Posted tagged ‘Obama’

Cartoon of the Day

January 5, 2016

H/t The Jewish Press

Obama-gun-control-in-America

U.S. Foreign Policy: From Bad to Worse in 2016?

December 31, 2015

U.S. Foreign Policy: From Bad to Worse in 2016? Power LinePaul Mirengoff, December 31, 2015 

2015 was a bad foreign policy year for America. Our enemies in Tehran won a pathway to prosperity and additional regional influence without losing the ability to obtain nuclear weapons within 10 to 15 years, or sooner if they choose. Our enemy in Moscow enjoyed an enormous expansion of his influence in the Middle East and continues to menace U.S. allies in Europe.

Our enemy in Damascus, propped up by Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah, is probably the comeback world player of the year, now that he’s winning in the battlefield and the U.S. has signaled that his removal from power is no longer an objective. Moreover, Assad’s resurgence has not coincided with substantial losses for ISIS in Syria. Indeed, the limited setbacks ISIS experienced this year within its “caliphate” were probably offset by gains elsewhere, plus success in exporting terror to the West.

A bad foreign policy year for America isn’t necessarily a bad year for President Obama, though. He seems to be okay or better with Iranian prosperity and regional dominance, and indifferent to the successes of Putin and Assad. Inject him with truth serum and the president would probably say that his biggest foreign policy setback of the year was the reelection of Benjamin Netanyahu.

What does 2016 have in store for U.S. foreign policy. More of the same but with increased success in combating ISIS, I would have guessed.

However, Lee Smith predicts that “next year will be worse.” He writes:

What will make the next year especially dangerous is the White House itself. Obama is eager to wrap everything up before he leaves office, and John Kerry no doubt clings to the hope that Syrian peace talks could bring him the Nobel Peace Prize he thought he earned with the Iran deal. The administration is in a hurry, and the only way it sees forward is in caving to Iranian and Russian demands—above all, the demand that Assad stay in power. Indeed, as Kerry made clear two weeks ago, the White House has finally come clean and admitted it’s no longer interested in deposing Assad, if it ever was.

What are the likely consequences?

To begin with, the only opposition groups that can agree to a political process in which Assad is not removed are those that are in fact or in effect pro-Assad. All others will have to be excluded from peace talks, and some will be labeled terrorists, like Jaish al-Islam, one of the most effective anti-Assad units, whose leader Zahran Alloush was recently killed in a Russian airstrike. This drove home the fact that Putin’s campaign was never about fighting ISIS—rather, it was about defending Assad (and securing Moscow’s Syrian bases).

Therefore, in promoting a peace process that protects Assad, the White House is giving political and diplomatic cover to Moscow and Tehran. John Kerry will be acting as Putin’s enforcer, telling America’s traditional regional allies that the war against Assad is over and it’s time to give up.

However — and I’m not sure whether this is good news or bad — our allies are unlikely to listen to the lame duck Secretary:

Saudi Arabia can ill afford an Iranian victory of that magnitude, and it would be an even worse outcome for Turkey. Ankara is hosting millions of refugees who will never return to Syria so long as the regime that butchered their family and friends is still in power. It’s a major domestic issue for the Turks, and with three unfriendly powers on its border—Russia, Iran, and Assad—the Syrian war is a national security matter.

Therefore, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan believes it is vital to keep open his supply lines to anti-Assad groups, even as Putin’s forces are campaigning to close them down. In other words, Kerry’s “peace process” is driving a NATO member toward crisis, and perhaps a shooting war with Russia.

Finally:

Israel may soon find itself in a similarly dangerous situation. Yes, even with Russian troops present in Syria, Jerusalem has continued to attack arms convoys heading across Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as Iranian assets inside Syria, like Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar. However, it’s not clear how long this state of affairs can last, or if the Iranians will press their Russian partners to clarify whose side they’re on.

It has long seemed clear that the primary damage Obama would be able to inflict on America during his second term would be in the realm of foreign policy (although Obama is inflicting more damage than I expected domestically, and if Republicans cooperate will inflict even more through the mass release of drug dealers from prison). If Smith is right, 2016 will be the apotheosis of Obama’s damage to the United States in the world.

Israelis Can’t Stand Obama even More than Iranians

December 23, 2015

Israelis Can’t Stand Obama even More than Iranians, The Jewish Press, Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, December 23, 2015

anti_obama_billboard_3_adpAn anti-Obama billboard in the United States.

Israelis can’t stand President Barack Obama even more than Iranians can do without him, but they like German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the most popular world leader, a new survey reveals.

