“I Stand With You” As The Whole World Crumbles!!!

This is a well researched essay and worth the time to read! It will make you think and possibly scare the complacency out of you! It is posted at – http://www.wolkeworks.com/I_Stand_With_You.html where there are many other articles worth reading.

The photos are my additions.

988424_10152052669055197_3343123465712111828_n

“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of a mole who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old ‘revolutionary mole’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.” – Frank Chapman of the Communist Party of the USA’s newspaper, People’s Weekly World on January 12, 2008 after Obama’s Iowa Caucus victory.
Just who is Barack Hussein Obama? Is he just another “progressive” member of the Democratic Party? Or could he be something worse, a conscious agent of a foreign power? Does he have a secret agenda to harm the United States? Or is he simply someone whose well- meaning policies have turned out to be antithetical to the interests of the American people? What follows is necessarily speculative, but if you connect the dots, the case should do more than raise eyebrows.
If you look at the rise of Barack Obama from obscure community organizer to President of the United States you have to be amazed at the speed in which he climbed to the heights of power and the total lack of qualifications he exhibited before attaining the highest office. You also have to wonder about the people in his past and their associations.
As many people know by now, Obama was the product of Stanley Ann Dunham, a girl who was far left in her politics and somehow enamored with dark skin men who were anti-American. Her parents were apparently also far left anti-Americans and they moved to a suburb of Seattle, Washington, so that their young girl could attend Mercer Island High School. It was run by a communist who also ran the “little red church on the hill”, a Unitarian church that the Dunham family attended.
Dunham allegedly married Barack Obama, Sr., a student from Kenya whom she met in Russian classes at the University of Hawaii. About five months after their alleged marriage (there are no records of it available), Stanley Ann gave birth to the man we know as Barack
                           
The Psychopath?
Hussein Obama, but who was called Barry in his youth. The two, Stanley and Barack Sr., never lived together and almost immediately after giving birth, Stanley Ann left to attend the University of Washington in Seattle. Obama, Sr., left to attend Harvard University not too long after that. So young Obama never saw his father until he was ten years old in 1971 and that was a short visit. Meanwhile, Stanley Ann found another third world, leftist husband, Lolo Soetoro, from Indonesia and went to Jakarta to live with him, taking along young Barry. During his stint in Indonesia, Barry attended a school where he was listed as a Muslim and where he liked to attend Koran classes. One of his former classmates describes him then as a devout Muslim.
In any case, when Lolo started to work for an American oil company and actually became pro-American, Stanley Ann sent young Barack back to Hawaii to ensure he would be under the guidance of her appropriately anti-American parents.
In due course, Barry’s grandfather, also named Stanley Dunham, decided that the young lad needed a black male role model and mentor and sent the 10 year old to be guided by his friend, Frank Marshall Davis, a black member of the Communist Party, poet, pornographer, bisexual pedophile and sexual predator. Barry remained under the influence of Davis until he left for college at age 18.
There are reasons to believe that Davis may have actually been Obama’s father. In one of his books, Davis describes a young white girl named Ann as one of his frequent sex partners, and Obama looks more like Davis than he does Barack, Sr. (For one thing, Obama has a lot of facial skin tags as did Davis.) Likewise, Davis had pictures of a nude girl that closely resemble Stanley Ann, although who she actually was has not been proven. Perhaps that’s the reason Barack Obama, Sr., never showed that much interest in his son but Davis did. According to one theory, Barack Sr. was allegedly persuaded to provide a name for the infant in return for extending his visa in the United States. In any case, young Obama was handed over to Davis for mentoring.
It was during this period that Barry attended an elite Honolulu private school, Punahou, noted for its international students and, according to some, an anti-American ideology. Considering that Obama was schooled as a Muslim in Indonesia and at an international school during his formative years, where and when was he taught to think of himself as an American?
While at Punahou, he started out well but soon saw his academic achievements deteriorate, possibly due to his hanging out with the “Choom gang”, a sort of marijuana smokers club. That was not surprising since Davis was heavily into drinking and drug use. What other influences Davis had on young Obama are not readily apparent, although since Davis was into various sexual perversions, perhaps he influenced the child’s views on sexuality. This was a man who took the young boy to bars to drink booze, smoke pot, and watch pornographic cartoons being projected on the walls. Young Obama spent a lot of his youth doing drugs and drinking booze. Moreover, in a poem Obama wrote about Davis, he mentioned the amber stain they both had on their shorts. Was this a reference to a sexual relationship? In later life, various people would accuse Obama of being bisexual and a member of a gay men’s club in Chicago. One thing we can be certain of is that young Barry was indoctrinated with communism by Davis and probably his grandfather, Stanley.

