January 20, 2017 - The End of Tyranny

Today, the King is Dead.

The Devil's spawn no longer breathes

Descending angels and fallen kings

Raise your hands, what do you hold?

The Devil's bleeding crown!

(Volbeat, The Devil's Bleeding Crown)

 

__

Did Anyone Even Notice Obama Claiming Israel Occupies "Palestinian land" ???

The end of the reign of Muslim champion Barack Hussein Obama cannot come soon enough for those of us who support Israel.  Someday, Mr. Obama, you will be standing at the pearly gates and that pass card ain't gonna work to get you in - remember this day when you blasphemed the covenant between G_d and the children of Israel while you bang away on the gates to be let in.

The story comes from Israel National News.

Presidential error at the UN

Despite Barak Obama's speech last week at the UN being endlessly analyzed, there has been no meaningful reference to the way in which the president referred to Judea and Samaria. The president remarked parenthetically that Judea and Samaria are "Palestinian lands". Only the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has responded and protested the inaccuracy in Obama's words.

Obama said that "Surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land”

The ZOA remarked that the use of the term Palestinian land "prejudges the issue of sovereignty and borders and is not accordance with international law, which designates Judea/Samaria as unallocated territory, without a recognized sovereign."

Moreover, they added that "the President’s use of this term is political in nature, as it automatically and unjustly designates the biblical, religious, and historical heartland of the Jewish people for millennia, before the Arab conquest of the region in the seventh century, as belonging to Palestinian Arabs.

“It is well-known that there are conflicting claims to the land, but it is also important to note that Israel has a better claim in law than any other party.

“The territory of the West Bank was earmarked for Jewish settlement in 1920 at the San Remo Conference. This decision, enshrined in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine entrusted to Britain that shortly followed, has never been superseded by an internationally binding agreement. To the contrary, it was reaffirmed by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

“The Arab states rejected the 1947 UN General Assembly partition resolution that called for an Arab and a Jewish state to be established in the territory of the British Mandate. As a result, no agreement on statehood and borders was ever reached. Jordan, which illegally invaded and annexed the territory from 1948 to 1967, formally relinquished its claim to the territory in 1988.

“In the absence of a peace settlement, Judea/Samaria is unallocated territory under international law, not the sovereign territory of another state that Israel ‘occupies.’

“As a result, Israel is not ‘occupying and settling Palestinian lands’; Israel permits Israelis to live, and build homes and communities in this territory to which it has a strong legal claim, having captured the territory from Jordan in 1967 in a war of self-defense."

Over the course of the past 100 years, Judea and Samaria have been ruled by Ottomans, the British mandate, Jordan and Israel but has never been under Palestinian control.

The ZOA added that the Palestinian authority was founded in 1993 but did not gain control over the areas with Jewish communities and "the Oslo agreements do not prohibit Israeli residence and construction in these territories; to the contrary, the Oslo agreements provide for Israeli and Palestinian building in zones under their respective controls.

"Oslo also lists this as a final status issue, to be negotiated by the parties themselves, and Israel is entitled to assert its right for its citizens to live and build in these territories until such time as a peace settlement is reached."

The Tough Questions

No one has ever asked Barack Obama a tough question.

Leave it to Holger.


Mr. Obama:

• Do you feel any humiliation knowing that you won the Nobel Peace Prize only because you are black?
• Is your pride bruised knowing that you were elected to the Presidency in 2008 only because of the color of your skin?
• In 2012, was your celebration for being re-elected President tainted because people voted you back in because of your race?
• Do you ever feel a sense of relief that you were not Impeached because you are a black man?
• When you see that you have 52% approval ratings according to the polls, are you smart enough to know that people say they approve because they don't want to be called "racist" for disapproving of you?
• Would you have been able to attend the colleges and universities that you did if you hadn't been a minority?
• When you look back twenty years from now and the only thing Americans can say about your Presidency is that it was "historic" because you were the first BLACK President, will it bruise your ego?

--

Photo of the Term: What 8 Years of "Change" Can Bring You

Obama in Germany 2008

Obama in Germany 2016

--

Taliban touts Bergdahl swap as key ‘achievement’

Okay, so the million dollar question is this:  When the Taliban achieved a lofty goal of getting back key Taliban commanders in exchange for America-hating traitor, Bowe Bergdahl, was it a case of President Barack Hussein Obama being dumb as a post and easily tricked by the terrorist Taliban or was Obama in on the scheme to aid the Taliban?

I doubt we will ever know but I would say that BOTH scenarios constitute treason against America by the Commander-in-chief and require impeachment.  Every single member of the House of Representatives serving at that time deserves recall but in the least must be voted out of office for failure to carry out their oath of office for not impeaching this traitor sitting in the White House.

The story comes from The Long War Journal.

Taliban touts Bergdahl swap as key ‘achievement’

The Taliban says the exchange of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five top Taliban commanders in 2014 was a major “achievement” in its war against the West and its allies. The claim was made in a lengthy video released on the Taliban’s official website, Voice of Jihad, earlier this month.

Footage from the exchange is shown early on in the production. The scenes include Bergdahl as he is about to be transferred to American forces and the five Taliban leaders being warmly greeted after their arrival in Qatar. Screen shots can be seen below.

As The Long War Journal has reported, all five of the Taliban commanders exchanged for Bergdahl had ties to al Qaeda prior to their detention in Cuba. [See LWJ report, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl exchanged for top 5 Taliban commanders at Gitmo.]

