3825-ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? | View Thread

Hundreds protest gas pipeline in Florida over health & environment risks (VIDEO)

Published time: 15 Jan, 2017 16:32

Hundreds of people protested in northern Florida on Saturday against the Sabal Trail Transmission Pipeline project, saying seepage from the pipeline could threaten the freshwater supply, as well as the environment.

The natural gas pipeline is to run 829 kilometers from central Alabama, through southwest Georgia, and down into central Florida. Its construction cost is estimated at around $3.2 billion.

Hundreds of protesters gathered near the city of Live Oak in the Sunshine State’s Suwannee County to oppose the project. Some formed a living chain with their hands interlocked and protected with plastic tubes to prevent them from being forcibly detached. Others held up placards calling for the protection of water supplies.

“This pipeline is set to go through some of the most ecologically and biologically diverse areas in the country. It’s jeopardizing not only the Suwannee River, but all the way down to Orlando and down to the Everglades,” a PhD student at Florida University, Ryan Thompson, who was one of the protesters, told Ruptly video news agency.

Another protester, Laura Dailey, came from South Dakota, where she had been fighting the Dakota Access Pipeline. She told local television channel WCTV that she didn’t want history to repeat itself in Florida.

“The same thing that is happening there is happening here: ground waters will be poisoned, the economy will eventually turn down,” Dailey said.

The protest went peacefully, unlike a similar event in November 2016, when 14 people were arrested for stopping trucks from entering a construction site in neighboring Gilchrist County, Florida.

Amid Saturday’s protest, Sabal Trail Transmission, the company building the pipeline, said the project is needed if the state’s increasing demand is to be met.

“Current natural gas pipe-line infrastructure in Florida is either fully or near fully utilized. And isn’t adequate to meet increased demand for natural gas in central and south Florida,” the statement said.

(RT)

8 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world – Oxfam

Published time: 16 Jan, 2017 07:45

The wealth of the 8 richest people on earth equals that of the poorest 3.6 billion, according to a report by Oxfam presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This vast wealth gap is a threat which may “pull our societies apart,” the report warned.

The list of the eight wealthiest individuals in the world, all men, comes from Forbes magazine’s billionaires list, and includes Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

Others include Inditex clothing company founder, Amancio Ortega, investor Warren Buffett, Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim, Oracle’s Larry Ellison, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Oxfam emphasized the potential connection between the growing gap between the richest and the poorest, and the increasing anger at establishment politicians.

“It is obscene for so much wealth to be held in the hands of so few when 1 in 10 people survive on less than $2 a day,” said Oxfam International Executive Director Winnie Byanyima, who will be attending the Davos Forum, according to The Chicago Tribune.

“From Brexit to the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, a worrying rise in racism and the widespread disillusionment with mainstream politics, there are increasing signs that more and more people in rich countries are no longer willing to tolerate the status quo,” Oxfamsaid in its new report – “An economy for the 99 percent.”

According to the report, if things continue on their current course, the world will see its first trillionaire in the next 25 years.

Inequality exists not only between the rich and the poor, but is gender-based as well. “On current trends, it will take 170 years to see women paid the same as men,” the report says.

Oxfam urged an increase in tax rates for “rich individuals and corporations,” adding that tax evasion is a critical issue. The UN Conference on Trade and Development estimated that developing countries lose around $100 billion yearly due to tax evasion, the report said, adding that it would be enough money to ensure that 124 million children who currently have no access to education can go to school.

The report also slams corporate lobbying and the close relationship between business and politics.

“Crony capitalism benefits the rich, the people who own and run these corporations, at the expense of the common good and of poverty reduction. It means that smaller businesses struggle to compete and ordinary people end up paying more for goods and services,” it stated.

The revised figures come after last year’s report that 62 people owned the same wealth as 50 percent of the world’s population. The new report takes into account data from India and China.

(RT)

Obama: "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin"

As we are well and truly into the home stretch of Barack Obama's failed, moribund presidency, the outgoing president is poisoning the swamp which Donald Trump pledged to drain. From a remarkable refusal to veto a resolution condemning Israeli settlements to the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, Obama is doing everything he can to damage and delegitimise Trump before he assumes the presidency on 20 January.

First and foremost on Obama's vindictive agenda are actions seeking to destabilise and isolate Russia, his imaginary foe. Obama gave forewarning of the coming actions when he said in an interview on NPR, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections . . . we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."

The explicit, publicized side of Obama's wounded pride came in the form of the announcement of the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats which Obama provocatively called "intelligence operatives." According to RT:

Thirty-five Russian diplomats have been expelled from the US, with the president calling them "intelligence operatives" and also announcing the closure of two Russian compounds, in New York and Maryland.

According to Obama, nine Russian entities, including the GRU (Russian Military Intelligence) and the FSB (Federal Security Service), have been sanctioned.

In the absence of any tangible evidence being publicly presented, it is quite extraordinary that this and other as yet unknown anti-Russian actions are being taken. Obama clearly has other tricks up his sleeve, some which will fall into the covert categorymirrored by Joe Biden who said he hoped the public won't find out about the covert actions.

Russia, typically sanguine in the face of the unrelenting barrage of the prophets of doom in the US warning us all of Russian world conquest, took the expulsions in stride. Dmtiry Peskov responded by saying: "From our point of view such actions of the US current administration are a manifestation of an unpredictable and even aggressive foreign policy."

The Russian side reserved the right to take counter measures, the usual response of tit for tat in such affairs. The response would be adequate, and, in the words of Peskov, would make Washington "feel uncomfortable." The Foreign Ministry considered the matter and made recommendations of a response, the outcome of which came as a major surprise. Putin rejected the Ministry's recommendations and refused to send back any American diplomats, instead wishing them a happy New Year and extending their families an invitation to New Year's celebrations at the Kremlin.

For their part, the insipid attempts at demonizing Putin by the US 'elite' are only reinforcing his positive image in the minds of Russians - in stark contrast to the "get Putin" catchcry echoing in the shadowy halls of the deep state and the fakerstan media echo chamber. What surely must be to the chagrin of Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, John Brennan and the rest of the neocon hordes is that all these accusations, threats and sanctions are not having any tangible effect on Putin's standing in Russia; quite the opposite in fact. The President's approval rating rose to 86.8% in December, his highest rating for 2016. These are extraordinary figures for a man in power for so long and who faces sustained attacks from the world's largest superpower designed to overthrow him.

