Trump orders Syrian strikes: a post-event analysis

Was President Trump right or was he wrong?

Is this a real war or is this a proxy war?

I see this, initially, as a defensive and not offensive decision on the part of the United States, and I see it as limited in nature.

From NBCNews.com:

U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base Over Chemical Weapons Attack

by Kourtney Kube, Alex Johnson, Hallie Jackson, Alexander Smith

The United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria overnight in response to what it believes was a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 100 people.

At least six people were killed, Syria claimed, but the Pentagon said civilians were not targeted and the strike was aimed at a military airfield in Homs.

All but one of the missiles hit their intended target, one U.S. military official told NBC News. The other missile failed.

The strike completed a policy reversal for President Donald Trump — who once warned America to stay out of the conflict — and drew angry responses from Damascus and its main ally, Russia.

Half truth. Again the American Media Maggots are either purposely misleading you, or are ignorant, or both. Syria has two very important allies: Iran and Russia.

The missiles were launched from the USS Ross and the USS Porter in the Mediterranean Sea toward Shayrat Airfield. American officials believe it was used by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad to carry out a strike on Tuesday involving chemical weapons that resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people.

Tillerson and Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., have bluntly blamed Syria for the chemical weapons attack, whose victims included at least 25 children.

“We have a very high level of confidence that the attacks were carried out by aircraft under the direction of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and we also have very high confidence that the attacks involved the use of sarin nerve gas,” Tillerson said.

This is not an uncomplicated situation and the players are many and ever-changing.

The truth is this: we didn’t necessarily target the airfield; we instead targeted aircraft, their hardened shelters and fueling stations. A point. One Tomahawk malfunctioned and spent itself into the sea. Funny thing: the US Navy wants to stop buying Tomahawks in the next few years (to the tune of $1.4 million dollars each). The USN, by the way, has 4,000 Tomahawk missiles, built by Raytheon.

The confusing aspect of President Trump’s action is its reaction from the Republicans, the Demorats, Trump voters and military analysts. It’s all over the map. Many reactions are not what one would nominally expect.

Some people feel betrayal because President Trump has said he is not the “president of the world.” On the heels of that statement he has intervened in Syria; his first military response.

Not anticipated by me was the response by the American Media Maggots. Many outlets praised the attack.

But wait. Aren’t these the same American Media Maggots who have been screeching from the tallest towers that President Trump was a stooge for Russia and Vladimir Putin? It doesn’t seem to me that Moscow would be pleased with the attack and, of course, it wasn’t. Wait; doesn’t Moscow = Putin?

The AMM said this about those who opposed it:

  • Politico.com called those opposed to the attack “Trump’s troll army” and “racists” and “conspiracy mongers”;
  • The New York Times called oppo members a “small but influential white nationalist movement”;
  • The Washington Post said the attack’s critics hold “racist, anti-Semitic and sexist” views;

Again, I can sum up those articles best by quoting Monty Python: “you’re a loon.”

Speaking of which, as I mentioned, there were those who continued to insist on making the linkage between President Trump and Russia despite the total lack of evidence and subsequent denial from US intelligence agencies. Our good “you’re a loon” buddy Lawrence O’Donnell weighs in with a Moonbat Theory: what if Vladimir Putin planned the Syrian gas attack in order to assist his great friend, President Donald Trump?

Fear not, for we not only have a civilian Trump/Russia conspiracist, but an elected government official as a Trump/Russia conspiracist, Representative Seth Moulton (6th District, Massachusetts) spoke with Tucker Carlson Monday night.

An elected representative saying something like this is akin to Rep Hank Johnson saying that Guam could capsize because of extra weight.

There are those, however, who believe the attack was illegal as no declaration of war was made by Congress. This is patently false. I remind folks of the fact that Obama operated that way for, literally, all eight years of his regime and was never told he required Congressional approval for the drone and missile strikes he ordered. Even Left-leaning PolitiFact stated that Trump had the authority to conduct his strike under Article 2 of the US Constitution.

  • Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.
  • Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.
  • Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that po

Some said President Trump should have come before Congress and made his case in public. One thing we do know about Trump is this: he doesn’t much care to advertise coming actions. Logically so, in terms of military strategy.