Norullah Noori and Mohammad Fazl were both senior Taliban military commanders in Afghanistan. Khairullah Khairkhwa was the governor of the Herat province and one of Mullah Omar’s trusted lieutenants. Abdul Haq Wasiq was a senior Taliban intelligence official. And Mohammad Nabi Omari was allegedly part of a joint Taliban and al Qaeda cell that targeted US and Coalition forces. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), which oversees the detention facility, deemed all five jihadists to be “high” risks to the US, its interests and allies.

Bergdahl was initially taken into custody by Taliban fighters after he wandered off an American outpost in the Paktika province in June 2009. He was then held for years by the Haqqani Network, which is part of the Taliban coalition and closely allied with al Qaeda. Siraj Haqqani, who leads the network, is one of the Taliban’s top two deputies and has also worked with senior al Qaeda leaders. Siraj has even held a seat on al Qaeda’s elite shura (advisory) council.

The Taliban’s video is intended to highlight the jihadists’ progress in Paktika, a province in southeastern Afghanistan on the border with Pakistan. The people of Paktika have long resisted foreign “invaders,” according to the Taliban, including the Soviets in the 1980s and the Americans beginning in late 2001.

The propaganda production highlights footage of “martyrdom” operatives training, a class on how to build improvised explosive devices, and a suicide bomber detonating a car packed with explosives.

A brief montage of the “infidels'” alleged crimes against the “Islamic nation” is also shown. A photo of American soldiers inside a mosque is included, as is an image of Florida pastor Terry Jones, who made a name for himself by burning Korans.

But much of the video focuses on the Taliban’s military operations in several of Paktika’s districts.

The Taliban’s shadow governor for Paktika, Hafez Belal Fateh (seen on the right), speaks at least twice in the video. In one clip, he is pictured sitting between two armed guards. Fateh portrays the Taliban as being united behind Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, who became the group’s emir after Mullah Omar’s death was publicly exposed in 2015. Fateh also claims that the Afghan people are aiding the Taliban’s fighters in their insurgency against the Afghan government and its coalition partners.

The video ends with a recording of Mansour, who vows that the Taliban will continue to wage jihad until an Islamic state is resurrected in Afghanistan.

Is Obama planning his revenge on Netanyahu?

Now, now....would anyone believe that Barack Hussein Obama and Valerie Jarrett would ever stoop so low as to exact some revenge on Israeli leader Bibi Netanyahu?  Of course the answer is an emphatic yet.  I just hope the revenge is so obvious that we can use it to put these two mongrels in a jail cell.

The story comes from The Jerusalem Post.

Is Obama planning his revenge on Netanyahu?

"During his final year in the White House, US President Barack Obama is preparing a metaphorical roadside IED for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It cannot be that the tainted relations between the two leaders will not end with Obama exacting some sweet revenge." Variations of the above statement have been uttered for a while now by senior American and Israeli officials since Netanyahu's speech to the US Congress last year during his campaign against Obama and his nuclear agreement with Iran.

This week, the New York Times brought the fraught Obama-Netanyahu relationship back into the headlines when the paper expounded on the US president's possible future revenge against the Israeli leader that will be served up cold in the form of a UN Security Council resolution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Several officials have said that Obama has grown so frustrated with trying to revive Middle East peace talks that he may lay down his own outline for an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution, in the form of a resolution in the United Nations Security Council, the Times reported.


“There will be a great temptation to do something in the final year. “For a president who came out faster and more aggressively on the Middle East than any of his predecessors, there is a gnawing sense of incompletion and perhaps even failure,” Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, told the Times last month.

Israel's former envoy to the UN Ron Prosor says that in recent days there are meetings in the White House on how to end
Obama's second term and discussions are taking place on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well.

"I believe that a US proposal for a UN Security Council Resolution is just one idea that was floated. The idea of an independent draft US resolution seems unlikely to me because the Americans are not interested in leading the negotiating process," Prosor said.

"It seems like a more concrete concern that the US will not use its veto in the Security Council to stop French or other countries' proposals on the conflict," he said.

Prosor added that in his opinion to bring the sides to the negotiating table by force is a mistake and is unlikely because "it will not bring peace."

"But Obama will have to do something. It may be that he will be satisfied with delivering a speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but in any event he will not leave office without making reference to the diplomatic process. That will not happen," Prosor said.

This is not the first time during Obama's tenure that the issue of the US not using its veto power at the security council has been raised.

Last year, US Senator John McCain pushed back against US threats to reassess its relationship to the Mideast diplomatic process.

McCain warned that if Obama would support a UN Security Council resolution calling for a Palestinian state, something he said would contravene the basic Mideast policies of the last 10 presidents – Congress would “have to examine our funding for the United Nations.”

McCain’s statement came a day after an interview Obama gave to the Huffington Post in which he continued to slam Netanyahu for saying on the eve of his election victory that a Palestinian state would not emerge under his tenure.

One of the options available, Obama administration officials have made clear since Netanyhau's election win, is not vetoing a UN Security Council resolution that would call – and perhaps try to impose – a two-state solution.

Asked by the Huffington Post if there was any reason to believe Netanyahu is serious about a Palestinian state, Obama said, “We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership, and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region.”

So how likely is it that the US will bring forward a proposal to the UN Security Council? It depends who you ask.