Russia —like the rest of us— has grown weary at the sniping from across the Atlantic, and has come to a point where it is telling the US to put up or shut up.

The Russian "Hack" and the Question of "Evidence"

In early December, Obama hastily ordered intelligence agencies to provide a comprehensive review of election-related Russian hacking. So what is the evidence we are all hanging on the edge of our sets to see? In recent days we have seen the release of two reports promoted to blow the cover off dastardly Russian hacking: the "Background to 'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" and the Department of Homeland Security and FBI Joint Analysis Report on Russian directed malicious cyber activity against the US.

Far from being overwhelmed with epics in the realm of Ben Hur, the evidence in the reports brings new meaning to monumental flops. The neocons and hacks in fakerstan media may genuflect before padded drivel and feel fully vindicated in their trumpeted march towards WWIll, but actors of a sane disposition have treated the (non-)revelations with the disdain and contempt they deserve.

In a nutshell the report on Russian alleged hacking is little more than a manual on how to hack using cyber tools and software such as TOR, which does not prove who the alleged hackers are. The background report on Russian "subversive activities" to tilt the election in Trump's favour relies on the most die-hard cold-war mentality, its banality manifested in the jealousy and anger the deep state feels as it struggles to control the levers of power and watches aghast as Russian media such as RT and Sputnik prove to be commercial and popular winners on the world stage.

A veritable who's who in the cyber security world have lined up to ridicule US intelligence claims. Tech pioneer John McAfee, talking to Larry King, said it is easy for skilled hackers to hide their tracks. For example, Chinese hackers may make it appear as though they are Russian hackers. If the Russian hackers are so skilled, would they not have hidden their tracks? In essence, what he is saying is that the so-called trails left could be false trails, and the US intelligence community is all too aware of this, is being disingenuous, and, in so doing, is playing its part in the political vilification of Russia.

William Binney, the legendary whistleblower described as one of the best analysts in the NSA's history, poured more cold water on the hype when he told RT, "I've seen absolutely nothing that shows any involvement of the Russian government in passing data to WikiLeaks."

Binney further deflated the FBI/DHS report being used as a pretext to ramp up hostilities with Russia: "It is simply an outline of how a phishing attack occurs, that's all it was to me. It didn't prove anything to me. It didn't give the IP addresses, the Mac numbers or any other details about them," he explained, adding, "it also didn't show how they hacked in, and how they ex-filtrated the data, how much data they took," or how it was consequently passed on to the Russian government. "They didn't show any of that trace routing. And that's what they should have shown to prove it," he stressed.

The "for informational purposes only" disclaimer at the head of the report convinced Binney that it is essentially an instruction manual on how to carry out a cyber attack. Ponder on that if you will. A living legend in the intelligence community saying that a report championed as proof of Russian hacking is nothing more than an instruction manual on how to hack.

The FBI, which eventually reluctantly got on board the "consensus" of Russian hacking, complained that they were denied access by the DNC to its servers, having to rely on CrowdStrike, the private company employed by the DNC to investigate the hacking attacks. CrowdStrike is headed by Dmitri Alperovitch, who is also a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, a NATO mouthpiece think tank perched high in the upper echelons of the deep state. No conflict of interest there.

Revelations by Binney back in July that the FBI could have accessed the servers through the NSA indicate either a schism in the intelligence community or just how successful the DNC was in stonewalling the Feds. This denial of access may have provided FBI Director James Comey more motivation to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation after the discovery of the laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner.

Speaking on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program, Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, Binney said the NSA has all of Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could access them if they wished to. He also thought it may be possible it was not a hack of the server at all, but an intelligence insider leak alarmed at the startling lack of security exercised by Clinton which may compromise national security.Binney's thoughts were vindicated later by ex-Scottish ambassador, Craig Murray who unequivocally says he knows it was a leak, not a hack.

Murray says he received the leaked emails from a Democratic Party insider. According to him, the DNC emails came from a "disgusted whistleblower," not from Russian hackers. He too took aim at the background report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, labelling it "hilarious" and "devoid of evidence." He summed the heart of the matter up perfectly, saying we have had "weeks and weeks of assertion without evidence." Serious observers and analysts have mocked the increasing rhetoric which has lacked any concurrent accumulating evidence. Only corrupt politicians hell bent on world domination and subservient media stuck in the mire of duplicity are willing to place blind trust in an intelligence community which lied its way into the war on Iraq.

Murray dropped a bombshell which fell on deaf ears in the US media when he said that he had personally met the insider who had leaked the incriminating data to the whistleblowing website. These are not fantasy delusions of an outsider with zero contacts in the political and intelligence communities, it is a claim made by a former top diplomat. Surely the claim deserved some investigation at the very least. Investigations however may have led to some uncomfortable truths that the media would then struggle to put back in the box. The name Seth Rich, the murdered Democratic staffer, may have been on the lips of any journalists who ventured to Murray's door. Julian Assange of Wikileaks raised suspicions of a connection when he offered $20,000 for information leading to a conviction for the murder of Rich, shot multiple times in the dead of night, yet not robbed, near his Washington, DC, home.

Hillary Clinton Saudi Arabia and Qatar: The Real Swamp Creatures

The man at the centre of the firestorm, Assange, may be seen as the devil on earth by the US establishment, but the organisation he heads, Wikileaks, has an outstanding record of accuracy which can't be questioned. What he has to say should make everyone sit up and take notice. Assange is naturally protective of sources, but told John Pilger in an interview that the source was not Russian.

The Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is responsible for everything. Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That is false; we can say that the Russian government is not the source.

WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years, and in those ten years, we have published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong.

In the same interview, Pilger and Assange went on to discuss the millions of dollars Hillary Clinton has received from the Gulf monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the 12 million dollars from the King of Morocco to attend a Clinton Foundation fundraiser, and the bombshell which blows all others out of the water, the funding of ISIS by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who also happen to be major donors to the Clinton Foundation.

There's an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation. Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it's just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.

But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and Qatar that have been funding ISIS.

Obama, before leaving us with his legacy of a war on alternative media, arrogant accusations of Russian hacking and attempts to destabilise Donald Trump, would be better served pursuing Hillary Clinton for her seedy ties to despots and dictators. One reason why Clinton is let off the hook in relation to Saudi Arabia is its tremendous injection into the military industrial complex with thesigning of the largest ever US arms deal. Among these arms are white phosphorus, a skin-melting chemical being used by Saudi Arabia in it naked aggression in Yemen. This crime against humanity has reached a point where 19 million Yemenis are in need of humanitarian aid, including 1.5 million children suffering severe malnourishment. It is a pity that among the billions thrown at weapons of death and destruction a few million couldn't be thrown at a Yemeni version of the White Helmets, with the proviso they simply show the real suffering of Yemenis, as opposed to the manufactured lies perpetrated in Syria.

The US intelligence agencies are to be trusted as an article of faith. To even question them on their failure to provide solid evidence is treated with derision, claims of disloyalty and being puppets of the Kremlin and, in the case of Donald Trump accusations bordering on treason. Refusing to uncritically fall under the mass hypnosis required to maintain a united front against the political/military/intelligence establishment's enemy of choice, places Trump in the crosshairs of powerful players who appear determined to try all means at their disposal to get rid of him.

After 2002 reports by the intelligence community that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction were disproved following the dismemberment of Iraq as a functioning country, these agencies should never be trusted without question ever again, despite the vicious attacks by the mainstream media on those who dare to politely ask for evidence.

Moon of Alabama presents an accurate summary of the groups that Obama wants to see left swimming around in the fetid swamp. They will guarantee a sabotage of Trump's policy agenda in favour of the continuation of rambunctious unipolar world domination abroad and repressive, socially regressive, police-state policies at home.

The CIA, which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
The weapons industry, which could lose its enormous sales to major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The neoconservatives and Likudniks, who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong-arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit.
The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists", to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their beliefs.

We should all applaud Donald Trump for embarking on a purge of the Barack Obama cabal, whose members' raison d'etre seemed to be war with Russia and who did all they could to bring it on. Even right up to the dying embers of the regime they continued to show their detachment from reality when Ash Carter claimed Russia had done virtually nothing to fight ISIS: "They haven't done anything against ISIS. Virtually zero." Such an infantile claim deserves no more response than the mocking one of Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu who said Carter must have "picked the wrong country."

Trump the True Target of Obama's Poison

Barack Obama may deliver platitudes about accepting that Donald Trump won the election fairly and squarely and wanting to work together for a smooth transition, but his agenda to undermine Trump is plain for all to see. His demand for an urgent intelligence review of Russia's alleged interference in the election produced one how-to hack manual and another outdated report, half of which was devoted to RT, a media outlet that is slammed as Russian propaganda for exposing that the US election was rigged, but for Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Obama has not railed against the Michael Moore-led #DISRUPTJ20 and must be rubbing his hands in glee that Russophobic neocons like General James Mattis have made their way into the Trump administration. Trump has faced a barrage of accusations before, and since the election:

Accused of treason
Accused of being responsible for all the violence at anti-Trump protests
Accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic
NGO-waged destabilization campaigns being run to stop him becoming president
Crossing the deep state, which they will not tolerate, although he himself has powerful allies
Two cardinal sins: wanting to normalize relations with Russia & wanting to end US interventionism, code for US unipolar domination

Trump has reluctantly said he now believes Russia did hack the US election. "As far as hacking, I think it was Russia," he said at last Wednesday's press conference. The deep state and the media empires are putting the squeeze on Trump, attempting to mould him into a puppet of corporate power and the military/industrial/intelligence complex. Has he finally been shown irrefutable proof Russia did hack the election? We mere mortals will never know. It is far more likely he is trying to draw a line under the sand, deflect the hysteria and move on with working to rebuild America. After all, the Democrats, the neocon elites and the media all insist Russia is responsible, so Trump making a concession doesn't do him much damage. The American voter, while wary of Russia due to the hyped threat, has had enough of the story and is ready to move on.

So as we have left 2016 and entered 2017, will Russia and Vladimir Putin need to continue embarrassing the US over its disgraceful conduct and aggression towards Russia? Let's hope not. Let's hope Trump is true to his word and he and his administration can accept the offer of peace and cooperation Russia has repeatedly made.

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 1/16/2017 4:43:25 PM
	Welcome To One of The Most Pivotal Weeks In Modern American History By Michael Snyder, on January 15th, 2017 Many are anticipating that a wonderful new era of peace and prosperity is just a few days away, but others are using terms such as “civil unrest” and “civil war” for what they believe is about to happen in America. Without a doubt, Donald Trump is one of the most electrifying politicians in modern American history, but he is also one of the most polarizing. So will the next four years bring us together as a nation, or will anger, frustration, strife and discord tear us much farther apart? It is being projected that extremely large crowds of supporters will attend Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20th, but the mainstream media is also reporting that “hundreds of thousands of protesters” are on their way to Washington. Many on the far left are hoping to turn Trump’s inauguration into one of the biggest riots in U.S. history, but thousands of law enforcement personnel are going to do their very best to prevent that from happening. There are sites on the Internet that are literally counting down the hours until Barack Obama leaves office. Knowing that his time is short, Obama seems determined to squeeze as much “change” out of his final hours as he possibly can. Just check out what the Washington Post says that he was able to accomplish on just one day last week… On Thursday alone, the administration designated three new national monuments and expanded another two in sites including a forest in the Pacific Northwest and a school for freed slaves in South Carolina; took away one of the special immigration privileges Cubans arriving in the United States without visas have enjoyed for 50 years; announced sanctions designations against 18 senior Syrian officials for their role in the use of chlorine as a chemical weapon in 2014 and 2015; awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Vice President Biden; and accused Fiat Chrysler of cheating on national emission standards for some of its diesel trucks. And in the last few days of his presidency, there is a great deal of concern about how much more damage he may be able to do on his way out the door. Late last week he enraged the Russians by moving U.S. troops into Poland, and Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova is warning that Obama still has a few more days left to “destroy the world”… Zakharova charged that “Obama and his illiterate foreign policy team have dealt a crushing blow to America’s prestige and leadership” and described his administration as “a bunch of geopolitical losers, enraged and shortsighted.” Obama’s administration still has a few days left to “destroy the world,” Zakharova wrote. However, there is one piece of good news. According to the Jerusalem Post, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Obama will not support any additional action against Israel at the UN Security Council before Trump is inaugurated. Of course politicians lie all the time, and John Kerry may not have been entirely honest with Netanyahu, and so we will keep a close eye on the UN Security Council when they meet on Tuesday. On Friday, the eyes of the entire world will be on Washington. What once seemed so impossible is on the verge of actually becoming a reality, and security officials will be working overtime to make sure that nobody tries to stop Trump from being inaugurated at the last minute. Needless to say, the festivities on Friday would be a big, fat juicy target for anyone that hates Trump, hates America or that just wanted to make an unforgettable political statement. In fact, Republican Senator Roy Blunt has admitted that the inauguration of Donald Trump will be “the most appealing target in the world”… “Security is my greatest concern,” Republican Senator Roy Blunt, chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, has said. “No question that on inaugural day, this would be the most appealing target in the world.” Even if there isn’t any violence on Friday, there will definitely be plenty of angry protesters. And instead of attempting to calm things down, many in the mainstream media are actually promoting the protests. For example, the Washington Post has even published a “guide to inauguration demonstrations, marches and protests”. It appears that most of those on the left plan to protest peacefully, but there are definitely groups that are planning to be as disruptive as they possibly can. I have previously reported about an organization known as DisruptJ20, and now audio has been released of one of their leaders saying that they want to “do everything we can to try and stop people from being able to access the inauguration”… A conservative group also shared with FoxNews.com what it said was audio from a Jan. 8 #DisruptJ20 meeting at a Washington church, giving even greater insight into the group’s planned D.C. “shutdown.” The audio, recorded by Trevor Loudon with Capital Research Center, purports to show a female member detailing plans to “do everything we can to try and stop people from being able to access the inauguration.” It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out how they are going to do that. According to the shocking new audio recording obtained by Fox News, DisruptJ20 plans to physically block “roads and other modes of transit into the city”… “We’re going to be doing blockades,” the woman says in the audio. “We’re going to [be] blockading checkpoints into the security zones. We’re also going to be blockading roads and other modes of transit into the city.” Traffic in the Washington D.C. area is a major headache even at the best of times, and so even if everything went perfectly transportation would be a major issue at Trump’s inauguration. So it isn’t going to take much for these anarchists to create a very real crisis. And some leftists have been encouraging those that cannot physically come to Washington D.C. to go online and help take down the official White House websiteon January 20th… PR Newswire, a global news-release distribution service, circulated a release on Thursday highlighting a campaign launched by Protester.io, a digital protest organizing platform, to “take down” the White House website next Friday in protest of Trump’s inauguration. “On January 20th, hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to Washington, DC to march in protest of the inauguration of Donald Trump. Millions more around the country will be joining the cause from home. If you can’t make it to Washington DC on inauguration day, you can still participate by occupying whitehouse.gov online,” the release read. Many on the left truly believe that Trump is the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler, and therefore he must be resisted at all costs. And one of the reasons why they want to be as disruptive as possible is so that they can provoke an extremely harsh response. If law enforcement officials can be filmed treating protesters very harshly, that can be used as fuel to inspire thousands of others to join the movement against the “fascist” Donald Trump. Following the “blockades” and other “actions” on the 20th, there will be a “million woman march” on the 21st. Michael Moore and a whole host of liberal celebrities will be there, and it is being reported that there will be close to 300 “sister marches” in other cities around the nation… Protesters are using the hashtag #WhyIMarch to explain why they are heading to Washington — from calls for equality to initiatives to curb gun violence to pleas for health care reform. Nearly 300 “sister marches” have been organized in other US cities — including New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle — and around the world. This is going to be a week that none of us will ever forget. Many are hoping (myself included) that the protests will soon fade and that Trump’s presidency will represent a true turning point for America. But there are many others that are literally gearing up for a “war”, and they intend to fight for as long as it takes to achieve their goals. We are a nation that is deeply, deeply divided, and it isn’t going to take much to push us over the edge. So this week is definitely a beginning, but is it the beginning of a wonderful new chapter in American history, or is it the beginning of the end for our once great nation? This story will unfold over the next four years, and let us hope that it is a good one. About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog and The Most Important News. Michael’s controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled “The Rapture Verdict” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com. (The Economic Collapse)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 1/16/2017 11:41:36 PM
	8 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world – Oxfam Published time: 16 Jan, 2017 07:45 © Daniel Grizelj / Getty images The wealth of the 8 richest people on earth equals that of the poorest 3.6 billion, according to a report by Oxfam presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This vast wealth gap is a threat which may “pull our societies apart,” the report warned. The list of the eight wealthiest individuals in the world, all men, comes from Forbes magazine’s billionaires list, and includes Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Read more Richest 62 people own as much as poorest half of world's population - report Others include Inditex clothing company founder, Amancio Ortega, investor Warren Buffett, Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim, Oracle’s Larry Ellison, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Oxfam emphasized the potential connection between the growing gap between the richest and the poorest, and the increasing anger at establishment politicians. “It is obscene for so much wealth to be held in the hands of so few when 1 in 10 people survive on less than $2 a day,” said Oxfam International Executive Director Winnie Byanyima, who will be attending the Davos Forum, according to The Chicago Tribune. “From Brexit to the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, a worrying rise in racism and the widespread disillusionment with mainstream politics, there are increasing signs that more and more people in rich countries are no longer willing to tolerate the status quo,” Oxfamsaid in its new report – “An economy for the 99 percent.” According to the report, if things continue on their current course, the world will see its first trillionaire in the next 25 years. Inequality exists not only between the rich and the poor, but is gender-based as well. “On current trends, it will take 170 years to see women paid the same as men,” the report says. Oxfam urged an increase in tax rates for “rich individuals and corporations,” adding that tax evasion is a critical issue. The UN Conference on Trade and Development estimated that developing countries lose around $100 billion yearly due to tax evasion, the report said, adding that it would be enough money to ensure that 124 million children who currently have no access to education can go to school. The report also slams corporate lobbying and the close relationship between business and politics. “Crony capitalism benefits the rich, the people who own and run these corporations, at the expense of the common good and of poverty reduction. It means that smaller businesses struggle to compete and ordinary people end up paying more for goods and services,” it stated. The revised figures come after last year’s report that 62 people owned the same wealth as 50 percent of the world’s population. The new report takes into account data from India and China. (RT)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 1/16/2017 11:52:19 PM
	Obama Poisons the Swamp for Trump Paul Mansfield Sott.net Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:45 UTC Obama: "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin" As we are well and truly into the home stretch of Barack Obama's failed, moribund presidency, the outgoing president is poisoning the swamp which Donald Trump pledged to drain. From a remarkable refusal to veto a resolution condemning Israeli settlements to the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, Obama is doing everything he can to damage and delegitimise Trump before he assumes the presidency on 20 January. First and foremost on Obama's vindictive agenda are actions seeking to destabilise and isolate Russia, his imaginary foe. Obama gave forewarning of the coming actions when he said in an interview on NPR, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections . . . we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be." The explicit, publicized side of Obama's wounded pride came in the form of the announcement of the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats which Obama provocatively called "intelligence operatives." According to RT: Thirty-five Russian diplomats have been expelled from the US, with the president calling them "intelligence operatives" and also announcing the closure of two Russian compounds, in New York and Maryland. According to Obama, nine Russian entities, including the GRU (Russian Military Intelligence) and the FSB (Federal Security Service), have been sanctioned. In the absence of any tangible evidence being publicly presented, it is quite extraordinary that this and other as yet unknown anti-Russian actions are being taken. Obama clearly has other tricks up his sleeve, some which will fall into the covert categorymirrored by Joe Biden who said he hoped the public won't find out about the covert actions. Russia, typically sanguine in the face of the unrelenting barrage of the prophets of doom in the US warning us all of Russian world conquest, took the expulsions in stride. Dmtiry Peskov responded by saying: "From our point of view such actions of the US current administration are a manifestation of an unpredictable and even aggressive foreign policy." The Russian side reserved the right to take counter measures, the usual response of tit for tat in such affairs. The response would be adequate, and, in the words of Peskov, would make Washington "feel uncomfortable." The Foreign Ministry considered the matter and made recommendations of a response, the outcome of which came as a major surprise. Putin rejected the Ministry's recommendations and refused to send back any American diplomats, instead wishing them a happy New Year and extending their families an invitation to New Year's celebrations at the Kremlin. For their part, the insipid attempts at demonizing Putin by the US 'elite' are only reinforcing his positive image in the minds of Russians - in stark contrast to the "get Putin" catchcry echoing in the shadowy halls of the deep state and the fakerstan media echo chamber. What surely must be to the chagrin of Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, John Brennan and the rest of the neocon hordes is that all these accusations, threats and sanctions are not having any tangible effect on Putin's standing in Russia; quite the opposite in fact. The President's approval rating rose to 86.8% in December, his highest rating for 2016. These are extraordinary figures for a man in power for so long and who faces sustained attacks from the world's largest superpower designed to overthrow him. Russia —like the rest of us— has grown weary at the sniping from across the Atlantic, and has come to a point where it is telling the US to put up or shut up. The Russian "Hack" and the Question of "Evidence" In early December, Obama hastily ordered intelligence agencies to provide a comprehensive review of election-related Russian hacking. So what is the evidence we are all hanging on the edge of our sets to see? In recent days we have seen the release of two reports promoted to blow the cover off dastardly Russian hacking: the "Background to 'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" and the Department of Homeland Security and FBI Joint Analysis Report on Russian directed malicious cyber activity against the US. Far from being overwhelmed with epics in the realm of Ben Hur, the evidence in the reports brings new meaning to monumental flops. The neocons and hacks in fakerstan media may genuflect before padded drivel and feel fully vindicated in their trumpeted march towards WWIll, but actors of a sane disposition have treated the (non-)revelations with the disdain and contempt they deserve. In a nutshell the report on Russian alleged hacking is little more than a manual on how to hack using cyber tools and software such as TOR, which does not prove who the alleged hackers are. The background report on Russian "subversive activities" to tilt the election in Trump's favour relies on the most die-hard cold-war mentality, its banality manifested in the jealousy and anger the deep state feels as it struggles to control the levers of power and watches aghast as Russian media such as RT and Sputnik prove to be commercial and popular winners on the world stage. A veritable who's who in the cyber security world have lined up to ridicule US intelligence claims. Tech pioneer John McAfee, talking to Larry King, said it is easy for skilled hackers to hide their tracks. For example, Chinese hackers may make it appear as though they are Russian hackers. If the Russian hackers are so skilled, would they not have hidden their tracks? In essence, what he is saying is that the so-called trails left could be false trails, and the US intelligence community is all too aware of this, is being disingenuous, and, in so doing, is playing its part in the political vilification of Russia. William Binney, the legendary whistleblower described as one of the best analysts in the NSA's history, poured more cold water on the hype when he told RT, "I've seen absolutely nothing that shows any involvement of the Russian government in passing data to WikiLeaks." Binney further deflated the FBI/DHS report being used as a pretext to ramp up hostilities with Russia: "It is simply an outline of how a phishing attack occurs, that's all it was to me. It didn't prove anything to me. It didn't give the IP addresses, the Mac numbers or any other details about them," he explained, adding, "it also didn't show how they hacked in, and how they ex-filtrated the data, how much data they took," or how it was consequently passed on to the Russian government. "They didn't show any of that trace routing. And that's what they should have shown to prove it," he stressed. The "for informational purposes only" disclaimer at the head of the report convinced Binney that it is essentially an instruction manual on how to carry out a cyber attack. Ponder on that if you will. A living legend in the intelligence community saying that a report championed as proof of Russian hacking is nothing more than an instruction manual on how to hack. The FBI, which eventually reluctantly got on board the "consensus" of Russian hacking, complained that they were denied access by the DNC to its servers, having to rely on CrowdStrike, the private company employed by the DNC to investigate the hacking attacks. CrowdStrike is headed by Dmitri Alperovitch, who is also a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, a NATO mouthpiece think tank perched high in the upper echelons of the deep state. No conflict of interest there. Revelations by Binney back in July that the FBI could have accessed the servers through the NSA indicate either a schism in the intelligence community or just how successful the DNC was in stonewalling the Feds. This denial of access may have provided FBI Director James Comey more motivation to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation after the discovery of the laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner. Speaking on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program, Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, Binney said the NSA has all of Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could access them if they wished to. He also thought it may be possible it was not a hack of the server at all, but an intelligence insider leak alarmed at the startling lack of security exercised by Clinton which may compromise national security.Binney's thoughts were vindicated later by ex-Scottish ambassador, Craig Murray who unequivocally says he knows it was a leak, not a hack. Murray says he received the leaked emails from a Democratic Party insider. According to him, the DNC emails came from a "disgusted whistleblower," not from Russian hackers. He too took aim at the background report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, labelling it "hilarious" and "devoid of evidence." He summed the heart of the matter up perfectly, saying we have had "weeks and weeks of assertion without evidence." Serious observers and analysts have mocked the increasing rhetoric which has lacked any concurrent accumulating evidence. Only corrupt politicians hell bent on world domination and subservient media stuck in the mire of duplicity are willing to place blind trust in an intelligence community which lied its way into the war on Iraq. Murray dropped a bombshell which fell on deaf ears in the US media when he said that he had personally met the insider who had leaked the incriminating data to the whistleblowing website. These are not fantasy delusions of an outsider with zero contacts in the political and intelligence communities, it is a claim made by a former top diplomat. Surely the claim deserved some investigation at the very least. Investigations however may have led to some uncomfortable truths that the media would then struggle to put back in the box. The name Seth Rich, the murdered Democratic staffer, may have been on the lips of any journalists who ventured to Murray's door. Julian Assange of Wikileaks raised suspicions of a connection when he offered $20,000 for information leading to a conviction for the murder of Rich, shot multiple times in the dead of night, yet not robbed, near his Washington, DC, home. Hillary Clinton Saudi Arabia and Qatar: The Real Swamp Creatures The man at the centre of the firestorm, Assange, may be seen as the devil on earth by the US establishment, but the organisation he heads, Wikileaks, has an outstanding record of accuracy which can't be questioned. What he has to say should make everyone sit up and take notice. Assange is naturally protective of sources, but told John Pilger in an interview that the source was not Russian. The Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is responsible for everything. Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That is false; we can say that the Russian government is not the source. WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years, and in those ten years, we have published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong. In the same interview, Pilger and Assange went on to discuss the millions of dollars Hillary Clinton has received from the Gulf monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the 12 million dollars from the King of Morocco to attend a Clinton Foundation fundraiser, and the bombshell which blows all others out of the water, the funding of ISIS by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who also happen to be major donors to the Clinton Foundation. There's an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation. Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it's just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves. But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and Qatar that have been funding ISIS. Obama, before leaving us with his legacy of a war on alternative media, arrogant accusations of Russian hacking and attempts to destabilise Donald Trump, would be better served pursuing Hillary Clinton for her seedy ties to despots and dictators. One reason why Clinton is let off the hook in relation to Saudi Arabia is its tremendous injection into the military industrial complex with thesigning of the largest ever US arms deal. Among these arms are white phosphorus, a skin-melting chemical being used by Saudi Arabia in it naked aggression in Yemen. This crime against humanity has reached a point where 19 million Yemenis are in need of humanitarian aid, including 1.5 million children suffering severe malnourishment. It is a pity that among the billions thrown at weapons of death and destruction a few million couldn't be thrown at a Yemeni version of the White Helmets, with the proviso they simply show the real suffering of Yemenis, as opposed to the manufactured lies perpetrated in Syria. The US intelligence agencies are to be trusted as an article of faith. To even question them on their failure to provide solid evidence is treated with derision, claims of disloyalty and being puppets of the Kremlin and, in the case of Donald Trump accusations bordering on treason. Refusing to uncritically fall under the mass hypnosis required to maintain a united front against the political/military/intelligence establishment's enemy of choice, places Trump in the crosshairs of powerful players who appear determined to try all means at their disposal to get rid of him. After 2002 reports by the intelligence community that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction were disproved following the dismemberment of Iraq as a functioning country, these agencies should never be trusted without question ever again, despite the vicious attacks by the mainstream media on those who dare to politely ask for evidence. Moon of Alabama presents an accurate summary of the groups that Obama wants to see left swimming around in the fetid swamp. They will guarantee a sabotage of Trump's policy agenda in favour of the continuation of rambunctious unipolar world domination abroad and repressive, socially regressive, police-state policies at home. The CIA, which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs. The weapons industry, which could lose its enormous sales to major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere. The neoconservatives and Likudniks, who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong-arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit. The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists", to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their beliefs. We should all applaud Donald Trump for embarking on a purge of the Barack Obama cabal, whose members' raison d'etre seemed to be war with Russia and who did all they could to bring it on. Even right up to the dying embers of the regime they continued to show their