Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Obama Excludes US Troop Option Against ISIS: Plans to Rally Moderate Sunni Islamist Opposition

obama-world-flare-up
I believe this is where we say. “Er….Good luck with that”

UK Guardian

By Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour

The US president – who had been derided for saying last month he did not have a strategy to contend with Isis – said he would seek congressional support on Tuesday and then “describe what our game plan’s going to be” in a speech on Wednesday.

“I just want the American people to understand the nature of the threat and how we’re going to deal with it and to have confidence that we’ll be able to deal with it,” the president told NBC’s Meet the Press programme, broadcast on Sunday. “The next phase is now to start going on some offence.”

On the same day, the Arab League called on members to support international efforts against Isis, with its head, Nabil Elaraby, calling on member states to confront it both militarily and politically.

A so-called “core coalition” of 10 countries to tackle Isis announced at last week’s Nato summit in Wales by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, had no Arab members and included only one Muslim state, Turkey.

Obama went out of his way to stress that the new offensive would not represent the unravelling of his most prized foreign policy achievement, the extrication of his country from costly and bloody wars abroad, reiterating his administration’s pledge that it would not send ground troops to either Iraq or Syria, where Isis controls a large swath of territory.

“This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war,” he said. “What this is similar to is the kinds of counter-terrorism campaigns that we’ve been engaging in consistently over the last five, six, seven years.

“We are going to be a part of an international coalition, carrying out air strikes in support of work on the ground by Iraqi troops, Kurdish troops,” he said, adding that increased US military commitment was inevitable in the face of the looming menace. Obama said that there was no intelligence suggesting an imminent Isis threat to the US homeland, but he pointed out that the group, which has publicly murdered two American journalists, has attracted foreign fighters from western nations who could travel to the US “unimpeded” and eventually pose a threat.

A key element of Obama’s US strategy will be to build a regional alliance to contain and ultimately reverse the spread of Isis. Secstate John Kerry spoke to Elaraby by telephone before the weekend meeting of Arab foreign ministers.

Iraq has welcomed greater US military involvement, but the Obama administration has been keen to emphasise that its offensive against Isis does not amount to tacit support for the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Rather, the US sees the spearhead of its campaign against Isis in Syria as another wing of the anti-Assad opposition, the Free Syrian Army, which America is helping to train and equip. However, Obama’s remarks made it clear that the US priority in Syria now was taking on Isis rather than the regime.

“I will reserve the right to always protect the American people and go after folks who are trying to hurt us wherever they are.

“But in terms of controlling territory, we’re going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with,” he said. “The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that.”

Putin is ready......

Putin-Strat-NRD-600-wLogo

Let's Tell The Real Story -Michael Brown Allegedly Involved in Second Degree Murder Case

If I Had A Thug

The innocent angel that was compared to Jesus might have some more skeletons in his closet than we thought. Check this out…

Charles C. Johnson, the Editor-in-Chief of Got News and the investigator who debunked the Everytown shootings map, is suing the St. Louis County Court to release Ferguson shooting victim Michael Brown’s juvenile arrest records.
As relayed by the website YoungCons.com, Johnson claims that he has “confirmed” Michael Brown was arrested in a case involving second-degree murder:

Trey Gowdy Just Uncovered Something Huge, Claims He Has Evidence To Arrest Obama

According to recent reports, Trey Gowdy claims that he has evidence of a “systematic, intentional” effort by the Obama administration to hide some revealing documents that may give Congress insight into the 2012 Benghazi attacks.

“I have evidence that, not only are they hiding it, but there’s an intent to hide it,” the Republican House Member told Fox News. “I can’t disclose that evidence yet, but I have evidence that there was a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress—and we’re just sick of it.”

Gowdy made the comments in response to a question regarding why Secretary of State John Kerry had been subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to reports, California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa wants an explanation from Kerry about why the panel did not receive an email that revealed Ben Rhodes providing U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to link the Benghazi attacks to an anti-Muslim video.

The shocking email was released by Judicial Watch, who sued the State Department in order to obtain documents relating to Benghazi last year.

“Not only are we trying to get answers with respect to Benghazi, we’re also now investigating what appears to be a White House cover-up in one of the worst explanations for why they didn’t turn the documents over,” Gowdy told Fox. “I think the speaker just finally lost his patience. I’m glad he did what he did. “

What do you think of Gowdy’s claims? Does Obama need to be thrown in jail NOW?