These are the same people, interestingly enough, who said President Bush’s movement into Iraq was fallacious and that Saddam Hussein was not in possession of WMD materials despite the fact that an article in the New York Times indicated the opposite. An article in PowerLine also supported the conclusion of the Times.

Further, some said that Saddam Hussein moved his WMD materials prior to the invasion and had them transported to Syria. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz believed so in 2003. Somehow I think people now more clearly understand that nexus.

But wait; wasn’t it Susan Rice and John Kerry who unequivocally declared that because of the tireless work they did to eliminate all chemical weapons from Syria under Barack Hussein Obama, “the entirety of the declared stockpile was removed.”

Hmm. It would appear Susan Rice lied about Benghazi. She lied about Bowe Bergdahl, that he had served with “honor and distinction.” She lied about the unmasking of names. And apparently she lied about the chemical stockpile in Syria. Here she is in an NPR interview, January 16th.

I’m of the mindset that if Susan Rice stated the sun would rise in the east tomorrow morning, I’d be suspicious.

Many people consistently bleat that political solutions and diplomatic negotiations must occur when potential conflicts arise. Like the prior administration and its occupants and sycophants. The problem with that theory is that none of it can exist absent military credibility.

The US needed to re-establish military credibility in the Middle East, lost as it was under the previous eight years under Barack Hussein Obama, and Trump demonstrated that credibility with that Syrian strike. He also set forth the doctrine that the words of a US president now have consequences.

John Kerry and Susan Rice under Obama became absolutely convinced that Assad had surrendered all of his chemical weapons which, clearly, he hadn’t. Even PolitiFact has revised and retracted its insistence that the US removed “100%” of Syria’s chemical weapons. The meme then was:

“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” then-Secretary of State John Kerry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in July 2014. Kerry was referring to a deal the U.S. and Russia struck in September 2013 in which the Russians agreed to help confiscate and then destroy Syria’s entire chemical weapons stockpile.

Some people are insisting it was a false flag event. Like VA Senator Richard Black.

Further, some are saying rebels are responsible for the attack, not the official Syrian government.

Will President Bashar Al-Assad gas his people again? We know he could, as he clearly has access to chemical agents despite the claim that more than 1,300 to 1,400 tons of it had been eliminated. We also know that Al-Assad’s Syrian military is hurting. He hasn’t much of an air force remaining to speak of, his army pretty much doesn’t exist, and that accounts for his need for mercenaries and conscripts from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq — primarily because Syrians won’t fight for him.

Let’s not forget, however, that Al-Assad does have Iran working for him. He has the support of the Quds force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards corps, Hezbollah and Russia, who stepped into Syria two years ago under the guise of fighting ISIS.

DefenseOne.com had any number of interesting articles on the Syrian missile strike. One of them was “Seven Disturbing Implications of Trump’s Syria Strike” by David Frum of The Atlantic. Ahem. A Left-leaning journal.

  • Trump’s Words Mean Nothing
  • Trump Does Not Give Reasons
  • Trump Does Not Care About Legality
  • Trump Disregards Government Processes
  • Trump Has No Allies
  • Trump Envisions No End State
  • Trump Is Lucky in His Opponents

Concurrently, a contrasting article from The Atlantic by Tom Malinowski stated:

America Should Have Hit Assad Four Years Ago

When dealing with mass killing, deterrence is more effective than disarmament.

Donald Trump is president; he now bears full responsibility for addressing the tragedy in Syria, and for the consequences of the response he has chosen. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reflect on America’s response to the Assad regime’s previous chemical weapons attacks—for how we interpret the difficult and debatable choice the Obama administration (in which I served) made not to use military force when Assad last used nerve gas against his people will shape our thinking about this and similar crises for a long time to come. The lesson I would draw from that experience is that when dealing with mass killing by unconventional or conventional means, deterrence is more effective than disarmament.

An earth-shaking conclusion from a Leftist.

Now let’s get into the weeds. The weeds that need to be examined, and the weeds that western media and the American Media Maggots refuse to appraise.

That of the involvement of the Middle Eastern version of Islam itself. You cannot understand Islam until you understand the two most fundamental divisions in Islam. And why this Islamic quote is accurate:

Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my brother and my cousin against the tribe. Me and my brother and my cousin and my tribe against the outsider.

