perpetuate the lies and distortions of the last eight years or finally talk truthfully about the incarnate Evil that we face and what it will take to destroy it.
First published on Breitbart National Security in June 2016
http://thegorkabriefing.com/6-things-obama-doesnt-want-know-islamic-state/
Sorry, But Our Fight Against Liberal Fascism Has Only Just Begun
Kurt Schlichter
Posted: Dec 26, 2016 12:01 AM
I wish I could tell you that, having dodged the naggy bullet that was Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit, we can now spend the next four years being left alone. But that’s not in the cards. Liberals won’t – because they can’t – pause to reflect on how they should stop being such insufferable jerks and live with us normals in peace and mutual respect. Instead, they are doubling down on their gambit for unrestrained power over every aspect of our lives, fueled by a hatred for Donald Trump that is, in reality, a hatred for us.
Remember, they really do hate us. Just ask them.
Just watch what they do. They will always side against us – even when a professional scammer stages a fake “hate crime” on an airplane. They will side with the hoaxer even though every single “Trump-inspired hate crime” – and almost all others – turns out to be a hoax. Every. Single. One.
When it comes down to it, they are more worried that some buffoon will sneer at a woman trapped in burka than that the psychotic creep who stuck in it will butcher a bunch of normal Americans while shouting “Allah akbar!” We have to say “No” – normal lives matter.
Understand that they will not stop. They will not change. We must therefore defeat them, because otherwise there will be no peace. As with so much in life, Dolph Lundgren shows us the way, though in this case liberals are less a macho, tough prizefighter named “Rocky” than a 23 year-old gender-fluid Oberlin grad named “Fussy” who lives in Brooklyn off of his/her/xes dad’s money while trying to be a non-rhyming poet.
We must keep fighting. We must never give an inch, never back down, never give up. We must respond to every attack upon us, large or small, with overwhelming firepower. But defense is not enough – we must go on offense, seize the initiative, and aggressively destroy anything that will aid liberals in their long-term goal of rendering us silenced and subservient.
The Democratic Party? Smash it.
The mainstream media? Crush it.
Academia? Nuke it ‘til it glows, preferably from orbit.
It’s the only way to be sure.
They babble on about not “normalizing” Trump’s election when their real goal is to delegitimize anyone exercising political power but themselves. This is not about Trump – this about us. Reluctant Rockettes? Radical LGBT jerks screaming at children on airplanes? And my personal favorite, the recent discovery by the very people who never saw a Soviet rear they didn’t hurry to kiss that the Russians aren’t our pals. This is how liberals intend to break our will to resist, with a never-ending series of petty controversies and provocations until, exhausted, we simply give up and surrender, exhausted, to their benign dictatorship.
Well, to quote their failed progressive goddess, we ain’t in no ways tired.
Fight. Every time, in every way.
Some jerk mouths off to you on Twitter? Smack ‘em back until they are a quivering mass of whiny liberal Jell-O.
Some company decides to take sides against us? Boycott their crappy products and let them know it. Hey Kellogg’s, hope your liberal constituency enjoys its diabetes. And support the companies that reject liberal scams – fly Delta!
Some mainstream media liar lies? Carpet bomb the comments and unsubscribe to his dying paper.
Oh, and some spazz starts shrieking at you and your kids? Use appropriate force within the bounds of the self-defense laws in your state, of course, to protect yourself and your family.
Remember: Liberals are fearful because they know the kind of oppression they absolutely intended to inflict upon us if they had won, and they worry that we will do to them what they wanted to do to us. Well, I say let’s make their fears come true by demolishing their cultural edifice of hate and tyranny. Let them rule over the smoldering ruins of their dreams of power.
Look, none of us want to spend our lives in permanent battle mode, but there’s no time out for the foreseeable future. We don’t have a choice. Our enemies – and understand that progressives are our enemies, not just opponents of good will who merely disagree with us – will not give up. They can’t give up, because they are so invested in liberal fascism and in controlling us that they have nothing else, leaving them no option but perpetual cultural and political war. We would rather life get back to normal, but there is no “normal,” not anymore.
You may not care about politics, but politics cares about you, and if we just give up and let these nanny state parasites go unchallenged we will eventually wake up in chains. Forcing our little girls to be surrounded by urinating men in dresses is not the endstate – it’s just the beginning of a never-ending series of cruel humiliations and calculated oppressions liberals will seek to inflict upon us. Their goal is not just to take power but to revel in the wicked delight of rubbing our faces in our powerlessness.
They hate us. Get that through your head, then act accordingly. And acting accordingly means fight back, hard and ruthlessly, every time they try to assert their tyrannical inclinations.
But mere defense is not enough, though it is essential that each and every slight, provocation and assault be met with overwhelming and merciless pushback. It means attacking and gutting the liberal power base by popping the institutional pustules where progressivism festers.
Trump and the GOP must ruthlessly slash the governmental funding mechanisms that force us to pay for our own oppressors. Defund Planned Parenthood, sure. But that’s just a start. NPR, PBS, and all the rest need to go too. Outlaw collusive federal government lawsuit “settlements” that force companies to fund leftist “non-profits.” Derail the liberal gravy train.
Wreak the Democrat Party. Ignore the liberal lie that minorities are too dumb to obtain ID – aggressively move to fix the election system to ensure liberals in big cities can no longer cheat. And yeah, they cheat. Enforce immigration laws and stop letting them import foreigners to outvote the Americans who reject Democrat nonsense. Support President Trump as he seeks the support of minority Americans – the Democrats rely on retaining minority support through lies and governmental dependence. Break that cycle, and it becomes a party of a few white wine-drinking toffs in high income zip codes and college towns.
Crush the college cartel. Slash their budgets. Attack the student loan scam that transfers money from naive young people to scheming academics who steal the futures of their grads in return for useless degrees in gender studies.
Punish the mainstream media by going around them. Don’t subscribe. Don’t watch. Support the Trump administration as it avoids the gatekeepers via alternative media and by communicating with us directly via Twitter. Support the alternative media yourself – if you are paying for the New York Times or watching NBC, you are collaborating with the enemy. And the same goes for the entertainment industry – refuse to watch or read leftist propaganda and support independent entertainment and books like, well, mine.
Here are your three choices. There are only three. Pick one.
1. Peaceful coexistence while leaving everyone alone and free
2. Conservatives in charge, protecting normal Americans’ freedom
3. Liberal in charge, persecuting normal Americans.
I would prefer Choice One, but liberals seem to have vetoed that. Fine. Then Choice Two it is – us in charge, because allowing these aspiring liberal fascists to rule us is no choice at all.
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/12/26/sorry-but-our-fight-against-liberal-fascism-has-only-just-begun-n2263156