Obama's Staggering Blindness to Growing Terror Threat

DID OBAMA CHOOSE HIS IMAGE OVER FOLEY'S LIFE?

obama-golf-cart-laugh-300x180
By Rebekah Maxwell

Obama delayed Foley’s rescue to avoid bad PR: The President is having a tough vacation. True, he’s not really worried about Iraq falling to ISIS control, war raging in Israel, war brewing in Ukraine, chaos in Ferguson, the invasion on the border, or even the beheading of a American citizen. But he is worried about the most important thing of all: his own image.

In fact, he was so worried about his top priority, that he may actually have cost James Foley his life.

As reported by Breitbart News, Obama may have delayed a mission to rescue Foley for nearly a month:

A new Sunday Times report, “Pentagon sources said Foley and the others might well have been rescued but Obama, concerned about the ramifications of US troops being killed or captured in Syria, took too long to authorize the mission.”

It’s claimed that Obama was concerned about his administration being Carterized had the mission failed.

However, it also seems worth noting that the eventual timing of the mission may have made for a nice July 4th weekend announcement for Obama had the mission succeeded. Instead, Obama played golf on July 5th, as well as an additional six times in the month he is said to have spent agonizing over his decision, the delay of which may have cost journalist Foley his life.

Anthony Shaffer, a former lieutenant-colonel in US military intelligence who worked on covert operations, said: “I’m told it was almost a 30-day delay from when they said they wanted to go to when he finally gave the green light. They were ready to go in June to grab the guy [Foley] and they weren’t permitted.”

So…setting aside the responsibility a President might have to his own citizen who’s been captured by terrorists (because you know he already has), which scenario makes for better PR? 1) Making a rescue attempt when your military experts say it’s a good time, running the risk that the attempt may fail, but knowing you tried; or 2) “Agonizing over the decision” from the golf course until the terrorists make the decision for you and one innocent American is decapitated?

Instead, we get a brief statement of remorse, and it’s back to the golf course.

Just send one of your Admin’s bright sparks to tell us that Foley’s murder is not about the U.S. That’s very leadershipy.

Better play another round, Mr. President. The media will tell you when when the barbarians burn down the White House.

Ben Carson vs Jesse Jackson on racism: The concept of Dr Ben Carson running for president has many grassroots voters interested, and a few disquieted. He has no voting record, so people are paying close attention to every word he says. When it comes to application of principles (say on life or the 2nd Amendment), Carson can trip up. But when it comes to the meta-narratives (matching today’s problems with American solutions), Carson transcends.

On FOX News Sunday, Dr. Carson went head to head with Jesse Jackson over the Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson. Jackson likened Brown’s death to Rodney King and Trayvon Martin, that it was a racist “state execution.”

Carson pushed back, declaring that the 18-year-old’s death has “nothing to do with race,” citing his own experience growing up in urban dysfunction.

“If you take race out of the issue altogether,” he explained, “and you take a group of young men and you raise them with no respect for authority, not learning to take on personal responsibility, having easy access to drugs and alcohol, they’re very likely to end up as victims of violence and incarceration. Has nothing to do with race.”

I’ll take conversations that no other 2016 candidate will have for $400, Alex. This is one example of what Ben Carson can uniquely bring to the table– personal credibility on some of society’s biggest controversies. And if you’re one of the growing number who want Ben Carson to run, this is probably an example of why.

Rand says Dems are “scared” he’ll take liberal votes from Hillary: With war between Hamas and Israel, and ISIS slashing their way to power, foreign policy has come to the forefront of voters’ minds. And of all the 2016 hopefuls, the one who has the most to prove on that front is Rand Paul.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Paul said his libertarian foreign policy is a threat to Hillary’s campaign, since he’s more anti-war than she is:

“I think the American public is coming more and more to where I am and that those people, like Hillary Clinton, who—she fought her own war, ‘Hillary’s war,’ you know?”

“And I think that’s what scares the Democrats the most: Is that in a general election, were I to run, there’s going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, ‘You know what? We are tired of war. We’re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war because she’s so gung-ho,” Paul said.

“If you want to see a transformational election in our country, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton, and you’ll see a transformation like you’ve never seen.”

Most of Paul’s base is cheering right now at his comments. Most of the American public would have been cheering 9 months ago. But now we have to ask hard questions. How would a President Paul handle ISIS beheading American citizens? How would he answer a foreign declaration of war?

Current threats will force Rand to gel his theories into some real-world application. Being anti-war sounds good, but telling us to ‘play nice with ISIS’ will play about as well with general audiences as his dad’s “if I were Iran, I’d want a nuclear bomb, too” line. As in, a campaign killer. How does your theory apply to reality, Rand?

Meanwhile in Ferguson: The story that made a Missouri suburb into a racially-charged battleground continues to show how little we really know about living peaceably with all men.