Let’s state the obvious:

Islam breaks itself down into two distinct camps: Sunni vs Shite.

What are the fundamental yet apparently unrecoverable differences between the two camps?

As clearly explained as I could make. Yet it’s all worth dying for.

Books I continue to highly recommend regarding the Middle Eastern version of Islam, are

One must read what one proclaims to not understand, until there is a grasp of what is extant. Surprises frequently hide in plain sight. So it is with Islam. Weeds, meet reality.

Let me break things down for you in the Middle East, so you can easily understand.

  • Sunni Islam (ISIS) hates Iranians (Shia);
  • Sunni Arabs were responsible for 9/11;
  • Iran = Shia, the largest number of Shiites in the world;
  • Saudi Arabia = mostly Sunni; Shiites are a minority;
  • Syria = mostly Sunni;
  • ISIS = ISIL = Daesh = Sunni = Wahabbist;

Iran is predominantly helping and funding Syria. Iran = Shia and ISIS = Sunni.

It’s ISIS vs Assad.

And the US is fighting both. We are also arming a third force — a “rebel force” — which has ties to al Qaeda.

  • Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is a puppet of Iran. And Russia.
  • Saudi Arabia will not accept giving Damascus (Syria) over to Iran.
  • As long as Assad is in power neither ISIS nor al Qaeda can be destroyed.
  • Assad is backed by Iran and Russia.
  • Russia provides military equipment to Iran. Including missile sites.

I ask again: is the US fighting a proxy war? And for whom? Iran? Saudi Arabia?

Why not simply let Iran (Shiite) and ISIS (Sunni) battle it out?

I repeat:

Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my brother and my cousin against the tribe. Me and my brother and my cousin and my tribe against the outsider.

One could look at it this way: ISIS = Germany and Assad = Japan. They are both Axis powers.

You see how clear and obvious things are now? How the clouds have parted for you?

Or perhaps these issues are even more muddied than before you started reading this post. Entirely possible.

From the NewStatesman.com:

Why Tehran hates Isis: how religious rifts are fueling conflict

The alliance between Iran and Syria might seem an unlikely one. As Iran is an Islamic republic, one might not expect its closest ally to be a dictatorship that grew out of the political doctrine of Baathism, a secular Arab nationalist movement that originated in the 1930s and 1940s. But politics – and perhaps especially the politics of relations between states – develops its own logic, which often has little to do with ideology. Baathism advocated Arab unity but two of its founding fathers, Michel Aflaq and Zaki al-Arsuzi, both Syrians, disliked each other and would not be members of the same party.

Projects to fuse Syria and Egypt and, later, Syria and Iraq foundered, creating in the latter case a personal bitterness between Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez, and Saddam Hussein, though both were Baathists, at least nominally. That led to the two states breaking off diplomatic relations with each other at the end of 1979. When Iraq invaded Iran the following year, Syria and Iran became allies against Iraq. Syria cut off an oil pipeline that had allowed Iraq to export its oil from a Mediterranean port and Iran supplied Syria with cheap oil.

Stop. Do you see some things more clearly?

The Middle Eastern version of Islam, as practiced, is founded in barbarity, cruelty, nomads, bedouins. They do not recognize the lines as ascribed to their countries by western civilizations. Iranians are Persians. They are not Arabs. Never confuse a Persian with an Arab. Both will slit your carotid for doing so.

Then there is another distinguishing element to be revealed.

Even within Syria there are divisions within divisions, wheels within wheels. From the ThoughtCo.com:

The Difference Between Alawites and Sunnis in Syria

by Primoz Manfreda

Why is there Sunni-Alawite tension in Syria?

The differences between Alawites and Sunnis in Syria have sharpened dangerously since the beginning of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, whose family is Alawite. The reason for tension is primarily political, rather than religious: top position in Assad’s army are held by Alawite officers, while most of the rebels from the Free Syrian Army come from Syria’s Sunni majority.

Sufficiently confused yet?