davis ann barry s
Barry went to Occidental College, noted as the Moscow of California, where he was described by one of his associates at the time, Jim Drew, as not just sympathetic to communism, but an ardent communist revolutionary. This is when he changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama even though he had probably been adopted in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro and may well have been a citizen of that country. His roommates and friends there included Pakistanis Wahid Hamid and Mohamed Hasan Chandoo. After Occidental, Obama allegedly made a trip to Pakistan in 1981.
What’s interesting is that Obama never mentioned this Pakistan trip in either of his autobiographies, nor did he apparently mention it to anyone else until telling the press in April 2008 that he knew more about foreign policy than John McCain and Hillary Clinton because he had visited Pakistan and knew the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims. (That was an astoundingly arrogant and foolish remark, but that’s Obama.) Apparently, Obama didn’t want the trip to be known, which is quite suspicious. So why mention it then? Perhaps because the previous month, March 2008, three contract employees at the State Department were caught looking at Obama, McCain and Hillary Clinton’s passports. The firm one of the employees worked for, Analysis Corp., was headed by John O. Brennan who later became Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counter-TerrorismandeventuallyheadoftheCIA. Sowhyhad Obama never mentioned the trip to Pakistan? And why did he mention it just after someone who worked for Brennan was caught looking at his passport file? Were McCain and Clinton included just to confuse who the real target was?
One possibility is that the passport was being altered by the employee either to add, remove or replace information. What if the reason Obama never mentioned Pakistan is that he never actually went to Pakistan? All we have is Obama’s word for it that he visited Pakistan since his passport is not available. What if he went somewhere else in 1981? What if he went to the Soviet Union or some other east bloc country for training and that information had to be expunged and replaced by a cover story? If you look at the trade craft of Soviet moles and American traitors, they typically go overseas to meet their KGB handlers for instructions, which is why overseas travel is carefully scrutinized by those granting security clearances. Obama would never qualify for a security clearance, given his background and unexplained overseas travel.
Interestingly, Obama has gone overseas just before each major change in his life. And those changes were step ups in his status and ambition. In 1981, it was just before transferring from Occidental to Columbia. In 1988, he went to Europe and Kenya for several weeks just before heading to Harvard Law School. In 2006, he visited Kenya as a senator just before announcing his candidacy for president. And in 2008, he toured Europe as a candidate just before being elected president.
Is there a reason to suspect Obama may have become a mole? Aside from his communist revolutionary beliefs at the time, consider that two years after graduating from Columbia in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago in 1985, the previous home of his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, to become a community organizer. Obama’s ostensible reason for moving to Chicago was that he was inspired, he said, by the election of Harold Washington as mayor of that city. Washington was someone with close connections to the Communist Party and other socialist groups who backed him during his candidacy. So Obama said he applied for a job as community organizer with the Developing Communities Project.
Davis, who worked for most of his life in Chicago, was a member of the Communist Party USA, an organization actually funded from Moscow until 1989. In fact, the Communist Party USA was founded in Chicago back in 1919 and that city still has a very active Marxist culture. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of KGB records, we know that some of the Chicago Communists were actually on Moscow’s payroll as agents of influence. And we also know that the Communist Party USA branch in Hawaii when Davis was living there was actually run from Moscow. From his time in Chicago, Davis always followed the propaganda line from Moscow in his writings and newspaper columns, no matter how ridiculous.
Presumably, then, he was a Soviet agent. Suppose Obama was groomed by Davis from youth to become a mole? Suppose that Davis told Moscow about his young charge, a bright kid who was so damaged by abandonment, so desperate to be important, and so lacking in moral upbringing as to be perfectly pliable? And even more important, the kid was already brainwashed to be a communist.
This was a kid who asked his schoolmates whether they would rather be a wealthy businessman, a military general or president of the United States. And when one answered businessman and the other military general, Obama told them he’d rather be president because the military general would protect him and the businessman would give him money. This was a kid who was seriously conflicted about his racial identity and finally decided he was black, suggesting that his mother and grandparent’s whiteness was associated with negative emotions of worthlessness and abandonment, while Davis’s black skin was associated with acceptance. It’s also probably how he became extraordinarily narcissistic. Obama is someone who has serious psychological issues.
After returning from his trip to Pakistan or wherever it was he actually went, Barack transferred to Columbia University, another far left institution, in New York after two years at Occidental, presumably under either an affirmative action or foreign student program since it’s unlikely Barack’s grades were stellar at Occidental where he admits he didn’t really study. According to one person who was at Columbia at the same time as Obama, that university very seldom accepted transfers from other schools and those were only the cream of the crop. So why Obama? Did someone among the school’s many communist administrators and professors arrange it under instructions from Moscow?
At this time, Obama said his ambition while at Columbia was to be a novelist, although if he ever wrote anything fiction, aside from some bad poetry, it hasn’t been disclosed. Considering the acclaim his writing skills for “Dreams From My Father” garnered, you’d think there would be some fictional works the would-be novelist wrote. But “Dreams From My Father” is sheer poetry and there’s nothing Obama has ever written (and there’s actually not much that he has written at all) even close to it in style or technical brilliance. Obama’s poetry is nothing exceptional, for example, and his essays are clunkers. It’s widely believed that Bill Ayers wrote the book since it contains scenes and depictions found in Ayers’ own stories. Moreover, Ayers keeps insisting in public that he actually wrote “Dreams From My Father” and jokes that if anyone can prove it he’ll split the royalties. Maybe that’s why Obama actually majored in political science and international relations.