Thousands gathered in Ferguson today for the funeral of Michael Brown, including White House staffers and Trayvon Martin’s parents. A eulogy was delivered by MSNBC’s Al Sharpton. Media livestreamed the ceremony online.

They’re laying to rest “the unarmed eighteen-year-old who was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer” pointing out that Brown “was set to begin college just days after he was killed.”

“Michael Brown’s blood is crying from the ground, crying for vengeance, crying for justice,” said the Rev. Charles Ewing, the teenager’s uncle. “There is a cry being made from the ground, not just for Michael Brown, but for the Trayvon Martins, for those children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, for the Columbine massacre, for the black-on-black crime.”

The death of any young person is tragic, especially a violent death. An avoidable death. His family has the right to mourn their loss. And we have a duty to respect their grief.

But it’s difficult to watch the world at large broadcast Brown’s funeral as a modern-day martyrdom for public and political spectacle. It’s difficult to watch the story of one young man’s death become a justification for further crime and hatred. It’s difficult to watch a pastor equate the terms “vengeance” and “justice,” and compare his 18-year old (robbery suspect) nephew to the kindergarteners massacred at Sandy Hook. It’s also hard to watch an American city become a civil war zone, to which the only solution is more federal and more forceful government control. The world is reacting to what they feel, and won’t let information hinder their indignation.

We know that Mike Brown was unarmed. We do not know that he was innocent.
We know Officer Darren Wilson was armed. We do not know if he is guilty.

We know that violence has begotten more violence, and bloodshed has begotten more bloodshed.

We know that we don’t trust our authorities and we cannot trust in vigilantes.

We know that we’re not looking for truth anymore: we’re looking to act out our anger and be called heroes (while behaving like villains).

And I do not know what kind of future we can expect when lawlessness reigns supreme. But I fear we’re finding out in Ferguson.

Read more at http://stevedeace.com/news/obama-choose-image-foleys-life/#OtSsaeyLkhkJUaYt.99

You Do Realize that Obama Funded and Trained ISIS, Right?

Just so we are all clear here. Now that ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is becoming a threat so powerful Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon that the terrorist group is “beyond anything we’ve seen,” it’s time to remind everyone of a few little factoids regarding how exactly that came to be.

Hagel’s exact quote was:
“They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of … military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything we’ve seen.”
Well-trained in military prowess. Tremendously well-funded. Super sophisticated terrorists. Hm.
And how do you think they got that way so fast? Super magic terrorist training money tree fairy dust?

Apparently the mainstream establishment media would more likely attempt to have people believe such a thing exists rather than expose the blatant reality that yes, the U.S. has trained and funded ISIS and without the U.S. government, ISIS would not be the threat it has become.
It came out back in 2012 that the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were jointly running a US CIA and Special Forces command training base for Syrian rebels out of the Jordanian town of Safawi, but apparently according the Jordanian officials, that training ‘wasn’t meant to be used in Iraq’ (via WND):
Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.
So future ISIS members were specially trained by the U.S. government, huh? Ya don’t say. But they weren’t supposed to be used for campaigns in Iraq?
Oops.
This was, at least superficially, so they could wage war against the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, and again, they weren’t called ISIS at the time, they were referred to as the Syrian rebels.
But the government won’t even admit what they’ve done here. Instead, they’re just bombing Iraq and hoping for the best…
Meanwhile, our government is still funding the “Syrian rebels” today!
Back at the end of June, Obama was requesting another $500 million in aid for them, even though the fact that many were now calling themselves ISIS was so blatantly obvious even back then that it could no longer be disputed.

As Hagel said, ISIS are not just well-funded, but “tremendously well-funded.” Now you know where ISIS gets a hefty chunk of its tremendous funding.
This really isn’t that hard to figure out, just hard to comprehend; mostly because IT’S COMPLETELY INSANE.
Even worse, former state department official Andrew Doran let the cat out of the bag back in June that some of these ISIS members are actually combat veterans from Western nations including the U.S. who have passports and could return home anytime, basically asserting that ISIS could easily attack America at any time.
Of course, it isn’t like anyone would need a passport, what with the porous U.S.-Mexico border basically sitting there wide open.
A documentary maker recently even dressed up in an Osama Bin Laden mask and crossed the Southern border just to make the point.
Either way, this is madness.
Now we not only have Hagel telling America that ISIS is ‘beyond anything the Pentagon has ever seen’ but in the same week the former deputy director of the CIA is telling CBS This Morning that he fears ISIS is going to start carrying out 9/11-style attacks on American soil, including this little gem:
“If an ISIS member showed up at a mall in the United States tomorrow with an AK-47 and killed a number of Americans, I would not be surprised.”
If anyone is terrorizing America directly right now, it’s the American government that would first fund and train terrorists who are raping people and setting them on fire, crucifying Christians and beheading children, then conspire with the media to scare the American people that the government’s own terrorist creation is going to attack here 9/11-style RIGHT BEFORE ANOTHER 9/11 ANNIVERSARY.
Creating one’s own enemies then declaring war on them while putting the rest of the world in grave danger…