The poll in Israel was part of an international survey of 65 world leaders by WIN/Gallup International. Ma’agar Mochot, headed by Prof. Yitzchak Katz, carried out the survey in Israel.

One of the questions posed was:

What is your opinion regarding each of the following global leaders: very favorable position, sympathetic to some extent, not sympathetic to some extent, or very unfavorable?

Each leader was ranked twice, once with a favorable ranking and once with an unfavorable ranking, and the final score was determined by subtracting the negative votes from the positive votes.

Obama was popular worldwide with a 30 percent rating on the plus side, much better than can be said for what Americans think of him.

In Israel, he scored a minus 22 percent, even worse than the minus 21 percent ranking by Iranians.

On the positive side, the most popular world leader for Israelis is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who scored a net 38 percent on the plus side, far ahead of the distant second place leader, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron.

Israelis also placed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, French President Francois Hollande, Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of China Shi Tz’infing above Obama.

However, President Obama can console himself that Israelis don’t dislike him as much as they do Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdul Aziz, and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.

On the other hand, Russians gave President Obama a disastrous minus 83 percent rating, the lowest of any country. However, he is popular in Kosovo with a plus 73 percent rating. Close behind is Vietnam

Putin is much more unpopular with Americans than with Israelis. He scored minus 44 in the United States, and only minus 20 in Israel.

Berserk

December 21, 2015

Berserk, Dry Bones, December 20, 2015

D15C01_1

Whenever I do a cartoon attacking President Obama I am hit with charges that I am a racist. I have learned to get around this by attacking “the White House” or John Kerry instead.

There are other “accepted” positions that I must observe in order to be taken seriously by a large part of our Jewish constituency. One of these “accepted” positions is the idea that Israel needs to stay firmly in America’s pocket. Another “accepted” position is the idea that Donald Trump is a dangerous, crazy, racist, clown. In order to stave off the knee-jerk response to a cartoon challenging these ideas in today’s cartoon, I had to present them as being the insane ramblings of an out-of-control computer-robot who has gone berserk!

Cartoons of the day

December 20, 2015

H/t Power Line

12363094_10153324117300872_9007846698235754365_o
Squeal-Team-6l2
Bacon-Suiide

Off Topic | How Obama saved the world

December 15, 2015

How Obama saved the world, The Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, December 14, 2015

[A]fter the hosannas and shouts of joy from President Obama and his like-minded friends, Paris didn’t actually deliver anything. Each nation will be required to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but there is no objective standard it must meet or no requirement that it must achieve any reduction at all.

***********************

Now will the climate-change swindlers shut up?

They got the treaty in Paris that Barack Obama says saved the world from vanishing into a black hole in space.

Have the nations of the world finally resolved the ills and pains of prostitution, wars, disease, rush-hour traffic, date rape, racism, sexism, Confederate flags waving in the breeze, airline turbulence, the infield-fly rule and diplomatic gasbaggery that make Planet Earth all but uninhabitable?

Well, not exactly. President Francois Hollande of France, the host at the Paris gasbaggery and basking in his new role as leader of the free world now that Mr. Obama has marched to the rear, told the assembled prime ministers and presidents that he can’t separate terrorism from the fight against global warming.

“These are two big challenges we have to face up to,” he says. “I believe we can act boldly and decisively in the face of a common threat. I just want to say that we are running out of time.”

We’re all running out of time, of course, and others have said it better. The Bible warns that it’s appointed unto man once to die (and after that the judgment), and Winston Churchill, in a less solemn mood, observed that in the long run there is no long run. The beggar nations of the world, addicted to their corruption and inefficient governments, showed up in Paris with their biggest begging bowls and left town as the only winners.

The “developing” nations got promises of $100 billion a year from the “developed” nations, which won’t necessarily have to be spent on anything actually helpful to their ailing, starving millions but will pay for a lot of nice things — cars, houses, additional wives, shopping tours to New York, London, Paris and Hong Kong — for the hundreds of new deputy associate assistant undersecretaries the developing countries will have to create to supervise the spending of the largesse from the United States and other sucker nations.

President Obama, who considers himself the advocate for the interests of what used to called “the third world,” was first delirious months ago at the prospect of having a big celebration in Paris. “This has to be the year the world finally reaches an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got while we still can,” he said on his return from a visit to Alaska, which he wanted to see before it melts under global warming. “There is no Plan B,” the chief negotiator for the European Union in Paris said on the eve of the Paris session. “There’s nothing to follow. [These are] not just ongoing U.N. discussions. Paris is final.”