10448545_1508480722700121_7099040129296781988_o
Why Ayers would write an autobiography for Obama isn’t known, but clearly, it was that book that convinced many people that Obama is a genius despite no other accomplishments. It may be that if Obama was being groomed for high office, Ayers was recruited by Moscow to provide Obama with a stellar biography and reputation.
The reason for going to Columbia is unclear, but as a hotbed of Marxism, perhaps that attracted Barack. Or it could be that his Soviet handlers decided he needed better credentials for future work and Columbia is prestigious enough. At Columbia, it seems few people can remember knowing Barack Obama. We do know he lived off campus with Pakistani roommate Sohale Siddiqi just a few blocks from where Bill Ayers lived at the time and that he attended socialist conferences at Cooper Union. Among his professors that later became close to him at Columbia we can count Khalid Rashidi, a pro- Palestinian activist. Perhaps it’s Obama’s upbringing as a Muslim in Indonesia that attracted him to foreign Muslim friends and led to sympathy for Islamic causes.
In 1985, then, Obama arrived in Chicago where he came to work with the communist/socialist network. His entre was probably Frank Marshall Davis, who apparently knew most of the people who would eventually help young Obama. But Obama’s immediate reason for being in Chicago, as previously indicated, was to become director of Developing Communities Project, a church-based community organizing group that he made a separate non-profit in 1986. While working for them, he sent a letter to Chicago mayor Harold Washington in 1987 asking for an endorsement for his organization. He listed as members of his board such people as Black (third world, actually) Liberation Theologists Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger, as well as John Ayers, the brother of unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers. Obama also worked for the Gamaliel Foundation as a “consultant and trainer” in the tactics of Saul “The Red” Alinsky, the author of “Rules for Radicals” whose book is dedicated to Lucifer. On the board of Gamaliel was professor John L. McKnight, who taught Obama Alinsky tactics probably starting in 1982 when Obama was still at Columbia and an intern for Gamaliel. (McKnight’s organization recruited 20 interns in 1982 for staffing in several cities, including New York.)
In his 1995 memoir, Obama said he wanted to go to Harvard Law School to “learn power’s currency in all its intricacy,” with the goal of “making large-scale change” as a national politician. So Obama approached McKnight to write a letter of recommendation, which he did. Obama, who McKnight admitted was a poor student, also probably got letters of recommendation from Newton Minow (JFK’s head of the FCC) who was on the board of trustees at Northwestern University where McKnight was teaching, and whose daughter, Martha, was dean of Harvard Law School. Minow was also a senior lawyer at Sidley Austin law firm where Obama did internships at Martha’s recommendation. Was sending Obama to that law firm a way to connect him with his future handler, Valerie Jarrett? Jarrett did work there at the time. Another letter of recommendation probably came from Thomas Ayers, the father of William Ayers, who was also on the board of trustees with Minow. Why were all these people so interested in helping a man with no particular accomplishments, even academically, into Harvard Law?
The wealthy Thomas Ayers, CEO of Consolidated Edison and sometimes called the Godfather of Chicago Politics, may have helped finance Obama’s education. According to Thomas Ayers’ mailman, Allen Hulton, he met young Obama at the home of Thomas Ayers. “He was very polite, dressed nicely, but informally – slacks and a dress shirt – and he spoke with no accent. Immediately this young black man entered into a conversation with me. He told me he had taken the train out from Chicago and had come to thank the Ayers family personally for having helped him with his education. “Hulton remembers asking the young man what his plans were for the future. “He looked at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States,” Hulton says. “There was a little bit of a grin on his face when he said it – he sounded sure of himself, but not arrogant. I know how people will say things because they have an ambition, but it did not come across that way,” Hulton says. “It came across as if this young black male was telling me he was going to be president, almost as if it were a
statement of a scientific fact that had already been predetermined, as if his being president has already been pre-arranged.”
Hulton also said that Thomas Ayers once gave him a lecture on how the working man was being exploited by rich capitalists. Was Thomas Ayers a Marxist? It certainly seems so. Why did Thomas Ayers take an interest in Barack Obama? Probably because one of Ayers’ close friends was the ubiquitous Frank Marshall Davis. It seems reasonable that Davis recommended Obama to Ayers and Ayers probably introduced Obama to his son, William, the Marxist terrorist.
In 1988 Obama left to attend Harvard Law School but returned to Chicago to work at Sidley Austin law firm in the summer 1989 where Valerie Jarrett introduced him to Michelle Robinson, his immediate boss who later became his wife. Not surprisingly, Jarrett’s maternal grandfather, Robert Rochon Taylor, was a Communist Party member and friend of Frank Marshall Davis. Her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also a communist and friend of Davis’s who apparently knew Khalid al-Mansour, formerly known as Donald Warden. Warden was a radical black power advocate and Marxist who was one of the “Chicago Eight” responsible for rioting during the 1968 Chicago Democratic Party convention.
Vernon Jarrett wrote an article in 1979 about al-Mansour, reporting that al-Mansour was asking rich Arabs to fund the education of black American kids, presumably to help induce them to become Muslims. So, perhaps Davis also prevailed upon his friend Vernon Jarrett to contact al-Mansour and recommend Obama as a candidate for that educational funding, especially since Obama was schooled in Islam while in Indonesia and his alleged Kenyan father’s family were Muslims. Sutton Percy, a New Yorker connected to Marxists there, said that al-Mansour asked him to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to Harvard Law, which Sutton did. Interestingly, in 1979, Obama was in Chicago. Did he meet with Vernon Jarrett or al- Mansour? My guess is that he did.
After law school, Valerie Jarrett initially worked for Mayor Harold Washington, another of Chicago’s communist officials who stocked his administration with communists and socialists. It was while she worked for Washington that she first hired Michelle Robinson who later married Barack Obama.
In 1991 Obama returned to Chicago after getting his law degree. He worked for ACORN’s Project Vote, and helped to elect another Chicago communist, Carol Moseley Braun, to the US Senate. In 1994, Obama became chief of staff for Alice Palmer in her run for a Congressional seat. Palmer was a communist and probably a paid agent of influence for the Soviet Union back in the 1980’s. In a 1995 party at the house of Bill Ayers to introduce Barack Obama’s entre into politics, Palmer anointed Obama as her heir to the Illinois Senate seat she was vacating. When Palmer’s Congressional bid fizzled, she wanted her old Illinois Senate seat back but Obama refused and had her disqualified on the ballot. Palmer, who fell out with Obama after that, later joined the socialist New Party of which Obama was also a member.
When Obama finally reached the White House, his closest advisor was Valerie Jarrett, who is still there and considered by some to be the actual power behind the throne who acts as Obama’s eyes and ears and, some say, brain. Perhaps her real mission is to keep an eye on Obama and direct policy. The other main advisor was David Axelrod who decamped for Chicago to run Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Interestingly, Axelrod was mentored and taught politics by a member of the Communist Party USA, David Canter, who was probably a paid agent of the Soviet Union. Canter’s father Harry, was a committed communist who even moved his family to Moscow. When he returned to America he came to Chicago and worked, as you might have guessed, with Frank Marshall Davis.
So, to put it together, young Obama was more than likely turned into a communist by his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and his family, and then sent to Occidental, known for its far left climate. Sometime during this period, Obama was probably officially recruited by the Soviet KGB to be a mole. His 1981 trip abroad was probably to meet his Soviet handler and get further instructions, including what to study and who to meet at Columbia. His first connection with the Chicago communist network was by applying for an internship with Gamaliel Foundation and so it was natural for Obama to relocate to the old home of his mentor and start making connections with radical Marxists.

In 1988 he was probably instructed to go to law school, presumably the best that would accept him, and Davis made sure his contacts wrote letters of recommendation. That the daughter of Thomas Ayers was dean of Harvard Law probably made him a shoo-in even if he didn’t have distinguished grades at Columbia. Before going to Harvard, Obama went overseas again and likely met his Soviet handler for further instructions, including that he should enter politics and possibly run for president. Ayers and the Saudis probably financed Obama’s time at Harvard.
Obama’s connection with the Saudis, Palestinians and other Muslims was also probably deemed a plus by the Soviets and one of the benefits of recruiting him. Some people think Obama is a closet Muslim while others think he’s an atheist who joined the Rev. Wright’s church to gain “street cred.” But being so supportive of Islam provides cover since Obama is seen as a Muslim tool, not that of the Russians.
It was Martha Minow who greased Obama’s way into the Sidley Austin law firm where her father was employed and which was a hot bed of leftist sympathizers, including Bernadine Dohrn, the terrorist wife of William Ayers. First year law students virtually never get to intern at major law firms. While at that law firm, Jarrett probably became his American handler. (It would be interesting to see when and where Jarrett went overseas for vacations or business.) It’s also possible that Michelle Robinson was recruited to be his cover, to provide a respectable family image despite his alleged gay sex life and drug use, in return for her riding his coattails into the final objective, the White House. In fact, when Obama lost his first bid to be a congressman, she reportedly almost left him.
After graduation from law school, Obama returned again to Chicago and started his political activities, working on the campaigns of various communists or socialists, until he gained enough experience and “street cred” among the city’s black south side population to enter politics himself. He went up the political ladder as fast as possible, from being elected state senator in 1997 to being elected United States senator in 2004 (aided when Carol Mosely Braun stepped aside for him). In 2004, he gave an impressive speech at the Democratic Party convention which fueled speculation that he might be presidential timber. But he wisely said he wasn’t ready. In fact, on November 8, 2004, after his election as senator, Obama said, “You know, I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there are some people who might be comfortable with that, but I’m not one of those people.” However, that reticence to run for the presidency lasted until February 2007, when he announced his candidacy for president after having served only two years as a senator.
In 2005, Obama was adopted as a protege by Republican senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, one of the few Repubicans who was a creature of the fascist manipulator George Soros. Lugar took Obama on an arms control inspection trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan in 2005. No doubt there were plenty of opportunities to meet with Russian handlers (fascists now, not communists) including when the American party was detained for several hours for no good reason and Obama was confined alone to a room in the airport. In 2006, Obama went abroad again, to Kenya, and perhaps met again with a Russian handler.
Did his Russian handlers push him into aggressively pursuing the office despite his misgivings? Did Obama really expect to win the nomination then? Or was it a Russian ploy to “prove” that a racist America would never consider a black man for president and thereby embarrass us.? Is that why Michelle Obama, surprised that her husband was winning, said that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country? If they thought America was so bad, why make a hopeless run for president? In any case, why would the Russians want to embarrass the United States? After all, the Soviet Union disintegrated and ostensibly communism was defeated in 1991, so the Russians were supposed to be no longer a threat.
The foreign intelligence requirements of the new Russian government did not end, of course, with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the functions of the KGB still had to continue even if that organization didn’t. So the new Russian government still had the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). One of the methods the SVR uses to obtain information and influence is through moles, that is, people who are recruited at a young age, normally using ideological indoctrination, and then groomed to enter strategically useful occupations in sensitive positions when they reach adulthood. One recent example of this was the arrest in 2010 of ten Russian agents, the so-called “Illegals Program.” The ten agents were what Russians call “sleeper agents” or moles, who were educated to pass as Americans and then insinuate themselves into useful jobs.
The present Russian government is fascist by nature and has nationalistic ambitions. It is led by President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB official. To get an idea of what the Russians intend to achieve by the use of a mole as an influence agent, and why they still want to bring down the United States, consider the textbook, “Foundations of Geopolitics” written in 1997 by Alexander Dugin, a known fascist, and General Nikolai Klokotov of the military’s General Staff. The book is very popular with Russian national security and foreign policy officials and is used as a textbook by the General Staff Academy and other educational institutions. Klokotov stated that it would serve as a “mighty ideological foundation for preparing a new military command.”
The book declares that “the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians” has not ended and Russia remains “the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution.” The Eurasian Empire will be constructed “on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.”
It also states that Russia should use its special forces, including moles, within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, by, for example, provoking “Afro-American racists.” According to the book, Russia should “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics.”
In June 2008, Obama beat out Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party nomination to run for president. One month later, Obama went abroad again, this time as the party’s nominee, as if there were voters out in Germany who needed persuading to vote for him. So why go abroad to campaign? Was the trip really a ploy to meet with his Russian handlers and receive more instructions on what they expected from him as president? Is the Obama program really directed from Moscow to further the agenda outlined in “Foundations of Geopolitics” book?
If you wonder how Obama could introduce “geopolitical disorder” into the United States, consider why Van Jones, an admitted communist who was recruited by Valerie Jarrett to be Obama’s “Green Jobs” czar wanted to take over the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. If you want to know why Obama encourages illegal immigration, appoints members of the Mexican separatist group “La Raza” to his administration, and tries to stop states from enforcing the borders, consider the above goals. If you want to know why Obama has brought so many members of the Muslim Brotherhood into his administration, consider the above goals. If you want to know why Obama is so racially divisive, consider the above goals. If you want to know why Obama is trying to wreck us financially, consider the above goals. If you wonder why leftists are encouraged to be as nasty as possible towards anyone on the right, further dividing the country, consider the above goals.