Again. This is madness.
And the lunatics are running the asylum.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/you-do-realize-that-the-us-funded-and-trained-isis-right/#lv2ej7kGXpSdyllE.99

If ISIS Beheaded A Golf Club Obama Would Bomb Their Ass Into Oblivion

PastedGraphic-1-630x445

4-day plan to solve the border crisis

by Garth Kant
esq-steve-king-110211-xlg-e1406333323175
WASHINGTON – It’s a trap.

That’s what Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, thinks about the plan fashioned by GOP House leaders to solve the border crisis.

He believes it is an attempt to pass so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform by another name because, not only does it not address the issue of amnesty, it would leave the door wide open for President Obama to extend amnesty to many more millions of illegal immigrants.

Another big problem in King’s eyes is that the revised plan that came out of a GOP House meeting on Friday is a “package,” or collection of many different ideas.

And, he told WND, “A package has no chance at becoming law and has every chance of coming back to us with who-knows-what hung on it. All it becomes is an excuse for us to say we did something.”

Instead, the congressman offered his simplified plan to fix the border crisis in less than a week.

“Monday, I would pass a resolution that was Rep. Trent Frank’s (R-Ariz.) idea, that says, ‘These are all the things the president did to cause this (crisis), and this is what he needs to do to fix it.’ The National Guard should be called up by all the border state governors.”
“Tuesday, I would send the Senate a fix to the 2008 bill (that requires all minors from Central America have lengthy judicial hearings before any deportation) as a stand-alone bill. That would take the fig leaf away from the president and the Democrats. Even though it’s not the cause of this problem (he believes the prospect of amnesty is luring the immigrants), it will take away the excuse.”
“Wednesday, I would send the Senate a stand-alone appropriations bill that gives funds directly to the states to send the National Guard to secure the border.”
“Thursday, I’d put the other good ideas that have been suggested into a much-smaller package bill and send it to the Senate.”
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, had released her draft of the House leaders’ plan on Wednesday, which contained a litany of proposals but nothing addressing amnesty.
texas-mexico-bordereve King,

However, after a meeting of GOP House members on Friday morning in which conservatives had a chance to register their input, she said the plan had been pared-down to “bare-bones suggestions,” primarily: revising the 2008 law; allowing Border Patrol agents to access federal lands; deploying National Guard troops; assigning more immigration judges; and a call for greater cooperation with Central American countries to repatriate unaccompanied children.

What she called “bare-bones,” King still saw as an over-ambitious attempt to cobble together too many plans in one package.

King said if the House simply passed his four proposals, Congress would have done everything it could and “removed some of the tools people are using to play politics. ”

Otherwise, he said, Congress will have subscribed to the president’s agenda for the rest of his term, which is “open borders.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/4-day-plan-to-solve-the-border-crisis/#Wr0I7TUCcd42UHff.99

Obama Lost the War on Al Qaeda, While Claiming to Have Won It

alqaeda

by Daniel Greenfield
Last year Obama delivered his own “Mission Accomplished” speech at the National Defense University. Its broad theme was that the War on Terror was over; it was time to shut down Guantanamo Bay and stand down from a war footing.

Obama claimed credit for putting “the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan” on the “path to defeat” with his disastrous Afghan strategy which cost 1,600 American lives while letting the Taliban take over the country. He did not acknowledge that the so-called core Al Qaeda had stopped being relevant even before he was elected.

1,600 Americans died chasing a political slogan that existed only in the heads of his speechwriters.

In 2009, the CIA determined that there were at most 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Next year his own CIA director admitted that there were at most 50-100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

That same year 499 Americans were killed in Afghanistan.

Obama had declared victory against an enemy that the United States wasn’t fighting while losing a war to an enemy that the United States was fighting.

Meanwhile his own people were telling him that Al Qaeda had not been defeated.

National Intelligence Director James Clapper said, in response to a question about whether Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, “No. It is morphing and franchising itself, not only here but in other areas of the world.”

“They are not,” Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn added.

These two men were not telling the Senate Armed Services committee anything they had not already told Obama. But their boss was choosing not to listen.

By narrowly defining Al Qaeda as a small number of leaders and fighters in pre-existing war zones in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, he and his White House staffers were making it easier to claim victory while ignoring the threat from expanding groups such as Boko Haram and Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.