  • Geographical Presence: Alawites are a Muslim minority group that accounts for around 12% of Syria’s population, with a few small pockets in Lebanon and Turkey (though not to be confused with Alevis, a Turkish Muslim minority). Around 70% of Syrians belongs to Sunni Islam, as does almost 90% of all Muslims in the world).
    Historical Alawite heartlands lie in the mountainous hinterland of Syria’s Mediterranean coast in the country’s west, next to the coastal city of Latakia. Alawites form the majority in Latakia province, although the city itself is mixed between Sunnis, Alawites and Christians. Alawites also have a sizeable presence in the central province of Homs and in the capital Damascus.
  • Doctrinal Differences: Alawites practice a unique but little known form of Islam that dates back to the 9th and 10th century. Its secretive nature is an outcome of centuries of isolation from the mainstream society and periodical persecution by the Sunni majority.

Here is a list of all Islamic attacks under the Obama Administration. But still, just out of curiosity, are there questions that can determine Sunni vs Shiite?

There are. From the NYT.com:

Questions Rebels Use to Tell Sunni From Shiite

by Alissa J. Rubin

BAGHDAD — Whether a person is a Shiite or a Sunni Muslim in Iraq can now be, quite literally, a matter of life and death.

As the militant group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has seized vast territories in western and northern Iraq, there have been frequent accounts of fighters’ capturing groups of people and releasing the Sunnis while the Shiites are singled out for execution.

ISIS believes that the Shiites are apostates and must die in order to forge a pure form of Islam. The two main branches of Islam diverge in their beliefs over who is the true inheritor of the mantle of the Prophet Muhammad. The Shiites believe that Islam was transmitted through the household of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis believe that it comes down through followers of the Prophet Muhammad who, they say, are his chosen people.

This isn’t a matter of the “big picture” like the previous administration. Things now get down to very specific details.

But how can ISIS tell whether a person is a Sunni or a Shiite? From accounts of people who survived encounters with the militants, it seems they often ask a list of questions. Here are some of them:

  • What is your name?
  • Where do you live?
  • How do you pray?
  • What kind of music do you listen to?

Back to reality. During President Trump’s first outright military action, let’s be honest. Not much occurred. Thousands didn’t perish. Hundreds didn’t perish. Dozens didn’t perish.

However, there occurred the customary posturing anticipated.

Iran is unhappy and described as “tense.”

Vladimir Putin sets his own “red line” in concert with Iran;

It’s all about what occurs next.

How about we try to do this: keep American boots from smacking Syrian dirt. Strike as necessary. Attempt to build a global consensus to give Syria back to Syrians. And then provide an incentive for Syrians in Europe to 1) go back home, and 2) not leave in the first place. That would include safe zones in Syria. Because the fewer Muslims in western countries, the easier it becomes to identify ISIS and its corruptive elements. And, well, because true Islam and Sharia is completely incongruent with western values.

But have we been duped into fighting a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, of Sunni vs Shiite?

This is President Trump’s first test, militarily. He has both pleased and displeased. Overall, to this point, I submit that he has not been found wanting.

All of that said, delineated and extrapolated, here is what I believe occurred with regard to President Trump and the Syrian missile attack. His daughter Ivanka pressed for this and, once Trump saw the photos and video of dead and injured civilians, women and children, he reacted. Emotionally.

What I also believe is that his generals and advisers were in congruence with this thinking because it didn’t remove President Trump from the mainstream of a limited and coordinated response. It served everyone’s purpose.

This is both assuring and disturbing, simultaneously.

BZ

 

DEMOCRATS meet with and LOVE RUSSIANS

Little Chuckie Schumer loves the Russians.

Drudge Powers Trump Counter-Attack on Russia

by Gideon Resnick

On Friday afternoon, President Trump tweeted an image of Senator Chuck Schumer standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It depicts the two men seemingly cordially holding coffee and donuts.

Let’s be honest  Who knows what kind of communications may have occurred sub rosa between Schumer and Russia’s leader himself? Even President Trump himself hasn’t yet physically met with Vladimir Putin. Schumer did. Why was that? Why? Was it a clandestine meet in plain sight? What messages were passed? Can you tell me? Does anyone know?

Nancy Pelosi said she hadn’t met with any Russians. Despite there being Russian Hill in San Francisco. Was Nancy Pelosi a liar? Yes, apparently she was. Here is the photo.

Then, from Politico.com:

Photo contradicts Pelosi’s statement about not meeting Kislyak

by Kyle Cheney

The Democratic House leader sat with the Russian ambassador and other officials in 2010.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that she’s never met with the current Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

“Not with this Russian ambassador, no,” Pelosi told POLITICO’s Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer during a Playbook interview, when asked whether she had ever met with the Russian envoy.

But wait, there’s more.

But a file photo from Pelosi’s 2010 meeting with Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev shows Kislyak at the table across from Pelosi — then House speaker — and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Medvedev had been in the country for a meeting with President Barack Obama a day earlier and stopped in on Capitol Hill to meet with congressional leaders as well.

Fine. But let’s look at the video where Nancy Pelosi, in all her stilted Katherine Helmond/ Lewy Body/Alzheimers glory, attempted to refute the obvious (kudos to the movie Brazil by Terry Gilliam).

Remember, this is the same Nancy Pelosi who held a secret fundraiser for Islamists and Hamas-linked groups in 2012, from the DailyCaller.com:

Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi headlined a high-dollar fundraiser in May that was attended by U.S.-based Islamist groups and individuals linked by the U.S. government to the Hamas jihad group and to the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood movement.

The donors at the undisclosed May 16 event included Nihad Awad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, according to data provided by the nonpartisan Investigative Project on Terrorism.

The CAIR group was named an unindicted conspirator in a 2007 trial of a Hamas money-smuggling group.

A covertly-taken photograph provided by the IPT shows Pelosi standing near Awad at the fundraiser. Roughly 30 people attended the fundraiser, according to the IPT (International Project on Terrorism, whose story and link can be found here.)

Stop. Wasn’t it Barack Hussein Obama who said, in 2008, sotto voce, to then Russian President Medvedev, that he would be more conciliatory to Russia upon re-election?

The words were: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Then there was the proverbial “Russian Reset” by an ignorant Obama administration represented by Hillary Rodham Clinton who got the words WRONG on the physical “Russian Reset” button itself.

Nancy Pelosi loves the Russians. Little Chuckie Schumer loves the Russians.

The Demorats love the Russians.

And it wasn’t just one Demorat embracing the Rooskies.

Flashback: Numerous Dems, Obama Also Met with Russian Ambassador

While Democrats feverishly sought Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ resignation after he was revealed to have had encounters with Russian diplomats, photos and records show dems also met with the same Russian ambassador to little fanfare.

In fact the Russian ambassador whom Sessions is accused of meeting visited the Obama administration White House no less than 20 times, and even sat with Democrats at Trump’s congressional address Tuesday.

You might find this a bit troubling to locate because of all the advertisement-ridden flotsam that currently exists between yourself and way too many so-called “conservative” websites courtesy of the “make me wait five seconds” monetizers.

But not on BZ, because I don’t exist to make cash. I exist to bring you the unmitigated truth. You have not and will never see ONE advertisement on BZ.

Photos from earlier this week show Russia’s US ambassador Sergey Kislyak preparing to sit among democrats at the president’s first address to Congress.

Fox News reports that seven other Democrat senators also previously met with Kislyak, one of whom had claimed she had never met with any Russian ambassadors during her time on the Armed Services Committee.

Really?

I’d suspect quite so.

Then again, media bias? I’d suspect not so much but, in retrospect, I’d be way wrong. Because in terms of media bias, I have this from NewsBusters.org:

HYPOCRISY: 7X More Coverage for Sessions Debacle than Holder Contempt

by Mike Ciandella and Rich Noyes

If you ever doubted that the media see the news through a partisan prism, consider this: in less than two days, ABC, CBS and NBC devoted nearly 7 times as much coverage to Jeff Sessions meeting with the Russian Ambassador in his role as a U.S. Senator than they did when then-Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress in June 2012.

On March 2, Democrats accused Sessions of misleading Congress by not disclosing that he met with the Russian ambassador to the United States twice while he was serving as Senator. Despite admitting that the statements Sessions made to Congress “would not be considered false under the law” (Jan Crawford, CBS Evening News, March 2), ABC, CBS and NBC devoted more than 1 hour and 12 minutes to this topic, just on the morning and evening shows of March 2 and the morning shows of March 3.

Imagine that.