Alon Pinkas, Israel's former consul-general to New York, argues that a US move at the council is only one option of many that it can exercise.

"The feeling in Israel that the Obama revenge is imminent stems from the Israeli illusion that we interest Obama and occupy him. We are an ally of the United States but not the principle interest in its foreign policy and we should not get confused in this regard," Pinkas said.

According to Pinkas, there are three options open to Obama on how to act on the matter.

"The first option is that before Obama's departure in January he will deliver a general policy speech on the Middle East and and will reveal everything that we don't know about US Secretary of State John Kerry's peace efforts in 2014. We will hear about the [unpublicized] understandings reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians during those US brokered talks and in the second half of the speech Obama will set out his vision for the Middle East."

"The second option open to Obama is the one desired by Netanyahu because the prime minister likes the appearance that he is battling against the entire world. Under this option the US, in an unprecedented move, will not use its veto against a French resolution at the Security Council on the conflict. This option of non-exercise of the US veto can only be used between November and January 2017 so as not to hurt the campaign of the Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton."

"The third option is that the Americans will tender their own resolution at the Security Council, as described in the New York
Times report, but in my opinion Obama will not go this way because he knows that it supports Netanyahu's narrative that everyone is against us, that only he can stand firm against the entire world."

Retired ambassador and former deputy director general of the Foreign Ministry Gideon Meir argued that the arrival of judgment day, when the US turns to the UN Security Council on the Middle East conflict, is just a matter of time.

"I predicted that this would happen. There is a pattern of behavior for the US administration. The Obama-Netanyahu relationship is not straightforward. Obama will not harm Israeli security by way of the US economic security package. But Obama wants to leave a legacy of peace. Where can he do this? Only at the UN. He will go to the UN because there, in his world view, he will not be harming Israel but rather will be helping it. This view is shared by the majority of liberal American Jews," Meir said.

Meir said he doesn't think that a move by the US at the Security Council should be interpreted as being against Israel.

"Just because the Israeli government believes that the US would be acting against Israel does not make it anti-Israel. It can bring our government to a new way of looking at the situation. It is legitimate not to agree with Netanyahu and act accordingly. Not everyone is against us. The West Bank settlements are a trigger and the world does not like Netanyahu's policies. I see great difficulty in trying to prevent the US from acting at the United Nations. "

Next week, Vice President Joe Biden will be the keynote speaker at the left-wing Israel lobby group J Street's conference. The group is hoping that Biden will deliver a headline in line with the news reports of Obama's intention to bring a Security Council resolution.

"We support, encourage, and urge the US president to set out out parameters or some kind of framework that will ensure the continuation of diplomacy and the two-state solution and the American commitment to this idea. The reports of such a US intention are encouraging but it is dependent on the contents of a resolution if it is brought before the Security Council." Yael Patir, the Israel Director for J Street said.

"It is fairly certain that Netanyahu will oppose such a resolution. During his eight years in office Obama blocked all Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, which was unprecedented even compared to the Bush and Clinton administrations, so I don't think Obama can be accused of being anti-Israel," Patir said.

"On the backdrop of the diplomatic deadlock here, we think that any endorsement of the two-state solution serves Israel and we hope that Biden does this in his speech at our conference," she added.

Until Obama decides how to act, Israel is focusing on frustrating Palestinian diplomatic efforts at the UN. The Palestinians are planning to bring their own resolution to the UN Security Council declaring that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem are illegal and that calls on the sides to return to the negotiating table with a time frame of one year to reach
a final status agreement. The UN vote is set for April 22, Passover-eve, and Palestinian media reports that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is set to be present in New York for the vote.

The Palestinian draft resolution declares that "all of the settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem are illegal and are serious obstacles to achieving peace on the basis of the two-state solution."

"The Security Council condemns the continuation of building in the settlements and any other act meant to change the demographic balance or the character of the land," the draft resolution reads.

The last time that the Security Council voted on a settlements-related resolution was in February 2011. At that time the Palestinians had the support of 14 out of 15 Security Council members, including Britain, France and Germany. The US opposed the Palestinian move and tried to stop the Palestinians from bringing the resolution. When the efforts to convince the Palestinians failed, Obama used the American veto power.

First Obama Wanted To "Contain" ISIS....Now He Wants To "Defeat" Them?

Believe me on one thing - Barack Obama's unwavering support of ISIS has not diminished on iota.  The terrorist group/Islamic caliphate wannabes have ALWAYS been the darlings of one Barack Hussein Obama - they're Sunni, they're fundamental, they're anti-infidel - they are everything Obama believes in. 

So, just because little Barry al-Obama has decided to switch a word from "contain" to "defeat" is complete BS.  He wants them to win.  He always has.  He always will.

The story comes from DAWN.

Obama says destroying IS his 'top priority'

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama said Tuesday that destroying the militant Islamic State (IS) group remains his “top priority" at a time when the militant group continues to lose ground in Iraq and Syria.

“We continue to take on their leadership, their financial networks, their infrastructure,” Obama said at a meeting with senior military officials in the White House.

“We are going to squeeze them and we will defeat them."

“As we've seen from Turkey to Belgium, ISIL still has the ability to launch serious terrorist attacks,” he added, using another term for IS.

Coalition forces must maintain pressure on the insurgents using diplomacy and intelligence as well as military operations, coordinating operations between various branches of government, he said.

“We can no longer tolerate the kinds of positioning that is enabled by them having headquarters in Raqqa and in Mosul,” he said of cities in Syria and Iraq.

“Destroying ISIL continues to be my top priority."

Obama spoke next to Defense Secretary Ash Carter, General Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and combatant commanders.

Carter on Tuesday proposed changes to the military that would streamline its various forces of some 1.3 million soldiers and boost their ability to respond quickly by reviewing the current “top heavy” structure set out in the 30-year-old Goldwater-Nichols Act, which critics say is outdated.

The fight against IS has shown that the military's various commands and special forces should better coordinate their efforts, he said.

“We intend to be more efficient by integrating functions like logistics, intelligence and plans,” he said.
US-led strike destroys former Turkish consulate in Mosul

The US-led coalition fighting IS in Iraq and Syria conducted an airstrike in the Iraqi city of Mosul that destroyed the former Turkish consulate, an official said Tuesday.

Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said Monday's strike was carried out with the full cooperation of the Turkish government.

“ISIL repurposed the compound and used it as a headquarters for senior ISIL leaders, in addition to a bed-down location and weapons storage facility,” he said, using an acronym for the IS group.

“That compound has now been destroyed by coalition aircraft."

IS seized the key city of Mosul in June 2014 as they overran vast regions in northern and north-central Iraq, as well as in Syria.

Mosul, in northern Iraq, lies some 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of the Kurdish capital Arbil.

The city holds special significance for IS as the location where its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed his “caliphate” straddling Iraq and Syria.

Washington has led an international coalition staging airstrikes against IS in Syria and Iraq since September 2014, parallel to operations by the Syrian government and its ally Russia.

The Syrian army and its allies on Monday retook Syria's central town of al-Qaryatain, one of the IS group's last strongholds in the region.

The operation 75 miles southwest of Palmyra helped secure the government's retaking of that ancient city last week after IS held it for 10 months, destroying important archaeological sites and executing 280 people.

The Free Pass

Richard Nixon was forced to resign the Presidency due to Watergate.

Bill Clinton was impeached for MonicaGate.

Barack Obama has had:  FastNFuriousGate, IRSScandalGate, BenghaziGate, IranGate

Yet Obama has not been forced to resign nor has he been impeached.

Why is that?

BLACK PRIVILEGE.


--

Trump says Obama is like a ‘baby’

It's been over 7 years since someone has had the gonads to say these kinds of things about little Barry Obama.

The story comes from DAWN.

Trump says Obama is like a ‘baby’

NEW YORK: Republican presidential candidate Don­ald Trump again lashed out at President Barrack Obama over the Iran nuclear deal.

At a rally in Wisconsin, he said Obama was ‘like a baby’ because he criticised Iran for not following the spirit of the deal.

“Today, I hear Obama is very unhappy with Iran,” Trump said. “Because he feels that they haven’t lived up to the spirit of the agreement. What the hell did he think was going to happen? I hate seeing President Obama today saying that Iran has violated our agreement. I mean, what did he think? He’s now complaining about Iran violating the agreement. What the hell did he think? He’s like a baby. He’s like a baby.”

Trump who has come under heavy criticism by his own party, the Republicans, as well as Democrats on his remarks over punishment for women having abortion, is finding it difficult to walk back that statement.

He has revised his position five times so far. Yet he is leading the primary in New York, the most liberal state.

Salman Rushdie: It's Mistake for Obama Not to Call It 'Islamic Terrorism'

The story comes from CNS News.

Salman Rushdie: It's Mistake for Obama Not to Call It 'Islamic Terrorism'

(CNSNews.com) – Author Salman Rushdie--against whom Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death fatwa in 1989 because of his book "The Satanic Verses"--says that it is a miskake for President Barack Obama not to use the term "Islamic terrorism."

“It’s a mistake that the president is making to not use the term Islamic terrorism,” Rushdie said Wednesday during a question-and-answer session hosted by New York University’s Washington, D.C. Academic Center.

Rushdie was responding to a question from an audience member on whether he had changed his views since he had written a 2001 New York Times opinion piece entitled Yes, This Is About Islam.

“The answer is, no, they haven’t changed,” Rushdie said. “And I think, actually think it’s a mistake that the president is making to not use the term Islamic terrorism.”

“Because, of course, it’s not what a majority of Muslims would think or want,” Rushdie explained. “Of course, it’s a freakish manifestation that has grown up inside Islam. But to say that it’s not about Islam denies what the killers themselves always say.”

“You know, if you have a group of murderers who say--all of them--that they do it in the name of a particular prophet and a particular ideology, to say it’s not about that is just self-evidently evading the truth,” Rushdie said.

“The question is what has happened inside Islam that allowed this manifestation to grow up inside it,” he said. "And it's quite clear to me that the people who suffer most from Islamic terrorism are other Muslims."

“Terrorism in the Muslim world impacts Muslims first and most viciously, and most Muslims are as hostile to it as most non-Muslims are,” Rushdie went on to say. “All of that is true. But it’s still true that this is something happening inside Islam, not separate from it, inside it, and that needs to be defeated. We must first call it by its name.”

Rushdie said he understood the rationale behind trying to avoid using the term Islamic terrorism “for virtuous reasons of not wishing to stigmatize a large number of innocent people with the deeds of the few.” But he concluded that “it’s just simply not true to avoid it and one of the things that certainly I think writers are in the business of doing is to call things by their true name.”

“There are reasons why this thing has been going on in the Muslim world and they are Muslim reasons, not all because the West is wrong,” Rushdie said. “We need to look at that. We need to call it by its name.”

Rushdie also referenced the Easter Sunday bombing in Lahore, Pakistan, saying, “There are very courageous writers and journalists, I mean, for example, after this recent Pakistani atrocity. There have been articles in Pakistan in which people have said we have allowed this thing to grow in our midst and it’s our fault, we have to do something about it. We can’t endlessly blame somebody else.”

Rushdie’s fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, published in 1988, sparked worldwide controversy over what some considered to be an irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. In 1989, Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa for Rushdie’s death. Rushdie endured assassination attempts and lived under police protection for a time.

Cuba's Castro Backstabs Pussy Obama After Boy Wonder Leaves the Island

Can America get any lower than some two bit Marxist dictator making fun of our joke of an American President?  Any rational human being would have foreseen dealing with the Castro psychopaths as a NO WIN but not Barry Obama...hell, no...the Boy Wonder thinks the world bows to him.

The story comes from DAWN.

Cuba's Fidel Castro knocks sweet-talking Obama after 'honey-coated' visit

HAVANA: Retired leader Fidel Castro accused US President Barack Obama of sweet-talking the Cuban people during his visit to the island last week and ignoring the accomplishments of Communist rule, in an opinion piece carried by all state-run media on Monday.

Obama's visit was aimed at consolidating a detente between the once intractable Cold War enemies and the US president said in a speech to the Cuban people that it was time for both nations to put the past behind them and face the future “as friends and as neighbors and as family, together”.

“One assumes that every one of us ran the risk of a heart attack listening to these words,” Castro said in his column, dismissing Obama's comments as “honey-coated” and reminding Cubans of the many US efforts to overthrow and weaken the Communist government.

Castro, 89, laced his opinion piece with nationalist sentiment and, bristling at Obama's offer to help Cuba, said the country was able to produce the food and material riches it needs with the efforts of its people.

“We don't need the empire to give us anything,” he wrote.

Fidel Castro took power in a 1959 revolution and led the country until 2006, when he fell ill and passed power to his brother Raul Castro. He now lives in relative seclusion but is occasionally heard from in opinion pieces or seen on television and in photos meeting with visiting dignitaries.

The iconic figure's influence has waned in his retirement and the introduction of market-style reforms carried out by Raul Castro, but Fidel Castro still has a moral authority among many residents, especially older generations.

Obama did not meet with Fidel Castro during his three-day visit, nor mention him in any of his public appearances. It was the first visit of a sitting US president for 88 years.

Fidel Castro blasted Obama for not referring in his speech to the extermination of native peoples in both the United States and Cuba, not recognising Cuba's gains in health and education, and not coming clean on what he might know about how South Africa obtained nuclear weapons before apartheid ended, presumably with the aid of the US government.

“My modest suggestion is that he reflects (on the US role in South Africa and Cuba's in Angola) and not now try to elaborate theories about Cuban politics,” Castro said.

Castro also took aim at the tourism industry in Cuba, which has grown further since Obama's rapprochement with Raul Castro in December 2014. He said it was dominated by large foreign corporations which took for granted billion-dollar profits.

After Obama's visit, major obstacles remain to full normalisation of ties between Cuba and the United States, with no major concessions offered by Cuba on rights and economic freedom.

Obama Defends His ISIS Strategy

Just when you think you've seen or heard it all, Barack Hussein Obama opens up his big fat mouth and redefines absurdity for mankind, once again. 
Go back and document the slaughter, the beheadings, the acts of terrorism, the number of dead and wounded, the battles waged, the blood spilled ever SINCE Barack Obama decided on a course of action of "containment" of ISIS and then tell me how any sane, rational person can defend that strategy.

This article from The Wall Street Journal is a jaw dropper.  It basically says that Barack Obama is acting the way he is towards ISIS because he doesn't want to be like George W. Bush. 

And to think this man sits in the White House.  If this clown was your company's CEO, he'd be ordered in for a psych eval long ago.

For Obama, Muted Reaction to Brussels Attacks Is by Design

BUENOS AIRES—In the aftermath of a deadly terror attack that stirred Americans’ concerns about the potential for threats to the U.S., President Barack Obama pressed ahead with his tour of Latin America, including a planned family excursion in Patagonia.

Mr. Obama’s public appearance of nonchalance has drawn criticism from Republicans that he is detached from Americans’ fears and isn’t sufficiently countering violent extremism. But his approach partly reflects his belief that overreacting to a terrorist attack—however horrific—elevates extremist groups like Islamic State in a way that exaggerates their influence, his aides have said.

Also driving Mr. Obama is his view that the threat of terrorism in Americans’ daily lives often is overstated, and that the focus on it could become self-paralyzing and an excuse to adopt misguided policies. His aides often note that many more Americans are killed by gun violence than terrorist attacks, for instance.

Mr. Obama, asked about the Islamic State threat Wednesday at a news conference in Buenos Aires with Argentine President Mauricio Macri, urged Americans not to give terrorist groups the power “to strike fear in our societies.”

“Even as we are systematic and ruthless and focused in going after them, disrupting their networks, getting their leaders, rolling up their operations, it is very important for us to not respond with fear,” he said. “We send a message to those that might be inspired by them to say, you are not going to change our values of liberty, and openness, and the respect of all people.”

The president also moved to assure Americans that he is committed to defeating Islamic State, which claimed credit for the Brussels attacks and has vowed similar actions across the West, calling it his “top priority.”

The president was on the last day of a groundbreaking trip to Cuba when the terrorists struck Tuesday. He moved forward with his plans to deliver an address to the Cuban people, attend a baseball game with Cuban President Raúl Castro, and continue on to Argentina. Some Republicans, including presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, said the president should interrupt his trip, which he sees as an important foreign-policy advancement, to return home.

If Tuesday’s attack had been in the U.S., Mr. Obama would have undoubtedly returned to Washington, aides said. But he and his aides have argued that changing his schedule because of a terrorist attack isn’t always advisable, particularly at a time when the White House expects them to continue with some regularity world-wide.

“Obama operates primarily out of his head as opposed to his emotions,” presidential historian Mike Purdy said. He added that while there are “real strengths to that,” American people “want their president to understand what they are feeling, to understand their fears and doubts.”

Mr. Obama’s approach is motivated by the same factors that propelled him to office, said Barry Pavel, director of the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council, a think tank.

“It’s pretty obvious what’s driving him…which is the overactivity and aggressiveness of the Bush administration,” Mr. Pavel said, describing Mr. Obama’s policies as embedded in “restraint and moderation and caution and patience.”

The president has resisted pressure to change a U.S. strategy of airstrikes, special-operations forces raids, and cooperation with Western and local allies to take on Islamic State, also known as ISIS. While he has at times put more resources into the strategy, Republicans, along with some Democrats and American military officials, have said the U.S. should do more in terms of sending troops and arms.

In the wake of Brussels, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R., Calif.) said U.S.-backed opposition fighters against Islamic State should receive “the mortars, the artillery, the antitank weapons to win that fight.”

“Unfortunately, the White House still doesn’t have a plan to get the job done,” Mr. Royce said in a radio interview.

Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama’s former secretary of state and the Democratic front-runner in the race to succeed him, said the U.S. policy can’t be to “contain” Islamic State—which Mr. Obama’s critics have said his strategy is designed to do. “We must defeat ISIS,” Mrs. Clinton said in a foreign-policy speech Wednesday.

Mrs. Clinton added, “Our fight against radical jihadist terrorists will be long and there is very real risk of future attacks here at home.”

The White House is increasingly concerned about a culture of fear taking hold in what they essentially see as a new normal, with the threat of attacks always there. The president criticized Mr. Cruz by name over his calling this week for police to be allowed to “patrol and secure” Muslim communities in the U.S. Mr. Obama pointed to the proposal as precisely the type of reactive policy change that gives terrorists a win by giving up core American freedoms.

He also criticized Mr. Cruz’s comments that the U.S. should “carpet bomb” Islamic State, a move the president said would be contrary to American values and kill innocent civilians.

Mr. Obama said his strategy has taken 40% of the territory previously conquered by Islamic State, thinned its leadership ranks and forced them into hiding. Critics have noted that Islamic State has established new strongholds in Libya and managed to hold large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. is continuing to seek out effective methods against the group, Mr. Obama said, but emphasized he wouldn’t take additional action without sound reasons.

“We don’t just go ahead and blow something up just so that we can go back home and say we blew something up,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not a foreign policy. That’s not a military strategy.”

Marine General: ‘I Worry About The Capability… To Win in a Major Fight Somewhere Else Right Now’

America wanted this country neutered by electing and re-electing Barack Hussein Obama.  Well, America, you got it.  I hope your children curse your name for the rest of their lives.

The story comes from CNS News.

Marine General: ‘I Worry About The Capability… To Win in a Major Fight Somewhere Else Right Now’

(CNSNews.com) – “I worry about the capability and the capacity to win in a major fight somewhere else right now,” Gen. John Paxton, assistant commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, testified at a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support on Tuesday.

“The Marine Corps is committed to remaining our nation’s ready force, a force that’s truly capable of responding to any crisis anywhere around the world at a moment’s notice. It has been so for 240 years since Captain [Samuel] Nichols led his Marines ashore in Nassau in March of 1776,” the general testified.

“Last year, the Congress reiterated the expectations of the 82nd Congress that the Marine Corps continue to serve as our country’s expeditionary force and to be most ready when the nation is least ready.

“Today the Marine Corps is meeting and will continue to meet tomorrow your rightly high expectations,” Paxton told the senators, noting that one of the Marine Corps’ mottoes is “Fight Tonight”.

“We do all of that at the expense of our bench strength,” Paxton said in response to a question from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA). “We have tonight’s forces, which are ready, tomorrow night, which is ready, and everything else is at some degraded state of readiness, whether it’s personnel, training, leadership, [or] equipment.

“And that is not only mortgaging the future, but that’s mortgaging the surge capability to fight an operations plan against a known adversary…

"So I worry about the capability and the capacity to win in a major fight somewhere else right now.”

Last year, Paxton testified, the Marines “executed approximately 100 operations, 20 of them amphibious, 140 security cooperation activities with our partners and allies, and 160 major exercises.”

He noted that hundreds of Marines are still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and “many remain in harm’s way, heavily engaged in the Middle East and around the globe to do our nation’s bidding.”

Ernst also asked Gen. Daniel Allyn, the Army’s vice chief of staff - who testified that the Army is “globally engaged with more than 186,000 soldiers supporting combatant commanders in over 140 countries” - about its ability to provide the manpower and weapons needed by combat commanders currently in the field as well as during any unforeseen future crisis.

“We are absolutely committed to delivering trained and ready forces in support of our combatant commanders. That is job one for us. For the United States Army, we delivered 91 percent of what our combatant commanders asked for in terms of known requirements for this past year.

“That’s sounds good – 91 percent – that’s an A in many schools across the country, but that 9 percent gap is unacceptable to a combat commander, and we recognize that," Gen. Allyn responded.

“In addition to that, the Army has delivered 64 percent of the emerging requirements that came out during this past year of their total requirements. So 64 percent of what they asked for, that was unpredicted at the beginning of the year, we delivered.

“And of course, the problem with that is that came out of our surge capacity build. So while we’re trying to generate surge capacity for contingencies, we must continue to answer the emerging requirements that are validated by the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense.

“And the end result of that is I do not have a level of comfort that we are ready for a contingency of a major scale against our peer adversaries, and therefore I am very uncomfortable with the trajectory of our drawdown right now, and I do believe it’s time for a strategic review of is that’s what’s best for our nation?”

The Obama Legacy of Complete and Utter Foreign Failures

Those of you regular readers at this site and/or regular listeners to my Blog Talk Radio show have heard me say or see me write MANY times that "everything Barack Hussein Obama touches, turns to shit."
I stand by that statement more than ever as I read the headline of the below-captioned story.  Some will say "big deal, it's Libya, don't worry about it" - well, it's the point of the matter, it is HOW THIS COUNTRY IS PERCEIVED by the rest of the world, especially our enemies.

Here's the sad facts of what Barack Hussein Obama has done in military operations involving the U.S.:

• Obama was handed a war in Iraq that had been won by America and Iraqi forces and the lost that war.  He screwed the pooch and he 100% allowed ISIS to gain entry into the country through Syria, resurrect the old al Qaeda in Iraq machinery and infrastructure and thus assisted in the launch of the world caliphate under ISIS.
• Obama decided to set a timetable for full withdrawal from Afghanistan and that backfired so badly he had to change his mind - it's all too late, he screwed the pooch yet once again and the Taliban are less than 2 years away from reclaiming the country.
• Obama set his sights on Libya - he wanted Ghaddi out and so he set about involving the U.S. in operations there and before you knew it, Libya has descended into a lighter version of Syria and America is screwed in the ass, yet once again.

This President wants a legacy?  How about an art form to depict his legacy?  How about a stunning sculpture of a monkey fucking a football or a guy pissing down his leg?  Either of those would work to describe the prowess of one Barack Hussein Obama in military affairs across this world.

The story comes from Times of India.

US, Italy warn of rising IS threat in Libya but strikes off agenda

ROME: The United States and Italy warned on Tuesday that the Islamic State (IS) group is expanding its reach, threatening to seize Libya and launch attacks in Western countries.

But as representatives from the 23 countries of the US-led coalition battling the jihadists' self-declared "caliphate" reviewed their progress at talks in Rome, Italy and France made it clear military action against IS's Libyan wing is not on the immediate agenda.

Italian foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni and US Secretary of State John Kerry opened the talks by telling their allies that, since their meeting six months ago, the IS group had suffered setbacks in its core territory in Syria and Iraq.

But the hosts warned that the group is adapting to the pressure on its heartland and is redirecting its efforts towards Libya, where it has seized new territory, and into attacks like those in Paris, Ankara and San Bernadino, California.

"We are surely not here to brag about anything," Kerry said, after saying IS fighters have lost 40 per cent of their territory in Iraq and 20 per cent in Syria.

"We're here to recommit, we're here to re-evaluate, we're here to make judgements about things we have started that we could do better," he said.

Gentiloni said the challenge facing the coalition of mainly Western and Arab nations is stark.

"We know that we have in front of us an organisation that is very resilient and able to plan strategically and so we should not underestimate it," he said.

"If anything we need to be ever more wary and more watchful because we know that the more Daesh is squeezed in its core territories, the more tempted it is pursue its terrorist activities elsewhere," he warned, using an Arabic acronym for IS.

"We are witnessing renewed activity in Libya and in sub-Saharan Africa," he said.

Within the coalition, Italy has taken the lead in planning how to address the IS threat which is just a short boat ride from its southern shores, in and around the Libyan city of Sirte.

Rome's focus is on trying to rally the international community behind efforts to create a national unity government in Libya that is capable of stabilising its former colony.

Direct military intervention against IS fighters is not on the immediate agenda, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters, rubbishing reports that Paris was pushing for strikes.

"There is absolutely no question of military intervention in Libya," Fabius said. "There is pressure (for that) but that is not the position of the government."

Gentiloni told the Messagero daily time was running out to stabilise Libya but stressed there was no enthusiasm in Rome or the international community for "hasty military intervention."

Washington says it has built a 66-nation coalition to fight the IS group, with Afghanistan becoming the latest country to join, Kerry said.

But a so-called "small group" of 23 nations has taken the lead in carrying out air strikes in Iraq and Syria and training and arming local forces to fight the jihadists.

Kerry said the effort now needs to be stepped up, citing the example of Washington's deployment of small numbers of special forces troops inside Syria.