10336735_10152364141375359_5100705186748007042_n
As for America’s role in the world, Dugin and Klokotov’s book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: “the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S.” What’s more, they stress the “continental Russian-Islamic alliance” which lies “at the foundation of the anti-Atlanticist strategy.” The alliance is based on the “traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization.” The book calls Iran a key ally and uses the term “Moscow-Tehran axis.”
So, if you want to know why Obama would insult our traditional Atlantic allies, such as the United Kingdom, while supporting our enemies, such as trying to force the Hondurans to disregard their own constitution and allow their president, an ally of Venezuela’s former dictator Chavez, to remain in office past his allowed two terms, consider the above objectives. If you wonder why Obama would tell Russia’s Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to meet Russian goals after he’s reelected, consider the above objectives.
Although it hasn’t been confirmed, the Israeli Avi Lipkin (also known as Victor Mordecai) claims that on January 19, 2010 his wife Rachel, a native born Egyptian Jew, picked up a broadcast on Nile TV from Egypt. It was a round table discussion in which the Foreign Minister of Egypt, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, was quoted saying that in a one-on- one meeting with Barack Obama, our president swore to him that he was a Muslim. Gheit, who did, indeed, meet privately with Obama in 2009, continued by saying Obama told him, “I have a problem with some domestic issues. And as soon as I finish with the healthcare question you Muslims will see what I will do for Islam regarding Israel.”
So, if you wonder why Obama in conjunction with his close friend, Turkey’s president Ergogan, as well as the Saudis, have been actively supporting the overthrow of secular regimes that were cooperating with us in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and now Syria, only to replace them with Muslim Brotherhood Islamists who are our enemies and are likely to go to war with Israel eventually, consider the above Russian objectives. If you wonder why Obama let our staff in Benghazi die rather than save them, while putting out an absurd lie that it was a mob attack provoked by a movie from months before that nobody had ever seen, then realize that promoting the idea that an American movie incited the mob is a meme they were trying to create designed to make the US the scapegoat, just as in the objectives above. If you wonder why Obama didn’t support Iran’s dissidents in 2009, consider whose key ally Tehran is.
If you wonder why Obama has not supported Ukrainian dissidents fighting to prevent closer ties to Moscow in 2014, or even criticized the crackdown against regime opponents in Venezuela by Chavez’s hand-picked successor, consider what Moscow’s interests are. If you wonder why Obama is so diffident towards Muslims and indifferent if not hostile to Christians, consider whose objectives are being met.
After overthrowing the Egyptian government of Mubarak and installing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi, the Egyptian people rebelled and threw them out. Likewise, Obama has been supporting Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians in Syria as they try to overthrow the pro-Iranian regime of Assad probably at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. (Obama has yet to criticize the anti- Christian pogrom by Syria’s rebels.) But the Syrian rebels are making no headway, so Obama tried to get US military forces to intervene on behalf of the rebels until the American public objected. His latest tactic seems to be a deception. By creating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or the Levant), ISIS, he’s created a false enemy. His alleged solution is to arm the Free Syrian Army, which has been fighting the Syrian regime, so that they’ll fight ISIS. He proposes training them in Saudi Arabia, the very regime that has been financing the overthrow of Syria’s Assad, so that they’ll go after ISIS instead. But there’s no reason to believe the Free Syrian Army, which is composed of Islamists such as al-Qa’ida and the Muslim Brotherhood, will ignore Syria and battle fellow Muslims. Instead, they are likely to combine with ISIS and battle with US supplied arms.
As previously indicated, Obama is a close friend of Turkey’s President Erdogan, an Islamist whose party has pushed that country from being secular into embracing Islam as policy. Initially, Obama, Erdogan, the Saudis and probably George Soros were working together against Russia’s unofficial ally, Iran, but it appears that Obama has betrayed the Saudis, much to their fury, by making a deal with Iran to let them have a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, Turkey’s intelligence service betrayed Iranian dissidents to Tehran who were providing intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. So, Obama and Turkey are now, along with the Russians, in bed with Iran. Why? Possibly because their program to overthrow Syria and replace Assad with a Sunni Islamic Brotherhood regime is failing, and Egypt is no longer an ally against Israel that it was under Morsi. So now, the only option to destroy Israel is nuclear and for that, they need Iran.
What else could Obama do for the Russians? While at Columbia, Obama wrote an article for a newspaper and also a class paper on nuclear disarmament, blaming the arms race entirely on the United States. Interestingly, nuclear disarmament of the West was a prime objective of the Soviet Union at the time. Nuclear disarmament is still one of Obama’s main interests and he’s done much to reduce the size of the American arsenal if not that of the Russians. According to President Obama, the United States has a moral obligation to disarm as an example to the rest of the world. His 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty calls for the US to reduce our number of nuclear weapons to about 1550 while also agreeing not to create a missile defense shield in eastern Europe. The Russians must be very pleased.
As of 2013, he’s trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons even more, to less than a thousand. American weapons, that is. The Russians are actually allowed to build more nuclear weapons since they say they have less than 1550 nuclear weapons and are busy modernizing their arsenal, something we’re not doing. If this sounds like an ideal situation for the Russians, Obama has given the Defense Department orders to plan on reducing our nuclear arsenal even further, down to 300 weapons. Bear in mind that even if you could get to a world where everyone lacked nuclear weapons and couldn’t build them, even the Chinese, Pakistanis, North Koreans, Israelis and Iranians, that would only make the world safe for large-scale conventional war.
Obama has also been firing and replacing flag-ranked officers in unprecedented numbers, leading some to believe that he’s putting his own compliant officers in key positions based on their willingness to open fire on Americans. Some of these key officers were responsible for America’s strategic nuclear forces. What’s more, many Air Force personnel manning the ICBM silos have been accused of various crimes and relieved as a result. Note that all of these people had to obtain a top secret clearance as a result of a comprehensive background investigation. How is it so many are deemed corrupt? Is Obama rendering our nuclear retaliatory capability prostrate?
In addition, he’s stopped several weapons programs such as the Tomahawk Cruise Missile and the Hellfire anti-personnel missiles, as well as drastically reduced the size of the Navy and the number of Army personnel. But he’s also allowed and encouraged illegal aliens to join America’s services at the same time. It should be obvious that Obama is striving to degrade America’s military, which works to the advantage of the Russians.
In America, Obama has been working to undermine the Constitution as he rules by the fiat of executive orders and unilaterally changing laws and deciding which ones to enforce. His economic policies of driving up government debt by many trillions of dollars and creating a welfare state have the earmarks of a Cloward-Piven strategy. (Cloward and Piven devised a plan to bankrupt New York by enlisting as many people as possible to go on welfare. The idea was to destroy the economy and replace it with a socialist state. In fact, they did manage to bankrupt New York City as a result.)
Obama is also working to bring vast numbers of Middle Eastern people into America without even vetting them. Many are likely to be terrorists and many have disappeared once they arrive in this country. He has created the crisis on the border with the massive wave of Central American’s entering this country along the Rio Grande in Texas. Many are vicious gang members and many are sick with a variety of dangerous diseases. Once inside this country, these dangerous people are shipped to locations the administration won’t disclose or simply let loose. It may be that the spread of the severe respiratory Enterovirus D68 that has polio-like symptoms is being spread by Central American children.
In October 2014, America had its first Ebola victim, so it may get much worse. The form of Ebola is far more contagious than previous strains and some believe it may be a weaponized version since the US government has a patent on it. What’s more, Disaster Response Teams reportedly were told months in advance that there would be a disaster in the coming October that would overwhelm EMT and Hospitals. Perhaps that’s true since the administration ordered 160,000 Hazmat suits. What else do we know? Obama put the Center for Disease Control directly under the White House. He also gutted quarantine rules that would help prevent pandemics from entering this country. So, what are the odds that Obama is part of a plot to ravage this country’s population?
If you wanted to allow terrorists into America carrying dirty bombs or chemical weapons, leaving the border unguarded or preventing Border Patrol Agents from defending themselves against assaults would also be s. In fact, that’s being done since Border Patrol personnel are being diverted to Texas. Meanwhile, not only are Central Americans flooding in, but reports indicate a wide variety of other nationalities are joining them, including Islamists.
Interestingly, the Russian Mafia is said to be in charge in Mexico. Presumably, they’re coordinating with Mexican drug gangs and it may be that Putin is behind the plan. Imagine what would happen if America were destroyed by several plagues, such as Ebola or some exotic disease, along with attacks by terrorists. I suspect that, too, is part of the Russian’s plan that Obama appears to be supporting.
The scandals associated with Obama are also an indication of his contempt for America. He directed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to not grant tax free status to conservative groups and Obama’s critics are being audited. The National Security Agency (NSA) is now monitoring virtually all communications by Americans in this country, which used to be illegal. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is sending monitors into news rooms to see how they devise editorial policy. Obama, under the Fast and Furious program, has sent thousands of firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Then there’s the Benghazi debacle which looks more and more like a plot to ship American weapons from Libya to Syria that was intercepted by Hamas.
Obama has also been laying the ground work to create a martial law crackdown on right wing opponents. His Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been buying billions of rounds of ammunition, giving away armored vehicles to police forces, buying armored check point stations and thousands of automatic weapons. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has contracted to build “refugee” camps that resemble prisons with inward facing barbed- wire fences. The Army has a field manual that directs how to run such a camp, including political indoctrination and keeping track of inmates by social security number. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has provisions for the indefinite detention of American citizens in such camps under any pretext. Obama’s executive orders allow him to seize control of all utilities and transportation in this country even in time of peace. The Army and DHS have been practicing urban warfare exercises within large American cities and have recently constructed a mock US city to practice on. Army exercises and manuals stress that the terrorists are likely to be those who want to uphold the Constitution and display other conservative values. Clearly, something sinister is up.

10155237_676844005687418_2971614967135278225_n
Obama appears to be deliberately instituting a fascist regime in America. Fascism is a way station on the road from Capitalism to Communism. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is wrecking the economy, sowing chaos in the health care industry, adding to debt, depriving people of insurance or driving up their costs drastically, throwing people out of work and putting one-sixth of the US economy directly under the thumb of the government. And it’s not by nationalizing the healthcare industry, it’s by micromanaging it. That’s the difference between socialism and fascism. When the government directly takes over the healthcare industry as the single payer, then it will be socialized medicine. Until then, it’s fascist medicine.
In the end, we still don’t know who Obama really is. His birth certificate is a proven fraud. His draft card is clearly a fake. His social security numbers (he has many) are from a state he never lived in. His academic, government and health records are all sealed and he has spent millions to ensure they can’t be opened. Isn’t it possible, if not probable, that Obama is a mole?
Obama was famously overheard on a hot mic when he told Russia’s then President Medvedev (he was holding the spot for Vladimir Putin who was Prime Minister since Putin, Russia’s real boss, couldn’t run for president again under the Russian constitution) that he needed more space to solve the missile defense issue and that he would be more flexible after his next and last election (in 2012). Medvedev said, “I will transmit this information to Vladimir and I stand with you.” The press has largely ignored the familiar use of Vladimir rather than saying “Putin” or even just “the prime minister”, but more importantly, they’ve also failed to comment on why Medvedev would say, “I stand with you.” Doesn’t that imply that Medvedev knows Obama stands with him?
Now then, if you want to know how Russia could ever achieve the objective, “strategic control of the USA”, consider why they would put a mole in the White House.
By the way, as I usually do, I asked the universe for a sign as to whether this hypothesis is correct. Later that evening, I was walking past the TV as my wife was watching NCIS. I was taken aback when I heard a black character on the show state that he wasn’t really an American. He was from Somalia and was trained by the Soviets in Russia to become an American mole. He said the Russians dropped him off from a submarine near Seattle. I presume the producers of the show were hinting at Obama or using him as a model, but I was amazed at the timing of when and how I saw it.

Content copyright 20152015. . All rights reserved.

10321741_10152454140358189_8213125452691970229_o

Advertisements

42 ADMITTED FALSE FLAG ATTACKS IN THIS CRUMMY WORLD!!!

“Governments from Around the World Admit They Do It

page1image1920

Image Credits: Jonathan Perera / Flickr

by WASHINGTON’S BLOG | FEBRUARY 9, 2015

There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.
In the following 42 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admits to it, either orally or in writing:
(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasionsadmitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann
Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev
all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.
(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and
seethis, this and this).
(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
(11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian
counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.
(12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
(13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high- level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
(15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
(16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”
(17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
(19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
(20) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
(21) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.
(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and
see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).
(24) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.
(25) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and
see this report and this discussion).
(26) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
(27) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.
(28) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.
(30) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.
(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by amemo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers).
(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:
(34) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(35) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).
(36) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.
(37) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.
(38) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.
(39) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.
(40) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish
government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.
(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.
(42) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.
In addition, two-thirds of the City of Rome burned down in a huge fire on July 19, 64 A.D. The Roman people blamed the Emperor Nero for starting the fire. Some top Roman leaders – including the Roman consul Cassius Dio, as well as historians like Suetonius – agreed that Nero started the fire (based largely on the fact that the Roman Senate had just rejected Nero’s application to clear 300 acres in Rome so that he could build a palatial complex, and that the fire allowed him to build his complex). Regardless of who actually started the fire, Nero – in the face of public opinion accusing him of arson – falsely blamed theChristians for starting the fire. He then rounded up and brutally tortured and murdered scores of Christians for something they likely didn’t do.
We didn’t include this in the list above, because – if Nero did start the fire on purpose – he did it for hisown reasons (to build his palatial complex), and not for geopolitical reasons benefiting his nation.
So Common … There’s a Name for It
The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.
“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.
Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.
Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags
Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:
“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler
“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin”

The train we’re on is now running downhill without brakes …

10897960_10203708018125193_2345684501439389911_n

CRUMMY GAS FLOW IS THE ANSWER & THE QUESTION IS – WHY SYRIA? WHY NOW?

THIS IS ONE YOU MUST READ!!!

The author did a whole lot of research to tie all the pieces together and he succeeds – brilliantly!

His article is well researched and referenced!

makes sense

371785_100002702173010_1663169561_q

John Gaultier

BINGO!! TOOK ME A WHILE TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER… NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE…. THIS IS A LONG LONG READ. IF IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU..SHARE IT! PLEASE COMMENT TOO.. I VALUE YOUR INPUT!

Why is Obama so vehement about bombing Syria?

Why are the Arabs so keen to get rid of Assad?

Why are they willing to pay the US to make our Military into a mercenary force?

Why is Russia so keen of helping a non player like Assad?

READ THIS AND YOU WILL GET IT…

ITS ABOUT ..MONEY AND OIL AND WHO GETS THE PROFITS FROM IT!!

Here is a rhetorical question to ask….Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? The answer revolves, as usually is the case in the Middle East, around an oil pipeline and the money.

Here are some additional perspectives.

Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

And as we asked last week, why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.

Now Obama is getting directly involved in the conflict with direct ordesr from his handlers the SAUDI’S. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all. ( DUH!!! ) But if Obama gets it done he has a HUGE HUGE commission coming after his retirement or ejection from America!

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.

The article was found from 2009…

“Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas. NOW THAT’S WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THEIR SPECIAL INTERESTS COME IN.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

THATS THE REASON WHY OBAMA HAS BLOCKED THE KEYSTONE PROJECT AND BLOCKED ANY FRACKING, SHALE EXPLORATION IN THE US.. ITS OK FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD>…BUT AWFUL FOR THE US.

SAUDI ARABIA EVEN WENT TO WORK IN THE PROPAGANDA WAR FUNDING THE CORNY MATT DAMON MOVIUE ABOUT FRACKING. Called “Promised Land”, or.

Last week, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation pointed out that in the trailer for film, one of the financial backers listed is Image Nation Abu Dhabi.

Image Nation Abu Dhabi is, in turn, owned by Abu Dhabi Media – a state media company for the United Arab Emirates. The UAE, an OPEC member, is the world’s third-largest oil exporter.

– See more at: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/matt-damon-fracking/#sthash.P49HHXK5.dpuf

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian…

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely…

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia! THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS RACING TO TRY AND CONVERT AMERICA INTO A SOCIALIST OLIGARCHY SO THAT HIS CABAL CAN HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS HUGE RESERVE.

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants…

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”…

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.

Four points are worth making about these purposes.

First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).

Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”

Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).

Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out…

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline and Retirement MONEY for Obama and all those who support him like his Cabal and other Rino’s like McCain, Graham and others. THERE IS HUGE MONEY INVOLVED… WE ARE TALKING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS…. AND FOR THAT KIND OF MONEY OUR MILITARY AND WE TAX PAYERS ARE THE PAWNS!!

ITS THE OLD YOU SCRATCH MY BACK.. AND I’LL SCRATCH YOURS ROUTINE…

ITS PLAYED OUT ON A DAILY BASIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.. IN FACT ITS THEIR WAY OF LIFE!!!

  1240266_573031792754308_1820955426_n

The above article explained WHY,

The one below covers the options for HOW!

1236744_10151650693638963_800528593_n

WND EXCLUSIVE

OBAMA EMPLOYING THINK-TANK PLAN TO OUST ASSAD?

Critics warn of war doctrine that threatens national sovereignty

Published: 9-7-2013

author-image
 Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is the forthcoming “What Went Wrong?: The Inside Story of the GOP Debacle of 2012 … And How It Can Be Avoided Next Time.”
syria-Bashar-al-Assad

NEW YORK – The Obama administration’s proposal to attack Syria appears to have been outlined in a Brookings Institution report published in March 2012 that contemplated a range of options to destabilize Syria and depose the government of Bashar al-Assad.

The plan included launching limited military attacks and supporting the Free Syria Army as the group of choice among the various “rebel” forces dominated by al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamic mercenaries from around the region.

Produced by the think tank’s Sabin Center in March 2012, “Middle East Memo #21,” titled “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change,” proposed the United States should implement a policy aimed at destabilizing Syria with the explicitly stated goal of ousting the Assad regime.

Authored by four Brookings Institution-affiliated authors, the report said the “brutal regime of Bashar al-Asad (sic) is employing its loyal military forces and sectarian thugs to crush the opposition and reassert its tyranny.”

The authors’ underlying justification for removing the Assad regime was that it was engaging in acts of violence against civilians that violated international standards of human rights.

The memo, however, made clear that the real gain to be achieved in toppling Assad was not the humanitarian protection of the Syrian population but the removal from the Middle East of “Iran’s oldest and most important ally in the Arab world.” The report characterized the Assad regime as “a longtime supporter” of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that has “at times aided al-Qa’ida terrorists and former regime elements in Iraq.”

The memo’s characterization of U.S. foreign policy goals has prompted critics to charge it presented humanitarian concerns couched in the doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” a U.N. initiative asserting sovereignty is a responsibility, not a right, and the international community, therefore, has a right to ensure nations protect their populations from genocide, war crime, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

The critics see the plan as a pretext designed to cover the real goal of destabilizing Syria to depose the Assad regime. The plan would provide weapons to rebel groups, combined with U.S. air attacks and the possibility of a U.S.-backed, internationally configured military invasion with ground troops.

The memo cautioned, however, that actually ousting Assad “will not be easy.”

“Although the Obama administration has for months called for Asad to go, every policy option to remove him is flawed, and some could even make the situation worse – seemingly a recipe for inaction. Doing nothing, however, means standing by while Asad murders his own people and Syria plunges into civil war and risks becoming a failed state.”

Even after acknowledging the Free Syrian Army, or FSA, “is more a brand than a meaningful, united force,” the Brookings Institution memo proceeded on the premise the FSA is the rebel force the Obama administration should champion.

The memo proposed six strategies the U.S. “should consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow”:

  1. Removing the Assad regime via diplomacy;
  2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation;
  3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime;
  4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;
  5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and
  6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Assad and rebuild Syria.

The memo stressed that no one strategy was going to be endorsed, although the memo clearly indicates preferences, especially when it comes to evaluating the probability each particular strategy has to achieve the stated policy goal of ousting the Assad regime.

The diplomatic option is discounted as having a low probability of success, because Russia’s protection of the Assad regime makes it unlikely the U.S. could pass a U.N. Security Council resolution in any way critical of Assad.

The effort to coerce the Assad regime by sanctions and diplomatic isolation is also regarded as a strategy with a low probability of success, because it would most likely create a stalemate in Syria between government and rebel forces, which would benefit Iran and Russia.

Option 3: U.S. to support FSA in Syria

The third option, arming the Syrian opposition, is considered to have a greater probability of success, provided the U.S. arms the Free Syria Army.

“The United States and its allies could arm the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other anti-regime forces to try to carry out regime change on their own,” the Brookings Institution memo specified. “Rhetorically, the United States is already moving in this direction, with repeated high-level statements noting that the United States will not rule out arming the opposition should current efforts fail.”

The memo went on to champion arming the FSA with the following language:

A U.S. or allied-armed opposition could gain victory in two ways: the FSA could defeat Syria’s armed forces and conquer the country, or it could continue to gain strength and dishearten regime stalwarts, leading to mass defections or even a coup that causes the regime to collapse. The FSA would then become the new Syrian army, subordinate to an elected Syrian government, with the mission of ensuring the country remains stable and has protected borders.

The Brookings Institution acknowledged that achieving the result will be difficult, noting:

The FSA, for its part, is currently poorly armed, disorganized, and divided from the broader political opposition movement. To make matters more complex, there is also a deep schism between FSA forces in Syria, doing the bulk of the fighting, and the FSA leadership outside it.

The memo cautioned a U.S. strategy of arming the rebels will also require “coalition strengthening” efforts by the U.S. to better organize the rebels:

Thus, if the United States were to embrace the policy of arming the opposition, a key initial step would be to make the opposition more coherent. This would entail first gaining a better understanding of Syria’s tribal, religious, ethnic, and community structures and their affiliations, and then using money, recognition, and arms as an incentive to push the FSA and Syrian opposition political groups like the Syrian National Council (SNC) to work together. The same tools would then have to be used to push for military integration and a unified command.

The Brookings Institution memo noted the cost and risk to the U.S. of the strategy would be low because the U.S. could avoid putting forces on the ground, and the cost of providing weapons could be represented as being in the millions of dollars, not billions.

The Brookings Institution cautioned, however, that in most cases, supporting opposition forces may foster instability in Syria but not topple the Assad regime.

Option 4: Massive air strikes

Massive U.S. air strikes would supplement arming the FSA.

The memo articulated the option as follows:

The theory here is that powerful American air support could tip the balance in favor of the FSA without miring American ground troops in the fight that will have to be waged for Syria’s cities and mountain fastnesses. In crass terms, the hope is that the United States could fight a “clean” war from 10,000 feet and leave the dirty work on the ground to the FSA, perhaps even obviating a massive commitment to Iraq-style nation-building. Because of the much greater cost and lengthy duration of post-war reconstruction, as well as the obvious unpleasant experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the potential to relieve the United States from this task appears to be a key selling point for some of this policy’s advocates.

The memo said, however, that the problem was that Assad’s armed forces were already heavily engaged with the population and the opposition across the country, making it difficult to target them from the air.

Option 5: A U.S. invasion

A U.S. invasion was the least popular of the options: “No one currently advocating an invasion of Syria, the four authors of this memo included.”

Yet, the authors suggest the option would work: “Moreover, if the United States is absolutely determined to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria and/or overthrow the Alawi regime, an invasion may well be the only way to do so – it is certainly the only way that would be guaranteed to do so.”

The authors also expressed concern that if the U.S. were “to kick in the door, to oust the regime,” Washington would then have to commit to long and costly efforts to rebuild Syria after the war.

Option 6: International intervention, the ‘goldilocks’ solution

The international option entails a NATO invasion of Syria, with Arab financial support at a minimum, and the support of the Arab League substituting for an inability to get U.N. Security Council approval.

The Brookings plan may be the origin of Secretary of State John Kerry’s suggestion to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Arab nations were willing to help bear the cost of military action against Syria.

The memo specified:

The Europeans and the Gulf Arabs have to be willing to pick up much of the tab. As noted above, rebuilding Syria after the events of 2011 and an invasion and occupation will be a major undertaking. Even if the reconstruction of Syria benefits from all the lessons learned in Iraq and suffers from none of its mistakes, it will still be enormously costly and well beyond Turkey’s means. Consequently, even though Turkey would be needed to put up much of the raw military muscle, it would be a mistake to ask them to shoulder the costs of that burden.

The advantage of the international plan, and the reason the Brookings Institution suggested it was “just right,” or “Goldilocks,” was that the U.S. would provide primarily logistics support and a few of the combat components involved in a war against Syria, but not all.

The memo also stressed some of the options “can be considered on an escalation ladder – some should be tried because they are less costly than more aggressive measures, and others should be pursued because they will be a component of a broader effort.”

In conclusion, the Brookings Institution memo cautioned against inaction: “As a final thought, it is always important to keep in mind that failing to act – even failing to decide – is an action and a decision.”

The four authors of the report include three from the Sabin Center for Middle East Policy, Daniel Byman, the director of research, along with Michael Doran and Kenneth M. Pollack, both senior fellows.

Pollack is the author of the 2005 book “The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America.”

Salman Shaikh is the director of the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Sabin Center. Prior to joining the Brookings Institution, he worked with the U.N. for nearly a decade.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/obama-employing-think-tank-plan-to-oust-assad/#S5GQa2PQ5sPKThUV.99

943117_544129675625273_828076298_n

CRUMMY FOREIGN POLICY COLLAPSE!

HE’S BETWEEN A ROCK AND A REALLY HARD PLACE WITH NO WAY OUT!

Untitled2

August 12, 2013

Russia Makes a Fool Out of Obama, Over and Over

By Kim Zigfeld

Untitled

The worst has finally happened.  It took much longer than expected — nearly two thousand days — but Barack Obama’s foreign policy has finally collapsed, leaving Americans to gape slack-jawed at the smoking ruins.  Obama has undermined American influence and honor in ways that will be very difficult to repair.

Writing in the Moscow Times, Russian attorney Vladimir Berezansky plays the funeral dirge.  He calls Russia’s granting of asylum to Edward Snowden a “Suez moment.”  By this he means that China and Russia have effectively burst the bubble of American power in the same way that the U.S. burst the bubble of French and British power during the Suez crisis.  The latter two nations were never the same afterwards, and, Berezansky argues, neither will the USA be after Snowden.  Watching Obama’s helplessness as these two malignant dictatorships thumb their noses at America reminds one of nothing so much as the Iran hostage crisis and the Afghanistan invasion, where Jimmy Carter’s presidency ran aground.

Russia went out of its way to snub and provoke the United States and to humiliate Obama.  It took the minimum amount of time and gave Snowden the maximum number of benefits available.  Russia sent a clear message that it cares nothing for its relationship with the United States, has no fear of Obama’s retaliatory moves, and believes that there will be none anyway.  Obama replied by making it clear that he would not impose any tangible sanctions, such as an Olympic boycott, once again handing another easy victory to Putin.

Leon Aron, the dean of American Russia watchers, believes that Obama’s feeble response to Russia on Snowden, canceling a scheduled personal meeting with Putin, was a fatal display of weakness and a national disgrace.  Aron points out that Obama could have refused to attend the upcoming G-20 summit in Russia, where the meeting was scheduled, or he could have attended and strongly confronted Putin over what amounts to an act of war against the United States.  Predictably, Obama chose to do neither.  He’ll attend the summit, sparing Russian face, but won’t meet with Putin in protest, sparing Putin the post-meeting press conference where Obama calls him to account.  Instead of punishing Putin, Obama is basically doing him a favor.

Putin did the worst he could to the U.S. on Snowden, and the U.S. responded with maximum softness.  Obama’s message to Putin is clear: grab for more.  Russian political pundits were openly laughing at Obama’s feebleness.

Political Information Agency General Director Alexei Mukhin told Interfax:

The Soviet Union hosted the Olympic Games without the Americans in 1980. Nevertheless, everything was just excellent. Even if Washington makes a similar step during the Sochi Olympics, this won’t mean anything unpleasant for Russia. In 1980, the Americans were supported by a number of countries, but now this can’t be replayed, because of the EU’s position, among other things.  It looks like, in its desire to sting the Russian leadership, Washington has outsmarted itself in the situation surrounding Snowden. The Barack Obama administration has behaved like a capricious woman.

Of course, Obama never thought he’d need to show any backbone where Russia is concerned, so naturally he’s not ready to do so.  His “reset” policy was supposed to turn Russia into a cooperating partner on issues like Snowden, and it has blown up in his face, just as his critics predicted it would from the first.

Russia was happy to sign a nuclear weapons treaty that called on only the USA to cut weapons.  When Obama sought a second round that would actually impose some cuts on Russia, Putin told him to drop dead.

No progress whatsoever has been achieved in inducing Iran to abandon nuclear weapons.  To the contrary, Russia not only continues to support Iran, but is now helping Iran support Syria, and flouting U.S. policy there as well.

Putin has escalated an appalling crackdown on civil society, which has seen him arrest his leading critic, Alexei Navalny, on clearly political charges and sentence him to five years at labor.  America’s moral leadership in Russia has vanished; America has betrayed those who stand for its values.

The most utterly humiliating moment for Obama on Russia, however, has not been on the foreign policy front.  Russia recently passed a law making it illegal for any homosexual to act gay in public.  This law makes gay Olympic athletes subject to arrest in Sochi, Russia, during the 2014 Winter Olympics scheduled to be staged there.  The Kremlin has said it will enforce the measures.  This has resulted in a furious backlash.  Celebrities from Harvey Fierstein to Steven Fry to Mr. Sulu have openly called for a boycott, and 88 U.S. congressmen have signed a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding action.  As a result, Obama faces the lowest moment of his presidency: he must either side with the gays and follow the path of Jimmy Carter into an Olympic boycott, or he must side with his “reset” policy and permanently alienate a key element of his political base.  There is no way out.

Everywhere Obama has turned, Putin has been there to stick a finger in his eye.  Just like Neville Chamberlain, Obama thought the power of his personality could convert a malignant dictator into a reasonable partner.  Just like Chamberlain, Obama’s policy of appeasement has collapsed into humiliating failure, with devastating consequences for future generations to bear.

Ironically, in a recent interview with Jay Leno, Obama didn’t disagree when Leno accused Putin of acting like Hitler on the homosexual question.  This equation is percolating throughout the internet these days.  Obama’s bitterness at being betrayed by Pooty was palpable.  Yet despite acknowledging Putin’s evil, Obama is unable to confront it.  He can respond only with confused half-measures that just make the situation worse.  This is precisely the problem Obama’s critics were worried about when he took the Oval Office: his total lack of foreign policy credentials left him adrift and unable to recognize that his balloon was losing altitude until it spectacularly crashed.

On internet forums, Obama’s critics have taken to writing his name commencing with the numeral zero rather than a letter, and that just about sums it up.  So far, Obama hasn’t even had the fortitude to fire his ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, the architect of the ruinous reset, whose service in Russia has been a Keystone Cops fiasco from the first moment.  When Snowden walked into Moscow, McFaul should have walked out.

As Hitler could not have wished for better than Chamberlain, Putin could not have dreamed of more than Obama.  The president won’t make the highest American values part of his relationship with Russia, maybe because he doesn’t share them, and he won’t stand up for American values and honor by making Putin pay dearly for crossing them, maybe because he doesn’t care about them.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

THE DAYS OF GREAT STATESMEN ARE GONE!

With every new fiasco and scandal, that becomes painfully obvious!

1074258_545315908859230_618041982_o

 This is not our foreign policy, but merely a foreign concept!