Add it all up, and the unprecedented contempt charge against Obama’s Attorney General earned only 10 minutes, 38 seconds of network airtime, or only slightly more than one-seventh of that spent in 1.5 days over Sessions’ meeting with the Ambassador.

Finally, from the UKDailyMail.com, two days ago.

SIX more Democratic leaders are revealed to have met with Russian Ambassador amid campaign to discredit Trump’s aides for doing the same

by Karen Ruiz

  • Six Democratic leaders were revealed to have been in a meeting with Russia’s Ambassador with Claire McCaskill 
  • Democratic Senator McCaskill denied ever meeting with Russian Ambassador 
  • Old tweets proved the lawmaker had met with Sergey Kislyak in 2013 
  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose during his confirmation hearing that he spoke with Russia’s ambassador twice last year 
  • McCaskill and other Democratic leaders including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer called for Sessions’ resignation

As Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill’s claims that she had never met with Sergey Kislyak were proven to be untrue, six more Democrats have been revealed to have met with the Russian Ambassador.

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island sat in on the meeting with Kislyak and McCaskill, Fox News reported. 

The seven Democratic leaders met with the ambassador to discuss the blockade of US adoptions in Russia in 2013.

Lies and more lies on the part of Demorats.

On the other hand — worse for each and every Leftist — Trump is now at a 53% approval rating.

Let’s just say: it would be accurate to state the Demorats have met the hell out of the Russians.

BZ

 

Obama defecates on America before leaving

Mr Obama, like a spoiled child who has been told he can’t do or have something, is moving in a unilateral fashion to ensure the presidential transition is as troublesome as possible for President-Elect Donald Trump, to the point where the US could actually be under escalated threat. Cyber warfare, now, can be every bit as disastrous as kinetic warfare.

The most accurate summary of what’s happening was made by Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, when he said:

“Obama is like a tenant who has been evicted from a property, and he’s going to trash the place on the way out.”

When Obama’s Doctrine has historically been to “lead from behind,” he now feels it’s time to blow up his chest and posture. Dove turns suddenly to hawk. Why here, why now? Easy: it serves Obama’s and the Demorats’ narrative because this focus deflects from the facts that Demorats, the DNC and Hillary Clinton cheated, lied, colluded, embraced corruption and committed actual yet-unindicted crimes

Let’s not forget it’s Mr Obama who said during the 2012 debate with Mitt Romney:

Let us not forget that the Obama Doctrine itself called for a “Russian reset” in 2009, to the point where Hillary Clinton delivered as a gift, literally, a red button to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in a press conference. The “reset” was to shift from the ways of the Evil & Judgmental George Bush. As perhaps a portent of things to come, the Russian-language label had the wrong word, and read ‘overcharged’ instead of ‘reset.’

Let us not forget it was Mr Obama who leaned over to Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and was caught, sotto voce, on a active microphone asking Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for “space.” Obama said “this is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Our relationship with Russia is the worst it’s been since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Obama stated he wanted, specifically, sanctions and retaliation for Russia’s “hacking of our election” and the DNC, though Obama offers no evidence or facts to support the allegation — in fact, having said the Russians were not involved — therefore escalating tensions between the two countries. Obama has stated there are “covert actions” coming next. Covert actions? Of what variety? And why — if covert actions are in fact looming — would you be sufficiently daft to announce same?

Further, the sanctions and expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from various locations and shutting down two Russian compounds in Maryland and New York is stuff of the old Cold War. “Covert actions” are not. Russia may conclude these proposed actions are true existential threats to their security, to include hacking their military and nuclear facilities, their banks, the electrical grid. While the American Media Maggots egg Mr Obama on — in itself one of the strangest things recently, the AMM now being hawks instead of doves — simultaneously Russia leaves Obama out of cease-fire talks with Syria.

In response — no shock — Putin in Moscow says that Russia is considering “retaliation” for Obama’s “retaliation.” Putin’s “retaliation” is of the unknown variety at this point.

Mr Obama does this with twenty-one days left in his lame duck administration.

Even the New York Times seemed to “get it” when it wrote on Thursday that Obama’s actions appear designed to “box in President-elect Donald Trump.” That includes the UN and Israel as well. Obama has had eight years to focus on cyber espionage and cyber warfare, yet somehow waits until the last 21 days of his presidency to make any kind of stand whatsoever? Somehow we knew not of those 35 spy/diplomats and two spy hubs prior?