But after the hosannas and shouts of joy from President Obama and his like-minded friends, Paris didn’t actually deliver anything. Each nation will be required to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but there is no objective standard it must meet or no requirement that it must achieve any reduction at all.

The beggar countries blocked a requirement that the authors of the promises use a common format, and they did not even have to mention the emissions they wouldn’t have to promise to reduce. China and India, leading the developing nations, rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” Only Mexico submitted a plan by the initial deadline of March 1 of this year.

Everyone knew nobody was taking any of the “promises” seriously, that there would be no enforcement of the promises. The only consequences for non-compliance would be international “shame,” to be shamed by the likes of Lower Slobbovia and the Peoples Republic of Upper Corruptiana. India, for one example, submitted an unserious plan but said it would need $2.5 trillion in support to implement its plan.

Not everything is expected to be unenforcible. Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, returned to New York on Monday and told the developed nations to get the checks in the mail. “Actions should begin from today,” he said. “The Paris agreement is a victory for the people, for the common good, and for multilateralism.” He will convene a nagging “summit” next May, at a luxury resort to be named later, to hector and bully the donor nations to get cracking. The beggar nations, their diplomats exhausted from the work of making promises they will not be required to keep, must not be further disturbed.

The functionaries at the U.N. bristle at suggestions that the agreement will be difficult to enforce. There’s no need for climate-change cops.

The United Nations will boldly point the finger at nations that won’t keep their commitments, he says. The shame, the disgrace, the mortification of it all: Getting the finger from the U.N.

We Want The Truth

December 14, 2015

We Want The Truth, Pat Condell via You Tube, December 14, 2015

( Pat Condell UTTERLY   destroys Obama and the disease of political correctness… – JW )

 

 

Netanyahu Source: ‘Kerry Is Replaced Soon, Let him Say What He Wants’

December 7, 2015

“Everyone is busy with a countdown to the election of a different US president.”

By: JNi.Media Published:

December 7th, 2015

Source: The Jewish Press » » Netanyahu Source: ‘Kerry Is Replaced Soon, Let him Say What He Wants’

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Photo Credit: Screenshot

A political source close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Ma’ariv on Sunday night that “Kerry’s scathing speech did not shock the Israeli government because everyone knows that he will be replaced soon. Everyone is busy with a countdown to the election of a different US president, and until then Kerry can say whatever he wants.”

Interestingly, when MK Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List) was asked by Israel Radio about the same Kerry speech Sunday, he described it as “a strong speech by a weak man,” which stands to show that some observations by Israel’s political animals are universal.

Speaking at the Brookings Institute Saban Forum last Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to end up in a one-state solution, complete with the collapse of the Palestinian Authority and an Israeli obligation to retake the Arab portion of Judea and Samaria.

Kerry assured his audience that the US is still committed to a two-state solution, but noted that while Prime Minister Netanyahu has been paying lip service to it, a number of Israeli cabinet ministers are on the record in opposition to Palestinian statehood, and so, if things remain the way they have been, the Palestinian Authority is not likely to survive.

Netanyahu retorted in his own speech to the Saban Forum Sunday, delivered via video, saying the blame should be placed where it belonged, namely the Palestinians.

“President Abbas refuses to [go to] his people and say — it’s over. No more claims after a peace deal,” Netanyahu said. “The Palestinians have not been willing to cross the conceptual and emotional bridge of accepting a state next to Israel, not one instead of Israel. Not just Hamas, but also the PA. They refuse to accept a Jewish state for the Jewish people.”

Netanyahu hammered his point in on who is the real culprit in the conflict, saying, “Insofar as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is concerned, I think there is another misunderstanding. People have long said that the core of this conflict is the acquisition of territories by Israel in the 1967 War.

“That’s an issue that needs to be addressed in any peace process, as is the question of settlements, but it’s not the core of the conflict. In Gaza, nothing changed. In fact, instead of getting peace, we gave territory and got 15,000 rockets on our heads. We took out all the settlements; we disinterred people from their graves; and did we get peace? No. We got the worst terror possible.”

He pointed to earlier examples where Israeli concessions did not yield peaceful results:

I think that happened earlier too, when we left Lebanon and people said, ‘Well, if you leave Lebanon, then Hezbollah will make peace with you.’ And in fact, we got 15,000 rockets from there too. And so people are naturally saying, look, if we want a solution vis-à-vis the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, in the West Bank, how can we ensure that this doesn’t happen again?