The allies need to "push ahead with a strategy we have learned will work and to do so relentlessly, giving Daesh no time to regroup, no place to run, no safe havens in which to hide," he said.

Fabius said France also supported intensified strikes in Syria but suggested "more strategic" targeting was required while peace talks are under way in Switzerland.


"We cannot bomb in Syria and negotiate in Geneva," he said in an explicit allusion to Russia's air campaign in Syria.

Hey Obama, Got a Notepad? How About Getting Your Head Out of Your Climate Change Ass For a Few?

I find it almost laughable that while the President of the United States decides to spend a couple of minutes at a press conference trying to come up with clever sound bite slogans to describe the Islamic State or the Muslim refugee invasion, we have other world leaders, like the Prime Minister of Britain presenting a 24 PAGE DOCUMENT on the evils of ISIS.

For a supposed college whiz kid, you have to notice just how much Obama AVOIDS detail and research on ANYTHING - it's almost like he never went to college or damn near flunked out of it.  Maybe we should look into that.  Oh yeah.

We can't.

The story comes from The Long War Journal.

British Prime Minister highlights Islamic State’s threat to UK, West

Britain’s police and security services have “disrupted no fewer than 7 terrorist plots to attack the UK” in the past 12 months, all of which “were either linked to” the Islamic State or “inspired” by the group’s propaganda, according to British Prime Minister David Cameron.

The terrorist threat has grown in recent months because the Islamic State “has a dedicated external operations structure in Syria, which is planning mass casualty attacks around the world.”

Cameron’s claims were included in 24 pages of written text recently submitted to the UK parliament as part of his effort to justify the extension of British military operations from Iraq into Syria. The submission includes a 10 page memorandum from Cameron, as well as 14 pages of answers to questions posed by the UK parliament’s foreign affairs select committee. The Islamic State is referred to as ISIL (an acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) throughout.

Although some analysts have assumed that the Islamic State is not really interested in, or capable of, planning large-scale operations in the West, the British government says it has been tracking the “caliphate’s” efforts in this regard for some time. The assault on multiple sites in Paris earlier this month was the organization’s first successful large-scale terrorist attack in Europe, but Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s jihadists had been targeting the West long beforehand.

“For several months now,” one of the answers provided to the foreign affairs select committee reads, “UK security agencies have been monitoring the development of ISIL’s external attack planning capacity, which seeks to target both the UK and our allies and partners around the world.”

Cameron has repeatedly argued that the Islamic State is planning strikes in the UK and elsewhere in the West.

In September, he identified Reyaad Khan and Junaid Hussain, both of whom were killed in airstrikes, as “British nationals based in Syria who were involved in actively recruiting [Islamic State] sympathizers and seeking to orchestrate specific and barbaric attacks against the West, including directing a number of planned terrorist attacks right here in Britain, such as plots to attack high profile public commemorations, including those taking place this summer.” Khan was killed in a Royal Air Force (RAF) drone strike on August 21, while Hussain perished in an American airstrike in Raqqa three days later, on August 24. [See LWJ report, Prime Minister says 2 British nationals killed in airstrikes were plotting attacks.]

In his recent testimony, Cameron cited a number of statistics to highlight the ongoing threat. He noted that the Islamic State “targets our young people, using sophisticated grooming techniques to lure them to Syria.”

Approximately “800 British individuals of national security concern have traveled to Syria since the conflict began” and “[m]any have joined ISIL and other terrorist groups.”

“Of those who are known to have traveled,” Cameron claimed, “about half have returned” and “many of those who remain in Syria, pose a threat to our security.”

According to Cameron, there “were 299 arrests in the UK in the year ending 31 March 2015 for terrorism-related offenses,” which is “an increase of 31% compared with the previous year and the highest number since data collection began in 2001.”

Britain has already increased its role in Iraq, where Cameron claims “Iraqi forces have halted ISIL’s advance and recovered 30% of the territory it had captured.” There is no doubt the Islamic State has suffered some key losses in Sinjar, Tikrit and Baiji. But it is not clear if these losses constitute 30 percent of its total territorial holdings, as Cameron claimed, because the jihadists still control Mosul and other significant areas.

Regardless, Cameron argued that any strategy to combat the Islamic State makes little sense if the “caliphate” is not confronted in its de facto capital of Raqqa.

“As pressure on ISIL in Iraq has grown, and as we have learned more about the threat that ISIL poses to Britain and our allies, we have increasingly been confronted by a significant handicap in our ability to respond to that threat: the fact that British Forces are currently restricted to taking direct military action against ISIL only in Iraq,” Cameron pointed out.

“This restriction has never made military sense.” Cameron elaborated: “ISIL does not recognize the border between Syria and Iraq,” as “it operates in a single ungoverned space that straddles both countries.” Moreover, the group’s “practical and ideological headquarters are in Raqqa…from where it conducts its attack planning, operations and recruitment.”

Cameron made a strong call to action, saying the West does “not have the luxury of being able to wait until the Syrian conflict is resolved before tackling ISIL.”

“Nor should we wait until an attack takes place here: we should act in advance, recognizing that there are inherent risks in any course,” Cameron wrote to parliament.

“There will be those who say that the UK might become more of a target by taking a greater role in the international effort to counter ISIL,” Cameron noted. “The reality is that the threat posed by ISIL to the UK is already very high. ISIL already views the UK, along with other Western countries, as a legitimate target for its attacks.”