Particularly with regard to Barack Hussein Obama, I don’t believe in coincidences. Up to this point Obama has had the grim determination of an asthmatic chihuahua regarding foreign hacking.

What’s conveniently forgotten, however, is that Mr Obama — using our taxpayer dollars — tried to purposely interfere in Israel’s 2015 elections in an attempt to specifically keep Benjamin Netanyahu out of office.

Here’s the point. Yes, the Russians and the Chinese are likely hacking the shite out of US government, corporate and intelligence interests perhaps on a daily basis. But we only become upset over it when Leftists, the Demorats, the DNC, John Podesta and Hillary Rodham Clinton are involved? Seriously? Ox? Gored?

Look, Barack Hussein Obama already said the Russians were not involved. The FBI said the Russians were not involved. Yet the CIA intimated with no evidence the Russians were involved and the AMM, Obama, Leftists and Demorats all line up? You expect me to believe you simply on faith? Faith is the very last thing you deserve, Barack Hussein Obama.

This is the same CIA whose DNI, James Clapper, said this in public and LIED directly to each and every American by doing so.

The CIA would never politicize its findings or lean in any particular direction for White House purposes. Would it?

Again, why is Obama doing these things? As Spite House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said recently: in essence, because he can.

It would appear the US under Mr Obama is conducting retaliatory measures on the Drudge Report, a focus of Obama, due to its publishing a wide array of articles dealing on and critical of Mr Obama himself. Matt Drudge Tweeted: “Is the US government attacking DRUDGE REPORT? Biggest DDoS since site’s inception. VERY suspicious routing [and timing],”

DDoS is shorthand for a Distributed Denial of Service. DDoS is a type of DOS (Distribution of Service) attack where multiple compromised systems, which are often infected with a Trojan, are used to target a single system causing a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Let’s not lose sight of the truth. Mr Obama has had eight years to deal or even attempt to address cyber attacks by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. He has done nothing. The Chinese hacked into millions of OPM personnel records. Obama’s response? Meh. Your intimate federal personal records meant nothing to Obama because he was not personally politically affected. It held no sway over the election.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not that brilliant. I can find all of these things on the internet. The caveat is: if I want to.

Obama focuses only at the last second on these issues and concurrently decides it’s a wonderful time to do the things he’s had two terms to consider. To wit;

With regard to that last issue, 1.6 million acres, a greater area than the state of Delaware, have been converted to federal control and minimal public use. One man can, by the stroke of a pen, take state land without even one Congressional vote under the Antiquities Act of 1906, something Mr Obama has done on 29 prior occasions, more than any president other than FDR, in order to circumvent Congress on behalf of various environmental groups and interests. This is truly a land seizure by the federal government.

Obama is acting anti-democratically, unilaterally, via edicts from his personal Mount Olympus, despite the disagreements by members of his own party. He believes his decisions are untouchable and, in fact, some of them may actually be irreversible.

In his last moments: all because he can.

If Mr Obama is actually concerned about his so-called “legacy,” he is ill-prepared mentally to recognize the facts. His legacy is that of division on every political and social level imaginable. Sam Stein, for God’s sake, Senior Political Editor for the Huffington Post, said that Obama leaves the party “in a much worse position,” the “states are decimated,” he “lost control of the House and Senate,” the “governorships are decimated.” All factually correct.

Under Obama, the American voter has consistently rejected the stance of the Demorats (including Mr Obama) for the past eight years (2008 to 2016) as they lost 63 seats in the House and 10 seats in the Senate. Republicans (from 2008 to 2016) gained 900+ seats in state legislatures, along with 12 governorships across the US — meaning that 2/3rds of the governors in the nation are now Republicans.

As the Divider-In-Chief, Obama’s entire agenda revolved around striating people by class, sex, race, religion, earnings, region, state, city, county, clothing, music, laws, wages, healthcare, culture, employment, family, mode of transport, energy consumption, food, cable channels watched, media consumed, social settings, the way you view America, even your writings, statements and thoughts.

Then we have Mr Obama’s actions in his final presidential days. In my opinion, he is moving to isolate and denigrate Donald Trump, not Vladimir Putin.

The only conclusion one can draw is that of Sheriff Clarke’s reference above, Mr Obama is purposely defecating in the national punchbowl and Mr Trump’s coming punchbowl because he is shockingly immature, self-centered and, well, because he can.

BZ

 

“It’s the Russians.” FBI says: no it’s not

What makes the situation particularly delicious is the fact that the SOURCE of the story is the New York Times. And that they knew it back in late October of this year. Yet no one seems to remember the story. Let us refresh:

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

by Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers

WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

How incredibly odd that no one is referencing this article now. Does that not make you wonder just a teensy-weensy bit? Isn’t the following just a little odd also?

Hillary Clinton’s supporters, angry over what they regard as a lack of scrutiny of Mr. Trump by law enforcement officials, pushed for these investigations.

So the FBI clears Hillary Clinton and, additionally, responds to her request to look into Trump’s connection with the Russians?

Supporters of Mrs. Clinton have argued that Mr. Trump’s evident affinity for Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — Mr. Trump has called him a great leader and echoed his policies toward NATO, Ukraine and the war in Syria — and the hacks of leading Democrats like John D. Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign, are clear indications that Russia has taken sides in the presidential race and that voters should know what the F.B.I. has found.

And yet, where is the evidence that the Russians were responsible? The FBI didn’t find it.

Still, they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.

Then there is this link, mostly ignored by the American Media Maggots because it does not follow the meme of “Russians” and “Trump.” That is to say, the NSA. Hillary Clinton outed the NSA and compromised GAMMA level security. They were not pleased. It is, after all, the NSA that has the thousands of square feet of Cray XK supercomputers.in its basements at Fort Meade and elsewhere. But where was the NSA in this? Conspicuously silent.

So let me see if I’ve got this right. When the FBI cleared Hillary Rodham Clinton and said there was insufficient cause to seek an indictment with regard to her emails, that was a good and valid decision.

Yet, when the FBI says there is no evidence to suggest the Russians are involved with Donald Trump or the presidential campaign, they are not to be believed?

And isn’t it odd that everyone — ahem, excuse me, the Demorats and Leftists — want to shoot whatever messenger there may be and not recognize the importance of the messages themselves?

That Hillary Rodham Clinton, her staffers, her campaign, was rife with corruption, cheating and endless lies?

Apparently Leftists think we have no memory or internet access.

BZ

Just as I said: it’s not the Russians

I speak to certain people now and then, and certain people have told me that the Russians — as Hillary Clinton accuses Donald Trump — are not behind the Wikileaks email releases from John Podesta.

As I wrote here and also here, about Hillary outing the NSA and threatening GAMMA national security classifications.

This past week another individual with whom I spoke and who has “contacts” as well, indicated he was told the NSA was responsible, due to HRC’s careless mishandling of the most sensitive intelligence possible — of that GAMMA nature — which, in turn, was responsible for the loss of life.

Steve Pieczenik (who has a doctorate from MIT in international relations, is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Dr Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker, and whom I featured in the previous post) likewise indicates the Russians were not responsible for the Wikileaks emails.

In addition, Paul Watson writes:

CONFIRMED: US INTEL OPERATIVES LEAKED CLINTON CAMPAIGN EMAILS, NOT RUSSIA

Insiders attempting to save America from Hillary presidency

It’s now clear from numerous sources that the Podesta hack, which led to Wikileaks releasing tens of thousands of Clinton campaign emails, as well as other hacks targeting the Democratic Party, were the work of U.S. intelligence operatives attempting to save America from a Clinton presidency.

The Clinton campaign has repeatedly insinuated that Russian agents were responsible for the release of the emails, but the reality is far different.

The hackers were concerned individuals who were alarmed at Hillary Clinton’s rampant corruption and mishandling of classified material as far back as 2009, when officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) became aware of violations of record keeping procedures at the Department of State under Secretary Clinton.

This is backed up by former British ambassador Craig Murray, who was told by security insiders that the email leak “comes from within official circles in Washington DC.”

This is most telling:

“Hillary has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material,” (NSA whistleblower William) Binney said. “That is the most sensitive material at NSA.”

A phrase comes to mind now; something about “reaping” and “sowing.”

BZ