Well, in order for us to ensure that it doesn’t happen again, we have to address the root cause of the problem. Why has this conflict not been resolved for a hundred years?

Why has it not been resolved after successive Israeli prime ministers, six in fact after the Oslo Agreement, have offered to make peace, have offered the Palestinians the possibility of building a state next to Israel – it’s because the Palestinians have not yet been willing to cross that conceptual bridge, that emotional bridge, of giving up the dream not of a state next to Israel, but a state instead of Israel.”

‘Incursion’: Baghdad demands Turkey withdraw ‘training’ troops from northern Iraq

December 5, 2015

Incursion’: Baghdad demands Turkey withdraw ‘training’ troops from northern Iraq

Published time: 4 Dec, 2015 20:12 Edited time: 5 Dec, 2015 02:34

Source: ‘Incursion’: Baghdad demands Turkey withdraw ‘training’ troops from northern Iraq — RT News

Turkish soldiers © Sertac Kayar
The Iraqi government has demanded that Ankara withdraw the more than 100 Turkish forces that entered Iraq with tanks and artillery for alleged “training” of troops near Islamic State-occupied Mosul. Baghdad stressed the unsanctioned move was a breach of its sovereignty.

READ MORE: Kurds & US Special Forces should be used to seal Turkish-Syrian border – Russian FM

The Iraqi foreign ministry said in a statement early on Saturday that the Turkish troops were acting in violation of the country’s sovereignty and demanded the forces withdraw immediately. “Around one regiment armoured with tanks and artillery” has entered the northern Nineveh area, according to the statement from the Iraqi Prime Minister’s media office.

The Iraqi authorities call on Turkey to respect good neighbourly relations and to withdraw immediately from the Iraqi territory,” the statement said, stressing that the Turkish troops entered “without the request or authorization from the Iraqi federal authorities,” which is a “serious breach of Iraqi sovereignty.”

The foreign ministry called Turkey’s move “an incursion,” Reuters reported.

READ MORE: ‘Everyone knows what’s going on’: Istanbul residents on Turkey-ISIS oil trade

According to the agency’s source, the US-led anti-Islamic State coalition was aware of the Turkey’s move.

Turkish soldiers have reached the Mosul Bashiqa region. They are there as part of routine training exercises. One battalion has crossed into the region,” the source told Reuters without revealing the exact number of troops.

He added that the Turkish forces are “training Iraqi troops.”

However, according to two US defense officials quoted by Reuters, Turkey’s deployment is not part of the efforts of the US-led coalition battling Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

On Friday, 130 Turkish soldiers equipped with heavy weapons were deployed at a military base on the outskirts of the city of Mosul, which is currently held by IS, according to the Daily Sabah newspaper.

READ MORE: Turkey skeptical about US proposal to close border ‘under ISIS control’

According to Cumhuriyet newspaper, the number of the deployed Turkish troops amounts to at least 150.

The town of Bashiqa is located about 10 kilometers northeast of Mosul.

© Google Maps
Mosul, Iraq’s second biggest city, was seized by Islamic State in June 2014 and has been fully governed by militants ever since. Moreover, the extremist group captured large stockpiles of weapons and ammunition that were stored in the city.

In the collapse of Mosul, we lost a lot of weapons,” Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said in an interview with Iraqiya state TV in June. “We lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul alone,” he added.

READ MORE: Mosul blame game: Iraqi ex-PM Maliki accused in fall of key city to ISIS

The Turkish intrusion into Iraq comes shortly after Ankara’s motives in the war on Islamic State have been questioned by Moscow, Tehran, as well as by Baghdad.

The Russian government has been particularly vocal in pointing the finger at the illegal oil trade between IS terrorists and the Turks. Moscow-Ankara relations deteriorated after a Turkish F-16 jet downed a Russian Su-24 bomber on the Syrian-Turkish border for an alleged airspace violation on November 24, while the Russian jet was returning from an anti-terrorist mission. In the days after, the Russian Defense Ministry presented detailed photo and video evidence showing three huge “live pipelines” made of oil trucks effortlessly crossing the Syrian border into Turkey in militant-controlled areas.

Russian President Vladimir Putin described Turkey’s move as “a stab in the back by accomplices of the terrorists,” while the Defense Ministry directly tied the illegal Syrian and Iraqi oil trade – a chief lifeline for IS terrorists – to the family of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

READ MORE: Russia says Turkey’s Erdogan & family involved in illegal ISIS oil trade

Erdogan has dismissed the accusations as “slander” and continued to defiantly present the downing of a non-hostile jet as a rightful move aimed at defending the Turkish border. The surviving Russian pilot has insisted the crew was in full control of the course of the flight and had never entered Turkey, while adding they had never received any visual or radio warning from the F-16. One Russian pilot, the commander of the jet, was killed by Turkmen rebel fire while parachuting from the plane, and one Russian Marine was killed during the search and recovery operation.