Obama’s policy snapshot of Al Qaeda in which Osama bin Laden was still a menace and Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan were the biggest threat to America was a decade out of date.

In his Mission Accomplished speech, Obama said that the core of Al Qaeda was no longer a threat.”They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston.”

Al Qaeda’s core might not have directed either attack, though it’s possible it did, but both attacks emerged from its strategy of building up local franchises and training lone wolf attackers over the internet.

What Obama was celebrating as proof of his victory over Al Qaeda actually reflected his failure to understand and prepare for Al Qaeda’s next move.

He was using the fact that Al Qaeda had outmaneuvered him twice, and carried out devastating attacks, as proof that he had defeated Al Qaeda and that we no longer had to worry about Al Qaeda.

It was a moment of supreme cluelessness.

In the speech, Obama warned against “a boundless global war on terror’”, but a boundless global war had been Bin Laden’s strategy all along. Al Qaeda was never meant to be a bunch of fighters running around caves in Afghanistan. It was and is an international network of cells, militias and individuals financed by international donors. Bin Laden’s money and fame only got the ball rolling.

And it’s still rolling.

Al Qaeda was never bound by Obama’s insistence on limiting the war to the same locations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Al Qaeda could and would spring up anywhere there was an opportunity. While Obama was losing to the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was rising in its hometowns in the Middle East and its old stomping grounds in Africa.

Boko Haram was one of the many dragon’s teeth sown by Osama bin Laden. The delay in making that connection and putting Boko Haram on the terror list was caused by a White House which insisted on the distinction between core Al Qaeda and everything else. Meanwhile US intelligence agencies were warning that Al Qaeda was a global network that was no longer dependent on a central leadership.

Obama’s rigid focus on core Al Qaeda made it difficult to understand and prevent what was happening in Syria, Libya and Mali. It was only French intervention that prevented Al Qaeda from seizing Mali, but it was Obama’s intervention that allowed Al Qaeda to seize portions of Libya, murder four Americans and attempt to seize Mali. Obama’s confused and incoherent policy in Syria, where Al Qaeda dominates the opposition, nearly led him to engage in another disastrous regime change intervention that would have turned over a country with WMDs and the remnants of a recent nuclear program to Al Qaeda.

Obama tried to limit the scope of the War on Terror by maintaining rigid boundaries between core Al Qaeda and its affiliates and between its open affiliates and its covert affiliates. This served his political purposes by allowing him to declare victory, but his word games did not change the nature of Al Qaeda.

It only blinded the United States to its next move.

To claim victory, Obama had to define Al Qaeda as narrowly as possible, while Al Qaeda was defining itself as broadly as possible in order to actually win on the battlefield.

Obama saw the war as tying up old business. He pivoted to Afghanistan to finish what he claimed Bush had left undone. He went after Bin Laden to arrest him and try him in a civilian court in order to end the military tribunals. Instead of fighting to defeat Al Qaeda, he was working to defeat Bush’s policies.

Al Qaeda was not viewed as a cunning opponent following a larger plan, but a blowback, an unintended consequence of the bad foreign policy and unthinking imperialism of his predecessors. Like most critics of American foreign policy, Obama found it difficult to take Al Qaeda seriously on its own terms. Instead he viewed Al Qaeda as extremists who could only be defeated by isolating them with a more understanding foreign policy that would address Muslim grievances and empower political Islam.

But the Arab Spring didn’t shrink Al Qaeda. It expanded it into a major force capable of overrunning entire nations.

Even after all that, Obama insisted in his speech that “the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism”. Like many leftists, Obama conflated Islamic grievances with Islamic ambitions and by addressing them, he empowered them.

Before his speech, an official stated, “The president has indicated and will indicate again that he rejects the notion of global war on terrorism, which is an amorphous definition that applies to a tactic.”

Terrorism is a tactic, but means are often indicative of ends. The alternative to defining the war in terms of means would have been to define it in terms of ends. Al Qaeda’s goal, like those of the political Islamic parties that Obama was empowering, was Islamic rule. And a war on Islam was off limits.

In its obsession with root causes, the left refused to deal with either means or ends. It bypassed what Al Qaeda was or wanted and instead focused on a root cause explaining how it was our fault.

And so instead of defeating Al Qaeda, Obama helped it achieve its goals.

The distinction between political Islam and Islamic terrorists, like the distinction between core Al Qaeda and its affiliates or between its open affiliates and fellow Jihadists, was always fluid. Obama’s insistence on the absoluteness of these distinctions is why he lost and why Al Qaeda is winning.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor