Do you feel safe with the real JV team captained by Obama, Kerry and a blind-folded foreign policy? BH

Obama just fell for a classic Russian ruse

By John Bolton

, NY Post

Recent Russian efforts to magnify its Middle East influence have been accompanied by a seeming surge in Kremlin “reasonableness.” In fact, Russian calls for new Syrian elections and sharing intelligence with Western powers are nothing more than exercises in “maskirovka,” Russia’s classic technique for disguising its real objectives.

Gullible Westerners, following a long-established pattern, are falling for the ruse.

And a ruse it is. Russia’s goals haven’t changed, only its propaganda.

For example, by offering to attack ISIS targets if Washington and the Free Syrian Army share intelligence regarding those targets, Moscow is trying to blunt criticism that its strikes so far have targeted the FSA itself. 

Russia needs no help finding ISIS, and knows full well America won’t help Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even indirectly. Instead, Putin’s aim is to envelop the United States in a web of cooperation that further legitimizes Russia’s dramatically enhanced Middle East presence.

Russia’s support for new Syrian elections is the brashest ploy of all. Drawing the FSA (let alone ISIS, which will presumably sneer at the idea) into protracted negotiations over election rules can only lessen the opposition’s will. In the highly unlikely event elections were actually held, who doubts that Assad’s henchmen would deliver his votes with even more predictability and efficiency than America’s urban political machines?

Putin’s offers of “cooperation” are aimed at weakening Western resistance to Russia’s rising influence in the region and more broadly. Russia’s increasing confidence is also reflected in its worldwide interest in critical undersea communications cables, implicitly threatening their destruction in time of war.

Europe’s continuing Middle East refugee crisis is agitating governments to stop the nearly endless tide inundating them. Although purportedly from Syria, displaced by four years of grinding civil conflict, many of the refugees come from elsewhere, as far away as Afghanistan or as close as Kosovo. Verifying the refugees’ citizenship has overwhelmed Europe’s capacities — and they’re still coming. Most are young men; if they’re allowed to remain, their families will follow in due course.

Solving the refugee problem is the carrot Russia has soothingly offered through its Syrian intervention. But Moscow has more in mind, namely getting relief from the sanctions imposed because of its adventurism in Ukraine.

Recent (and very convenient) media reports that Russian special-operations forces currently deployed in Ukraine are being sent to Syria does two things. First, it announces that Russia has no immediate intention to increase tensions in Ukraine, providing another argument to reduce or eliminate sanctions. Second, it shows Russian commitment to “resolve” the Syria question.

Putin is also signaling to Arab leaders, especially Saudi Arabia, that Russia is a dependable ally, perhaps not so strong as the United States militarily, but at least more constant. By assembling a Shiite coalition including Assad, Iran, its puppet regime in Baghdad and Hezbollah, the Kremlin is showing that, while America dithers, it can act with firmness and resolve.

Plus, regional chaos has already helped provoke a dramatic spike in violence by Palestinians against Israel. And like Winnie the Pooh drawn to honey, Secretary of State John Kerry has diverted to the Israel-Palestinian dispute rather than repelling Russia’s incursions into America’s Middle East dominance. 

However weak Putin’s economic hand or precarious his domestic political position, he has the momentum and a full range of options. His alliance could easily reach an unholy modus vivendi with ISIS, allowing both Iran and ISIS, despite their widely varying (indeed, conflicting) motives, to pursue their respective objectives against the Arabian Peninsula’s oil-producing monarchies. Or, Putin could offer the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs a respite from ISIS and Iranian threats in pursuit of their common objective of higher global oil prices. 

Putin’s domestic vulnerabilities could, of course, be exploited by adversaries who understood his strategy and had both the determination and the capacity to protect their own vital interests. History, confirmed by several recent utterly childlike comments, tells us that President Obama neither understands what Putin is seeking, nor is inclined to counter it.

Not only in Syria but throughout the Middle East, Putin will remain unchecked by America for the next 15 months. As grim as the situation is now, it will be worse in January 2017.

John Bolton, now at the American Enterprise Institute, was US ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006. 

The State Department Clown Car Makes Things Worse in The Middle East

The State Department Clown Car Makes Things Worse in The Middle East
John Hinderaker, Powerline

Palestinians have launched at least 28 attacks on Israeli Jews over the past week, leaving seven dead and more than 70 wounded. These attacks, mostly using knives while a few involved guns or motor vehicles, have been encouraged by Islamic preachers on the West Bank and by Mahmoud Abbas.

This violence, while of great concern to Israelis, pales in comparison with the human catastrophes in Syria and elsewhere in the region. But as always, Israel and its tormentors occupy a disproportionate share of the world’s attention, including–unfortunately–that of the U.S. State Department.

Initially, John Kerry sparked outrage by suggesting that the Palestinian attacks were caused by Jews building homes in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem:

“There’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years,” Kerry said during a question-and-answer session, “and there’s an increase in the violence because there’s this frustration that’s growing.”

That makes perfect sense–the natural reaction to Jews moving into their ancestral homeland is to try to kill them, evidently.

Yesterday, State Department spokesman John Kirby made matters worse during his press briefing by maintaining an exquisite neutrality as between would-be murderers and their victims. The colloquy is too long to reproduce here, but it is helpful to read the whole thing to get a full understanding of the tone. I will reproduce some highlights, and comment on them:

QUESTION: Let’s start with the Middle East and some comments that Secretary Kerry made yesterday and also that the White House just made. … There’s been quite a bit of, I don’t know, uproar maybe is the right word about his comments about settlements contributing to – massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years being responsible for the current upsurge in violence. Recognizing that the settlement issue is one that is of serious concern to the Palestinians, is it the Administration’s view that settlement activity is, in fact, to blame for or is responsible for the current surge in attacks that we’re all seeing? 

MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary was very consistent yesterday and has been over time in not trying to affix blame for the recent violence too particularly, and he was unequivocal yesterday, as you saw, in condemning the terrorist attacks against Israelis. What he has talked about is the challenges that are posed on both sides by this absence of progress towards a two-state solution. So – and he’s also highlighted our concern that current trends on the ground, including this violence, as well as ongoing settlement activity are imperiling the viability of eventually getting to a two-state solution. 

QUESTION: So it is not, then, the Administration’s view that a massive increase in settlement activity in the last years is directly responsible? 

MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary well understands that there’s a lot of nuance and context behind the violence that’s occurring recently. And as I said, he was careful not to affix blame in either direction on this in terms of past practices. What he did talk about – and you might have seen it if you saw him at Harvard last night – is that he understands there’s disenfranchisement, there’s disgruntlement, there is – there’s frustration on both sides that has led to this.

So, when dozens of murderous attacks are launched, it is important not to place blame on either the perpetrators or the victims.

Now and then, the fog does lift and the administration’s position is clear. That was true with regard to an incident in Dimona, where an Israeli stabbed several Arabs in retaliation against the many attacks that had been carried out against Jews:

QUESTION: All right, this will be very brief. I understand that you have decided now how to qualify the stabbing attack on the Palestinians in Dimona?

MR KIRBY: Yes, we’ve had a chance to look at that attack more deeply, and I think you’re going to ask me what – do we consider it an act of terrorism. And we do.

QUESTION: You do consider it an act of terrorism. Okay, so that would suggest then that you believe that this is – that both sides are, in fact, committing these —
MR KIRBY: Well, I would say certainly individuals on both sides of this divide are – have proven capable of and in our view guilty of acts of terror.

There are terrorists on both sides, so neutrality is appropriate.

Kirby also ventured the opinion that the Israelis have been guilty of using excessive force. It wasn’t clear what he had in mind here; shooting terrorists who were in the midst of stabbing Israelis, apparently:

QUESTION: [I]n response to Michael’s question, you said you’d seen reports of what many would consider to be excessive use of force. And I presume that you were talking about from the Israeli side. Is that correct?
MR KIRBY: Yes. 

QUESTION: You said what many would consider. So is the Administration among those who would consider what the Israeli actions have been to be excessive? 

MR KIRBY: I think, again, without qualifying each and every one of them, we’ve certainly seen some reports of security activity that could indicate the potential excessive use of force. And again, we don’t want to see that anywhere. We don’t want to see that here in our own country. So yeah, we’re concerned about that. 

QUESTION: So the – so you have raised this issue with Israelis? You’ve said that — 

MR KIRBY: We – we’re always concerned about credible reports of excessive use of force against civilians [Ed.: I.e., terrorists armed with knives], and we routinely raise our concerns about that. 

QUESTION: Okay. Now, that’s just a little bit different than what you said before. So you believe that these are credible reports of excessive use of force by the Israeli security forces on Palestinian citizens?
MR KIRBY: We’ve seen reports. We’re always concerned about those kinds of reports.

The Arabs have frequently used rumors of changes in the administration of Temple Mount as a pretext for violence, and apparently are doing so again. The Obama administration gave them aid and comfort:

QUESTION: All right. And then the visit to Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif by Israelis, is that – does the Administration consider that to be visits to there – does the Administration consider that to be incitement? 

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to be able to characterize every single act with terminology. What the Secretary has said and stands by is that we want to see the status quo restored, the status quo arrangement there on Haram al-Sharif and the Temple Mount, and for both sides to take actions to de-escalate the tensions. … 

QUESTION: Is it the Administration’s position that the status quo at the Temple Mount has been broken? 

MR KIRBY: Well, certainly, the status quo has not been observed, which has led to a lot of the violence.

The topic was revisited later, and Kirby reinforced his point:

QUESTION: So I just have two extremely brief ones, so we can move on after that. You said in answer to my question on the status quo whether – at the Temple Mount whether it’s been broken or not, you said that it has not been observed and that is what has led to – I think. I’ll go back and look at the transcript, but I think you said it had not been – it was not – has not been observed and that is what has led to a great deal of the violence. That certainly sounds like you’re affixing some kind of blame to Israel if this is, in fact, what the Administration believes has led to the violence – the visits by – visit by Israelis to —
MR KIRBY: Well, it’s not about believing it, Matt. I mean, you just looked at what’s been happening in that – on Haram al-Sharif and the Temple Mount recently. I mean, just if we’re looking at this in acute – through an acute lens, I mean, the activity there, the status quo not being observed, has led to violence. There’s – that’s indisputable. That’s not a belief; that’s a fact.

It is not a fact, however, and shortly thereafter Kirby took to Twitter to recant:

Emphasis added. The result of the State Department’s oafish diplomacy was to enrage our ally Israel:

Jerusalem reacted furiously Thursday to State Department spokesman John Kirby’s statement that Jerusalem was not maintaining the status quo on the Temple Mount and accused it of using disproportionate force to stop the wave of stabbing attacks. 

“The comments by the US State Department spokesman are so crazy, deceitful and baseless, that I expect President [Barack] Obama and US Secretary of State [John] Kerry to distance themselves from them, and to clarify the US position today,” said Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan.

John Kerry’s State Department is a clown show, and Kerry drives the clown car.

Socialists Can’t Add.

Socialists Can’t Add

Col. Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

All,

People send me these beautiful presentations about wealth inequality (pie charts, tables, bar graphs, broken-line graphs and all in vivid colors) and almost all of it is nonsense. 

Outside of the obvious fact that rich people are much richer than I am (about which I really do not care), the rest is all smoke and mirrors.

Here is reality in three numbers:

The combined wealth of all U.S. billionaires: $2.2 trillion (that is a “T”).

Projected Federal expenditures for 2015: $3.8 trillion

Total value of U.S. wealth: $188 trillion

The richest of the rich don’t own everything – only a small fraction of our national wealth (about 1.2%).

The billionaires’ total wealth would only run the U.S. Government for about seven (7) months. After that, we would be right back in the same mess of unsustainable government overspending.

So how does $2.2 trillion become infinitely huge while a debt of over $18 trillion (a number about eight times as large) become insignificant nothingness?

Because Far Left numbers are not about facts or reason or logic – they are about faith and socialist religious doctrine.

These people BELIEVE it so and nothing else matters.

Good grief.

Socialist math sucks!

Mike