Meanwhile, as the US has stepped in for Turkey, supporting its refutation of Russia’s IS oil claims, other powers have come forward to back Moscow’s charges concerning Ankara’s trade with the terrorists. On Friday, Tehran said that it has collected photo and video evidence of IS oil entering Turkey by truck.

READ MORE: ‘Great partners’: Pentagon rejects Russian evidence of Turkey aiding ISIS

“If the government of Turkey is not informed of Daesh [derogatory term for IS] oil trade in the country, we are ready to put the information at its disposal,” Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) quoted Expediency Council Secretary, Mohsen Rezaie, as saying. The official added that they are also ready to present the proof to the public.

While officially Baghdad is now considering whether there is enough evidence of Turkey’s involvement in oil trade with IS to file a formal protest at the UN Security Council, an Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman, Naseer Nuri, told Sputnik on Wednesday that “general information about the smuggling of Iraqi oil by trucks to certain countries, including Turkey” is already available to them, and “this oil is used to fund Daesh.”

Other Iraqi officials have openly accused Turkey of knowingly trading with the terrorists.

There is “no shadow of a doubt” that Ankara knows about the oil smuggling operations, Iraqi MP and former national security adviser Mowaffak al Rubaie told RT.

“The merchants, the businessmen [are buying oil] in the black market in Turkey under the noses – under the auspices if you like – of the Turkish intelligence agency and the Turkish security apparatus… There are security officers who are sympathizing with ISIS in Turkey. They are allowing them to go from Istanbul to the borders and infiltrate … Syria and Iraq,” he said.

“Money and dollars generated by selling Iraqi and Syrian oil on the Turkish black market is like the oxygen supply to ISIS and it’s operation,” Rubaie added. “Once you cut the oxygen then ISIS will suffocate.”

READ MORE: ‘Oxygen for jihadists’: ISIS-smuggled oil flows through Turkey to intl markets – Iraqi MP

General Wesley Clark: ISIS Serves Interests Of US Allies Turkey And Saudi Arabia

December 4, 2015

General Wesley Clark: ISIS Serves Interests Of US Allies Turkey And Saudi Arabia Tyler Durden’s picture Submitted

by Tyler Durden on 12/03/2015 23:15 -0500

Source: General Wesley Clark: ISIS Serves Interests Of US Allies Turkey And Saudi Arabia | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,

“Let’s be very clear: ISIS is not just a terrorist organization; it is a Sunni terrorist organization. That means it blocks and targets Shi’a. And that means it’s serving the interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia – even as it poses a threat to them.” – Retired Gen. Wesley Clark

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General and retired U.S. General Wesley Clark revealed in an interview with CNN that the Islamic State (Daesh, ISIS) remains geostrategically imperative to Sunni nations, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as they clamor for strategic power over Shi’a nations, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. He explained that “neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia want an Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon ‘bridge’ that isolates Turkey, and cuts Saudi Arabia off.”

When asked by the CNN host if Russian President Vladimir Putin’s suggestion that Turkey was “aiding ISIS” had any validity, he responded:

 “All along there’s always been the idea that Turkey was supporting ISIS in some way. We know they’ve funneled people going through Turkey to ISIS. Someone’s buying that oil that ISIS is selling; it’s going through somewhere – it looks to me like it’s probably going through Turkey – but the Turks haven’t acknowledged that.”

After explaining this virtual gateway for the Islamic State’s oil, Clark was quick to emphasize that Putin’s allegations about Turkey’s support for terrorist organization, ISIS, aren’t without their own hypocrisy. Russia, of course, has been upholding President Bashar al-Assad’s administration in Syria against rebel groups backed by the U.S. — despite continuing denials by U.S. officials that that particular theater is its primary interest in the region.

He said, “Putin would like to dirty Turkey by saying it’s supporting terrorists, but the truth is that he’s supporting terrorists. I mean, the tactics used by the Assad regime have been terror tactics. They’re dropping barrel bombs on innocent civilians.”

Clark concludes the interview with a statement that encapsulates growing sentiment of many Westerners who’ve grown war-weary with such geopolitical wrangling overseas:

 “There’s no good guy in this – this is a power struggle for the future of the Middle East.”