detachment from reality when Ash Carter claimed Russia had done virtually nothing to fight ISIS: "They haven't done anything against ISIS. Virtually zero." Such an infantile claim deserves no more response than the mocking one of Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu who said Carter must have "picked the wrong country." Trump the True Target of Obama's Poison Barack Obama may deliver platitudes about accepting that Donald Trump won the election fairly and squarely and wanting to work together for a smooth transition, but his agenda to undermine Trump is plain for all to see. His demand for an urgent intelligence review of Russia's alleged interference in the election produced one how-to hack manual and another outdated report, half of which was devoted to RT, a media outlet that is slammed as Russian propaganda for exposing that the US election was rigged, but for Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. Obama has not railed against the Michael Moore-led #DISRUPTJ20 and must be rubbing his hands in glee that Russophobic neocons like General James Mattis have made their way into the Trump administration. Trump has faced a barrage of accusations before, and since the election: Accused of treason Accused of being responsible for all the violence at anti-Trump protests Accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic NGO-waged destabilization campaigns being run to stop him becoming president Crossing the deep state, which they will not tolerate, although he himself has powerful allies Two cardinal sins: wanting to normalize relations with Russia & wanting to end US interventionism, code for US unipolar domination Trump has reluctantly said he now believes Russia did hack the US election. "As far as hacking, I think it was Russia," he said at last Wednesday's press conference. The deep state and the media empires are putting the squeeze on Trump, attempting to mould him into a puppet of corporate power and the military/industrial/intelligence complex. Has he finally been shown irrefutable proof Russia did hack the election? We mere mortals will never know. It is far more likely he is trying to draw a line under the sand, deflect the hysteria and move on with working to rebuild America. After all, the Democrats, the neocon elites and the media all insist Russia is responsible, so Trump making a concession doesn't do him much damage. The American voter, while wary of Russia due to the hyped threat, has had enough of the story and is ready to move on. So as we have left 2016 and entered 2017, will Russia and Vladimir Putin need to continue embarrassing the US over its disgraceful conduct and aggression towards Russia? Let's hope not. Let's hope Trump is true to his word and he and his administration can accept the offer of peace and cooperation Russia has repeatedly made. Paul Mansfield Paul is a budding freelance writer who currently works in the welfare industry in Melbourne, Australia. Areas of interest include: Russia/US conflict, wars in the Middle East, particularly Syria, the conflict in Ukraine, the occupation of Palestine by Israel, the damage to our economies from the global financial markets, the debt trap imposed on states by bankers seeking to privatize assets and "reform" economies while they line their pockets with cash and impoverish local populations. (sott.net)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 1/17/2017 9:12:02 AM
	The Last 100 Days: Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize edition Olivier Knox Chief Washington Correspondent October 7, 2016 President Obama after receiving his Nobel Peace Prize medal and diploma from Nobel committee chairman Thorbjørn Jagland at City Hall in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (Photo: John McConnico/Pool/Reuters) Ever since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, presidents have been judged on the successes they notch during their first 100 days. Now, as Barack Obama prepares to end his historic turn on the political stage, Yahoo News is runningThe Last 100 Days, a look at what Obama achieved during his consequential presidency, how he navigates the struggles of his last months in office and what lies ahead for him after eight years filled with firsts. We will also look at how the country bids farewell to its first African-American president. It’s not a literal 100 days — Obama leaves office in late January 2017. And it won’t all be about policy. As Obama himself is fond of noting, he also spent his two terms as father to daughters Malia and Sasha and husband to first lady Michelle Obama. And even without much input from the White House, the cultural landscape shifted dramatically over his two terms on issues such as gay rights. And then there’s the way the president sees the presidency — not just his tumultuous years at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but also the institution and its relationships (for better or worse) with other branches of government and with the news media. In this ninth installment, we look at Obama’s legacy on the use of military force abroad on the 15th anniversary of the official beginning of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. _____ Seven years ago this week, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, a once-in-a-lifetime award he certainly did not seek, he arguably did not deserve, and that did almost nothing to shape his approach to using military force throughout his consequential two terms in office. In fact, Obama now seems poised to hand his successor even more war-making discretion than he himself inherited from George W. Bush. This is thanks in large part to a Congress that has proved unwilling or unable to shoulder its constitutional responsibility to authorize — or curtail — U.S. military action ordered by the president. Obama has now been at war longer than any other president, including his idol Abraham Lincoln. In addition to being the day a new Nobel Peace Prize winner is announced, Oct. 7 also marks the 15th anniversary of the official start of the invasion of Afghanistan, America’s longest war, and a good time to consider Obama’s record and his contradictory legacy. Obama was the third sitting president to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Teddy Roosevelt earned one in 1906 for mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson got one in 1920 for his efforts to end World War I and build the League of Nations, a failed forerunner of sorts to the United Nations. Jimmy Carter won in 2002 for his campaign to find “peaceful solutions to international conflicts” while promoting human rights and economic development. As vice president, Al Gore won in 2007 for his advocacy against climate change. While Obama’s Nobel was a surprise, the fact that it would turn out to have little, if any, effect on his subsequent decision making should not have been a shock. After all, in one of the most important foreign policy speeches of his eight years in office, Obama told the world that the prize would not constrain him. Barack Obama delivers the Nobel Peace Prize Lecture at the award ceremony in Oslo. (Photo: Thomas Peter/Reuters) “I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally, if necessary, to defend my nation,” the president told his Norwegian hosts and the Nobel Committee in his December 2009 acceptance speech in Oslo. The committee had given the award in recognition of “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” a reflection of the historic nature of his election, and his efforts to restore the United States’ tarnished global standing. But Obama blended a tribute to icons of nonviolent struggle like Martin Luther King and Gandhi with an uncompromising defense of military action as sometimes being “not only necessary but morally justified.” He also bluntly condemned those who harbor a “reflexive suspicion of America” and had forgotten what they owe to the world’s only remaining superpower. “Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms,” the president said. Months before the speech, Obama had determined that he would support the surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan. And the White House response to news of the award swung from surprise to a heavily political effort to distance Obama from its potential downside. According to multiple inside accounts, it fell to then press secretary Robert Gibbs to place a 6 a.m. presidential wake-up call with the news. Obama’s reaction fell a bit short of undiluted pleasure. “Gibbs, what the hell are you talking about?” he said, according to senior aides and an account of the conversation recounted in former top adviser David Axelrod’s book “Believer: My 40 Years in Politics.” According to Axelrod, the announcement was “truly startling,” and “more of a surreal challenge than a cause of celebration,” because of questions like “What, exactly, was he getting the award for?” The Obamas acknowledge well-wishers from the balcony of the Grand Hotel in Oslo before attending the Nobel banquet, Dec. 10, 2009. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters) Axelrod wrote that he braced for “a deluge of questions about the president’s deservedness from a cynical media and what would certainly be an incredulous opposition.” (He was right: One observer groused that it was the equivalent of a lifetime-achievement Oscar for a child star.) Once the sense of confused wonder wore off, Axelrod wrote, Obama decreed that his acceptance speech would focus on his role as commander in chief in order to avoid giving Republicans an opening. “I don’t want to give our friends on the other side a chance to run this One World stuff against us,” the president told aides. In public and private, the White House played down “this One World stuff” — portraying Obama as humbled and surprised as anyone else, while minimizing the historic event. “Malia said it best, ‘Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo’s birthday!’ And then Sasha added, ‘Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up,’” Obama told reporters in the Rose Garden. The award and the first family dog’s birthday got equal billing on the White House website too. Antiwar sentiment helped to sweep Obama into office. But while his campaign happily harnessed the national mood, he himself always rejected any sort of pacifist mantle. During the 2008 election, he was the only candidate to explicitly threaten to violate an ally’s sovereign territory to kill the architect of the 9/11 attacks. Then presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., answers a question in his second debate with Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., Oct. 7, 2008. (Photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters) “If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out,” Obama said in his Oct. 7, 2008, debate with Arizona Sen. John McCain. “We will kill bin Laden.” McCain and Obama’s rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, repeatedly condemned that message throughout the campaign. Even Obama’s famous October 2002 speech against the Iraq War included a vigorous defense of the use of force, from the Civil War to World War II to the mustering of military might that followed the Sept. 11 attacks. “I don’t oppose all wars,” he said. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.” What he is also not opposed to is acting without explicit congressional authority, as shown both by the Libya campaign of 2011 and the escalating but undeclared war against the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS. Obama contends that the 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against al-Qaida covers ISIS, which emerged out of al-Qaida in Iraq. In February 2015, he submitted a new, ISIS-specific AUMF to Congress, where Republican leaders have declined to debate, modify or vote on the measure. That inaction serves as tacit approval of Obama’s controversial reliance on the 2001 legislation. Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, now the Democratic vice presidential nominee, has called the White House’s argument an “Alice in Wonderland” position, while scolding his colleagues for political cowardice. “Members of Congress have chosen to avoid a vote on the theory that either a yes or no vote carries political risk. In my view, this is a shameful abdication of responsibility,” Kaine declared mid-May at the Virginia Military Institute graduation. “What could be more immoral than ordering troops to risk their lives in a war that Congress was unwilling to publicly support?” Obama has expanded the battlefield in other ways. Early in his tenure, he waged unprecedented cyberwarfare against Iran’s nuclear program. He embraced and expanded America’s drone warfare, even becoming the first occupant of the Oval Office known to have targeted for assassination a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. Obama’s use of drones has unsettled some of his critics on the left. In a memorable August 2012 parody video of the Gotye hit “Somebody That I Used to Know,” dubbed “Obama That I Used to Know,” one singer says, “Sometimes I think that Peace Prize winners shouldn’t have a kill list.” Vice President Joe Biden, President Obama, and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. (Photo: Pete Souza/The Whitee/AP) In May 2013, Obama gave a major counterterrorism address at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., where he offered a rare glimpse into his personal misgivings about the security apparatus he controlled and will pass on to his successor. In his most striking remarks, Obama called for steps to get the United States off the perpetual wartime footing of the post-9/11 era. “This war, like all wars, must end,” Obama said. “That’s what history advises. It’s what our democracy demands.” Three years later, a detailed Yahoo News assessment of his counterterrorism promisesand proposals found them largely unfulfilled. Republicans have repeatedly knocked Obama for not using force, notably to enforce his “red line” warning to Syria not to use chemical weapons or for not projecting the kind of strength necessary to dissuade Russia from seizing parts of Ukraine and annexing its Crimea region. In this image made from video provided by the Syrian anti-government activist group Aleppo Media Center (AMC), a child sits in an ambulance after being pulled out of a building hit by an airstirke in Aleppo, Aug. 17, 2016. (Photo: Aleppo Media Center via AP) As the death toll from Syria’s bloody civil war has crept up, in some estimates, to more than 400,000, a growing chorus of bipartisan voices — including that of Clinton, his endorsed successor — has said America must do more. Obama shows no sign of heeding those appeals and has suggested that they have roots in politics. “There’s a difference between running for president and being president,” he said at an October 2015 press conference when pressed on Clinton’s calls for a “no-fly zone” in Syria. White House officials say that Obama sees calls for greater use of force as reflexive, not thought through, with risks of serious consequences that could make the situation worse on the ground. And they point to Russia’s invasion of Georgia during George W. Bush’s presidency as evidence that the roots of such aggression lie in Moscow, not Washington. GOP critics have long portrayed the president’s supposed reluctance to use force as an overcompensation for Bush’s decision to invade Iraq — an overabundance of caution from an administration that supposedly wants to “lead from behind.” The White House disputes that characterization but describes Obama as having been less reckless than his predecessor, reflecting an internal motto: “Don’t do stupid s**.” It’s clear, though, that Obama isn’t happy to hand his successor ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, after boasting that he ended one and would wrap up the other during his tenure in office. His administration has engaged in verbal contortions in an apparent effort to play down the open-ended anti-ISIS deployment: Americans may find themselves in combat, their argument goes, but are not there on a combat mission. Standing with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, left, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, at the White House, Obama announced that 8,400 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan into 2017 in light of the still “precarious” security situation in the war-ravaged country, July 6, 2016. (Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images) At the same time, figures released by the Pentagon speak to the scale of the military operation to wipe out that rampaging death cult. As of Oct. 4, the U.S.-led coalition had conducted 10,048 strikes in Iraq against ISIS and an additional 5,433 in Syria. Three Americans have been killed in combat. As for the Afghan war, Obama had promised in May 2014 to bring it “to a responsible end,” pledging to bring home all but a handful of American soldiers by the end of 2016. By July 2016, he had reassessed his plans, announcing that he would leave about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan at the end of his second term. In his Dec. 10, 2009, Nobel speech, Obama envisioned modern conflict as “wars within nations,” sometimes feeding off secessionist or ethnic conflict, and imprisoning civilians “in unending chaos” — not a bad description of Syria. And he had acknowledged that he did not have “a definitive solution to the problems of war.” In a recent interview with New York magazine, the president seemed to acknowledge his mission-not-quite-accomplished. “I think America will continue to have work to do in finding this balance between not elevating every terrorist attack into a full-blown war but not either leaving ourselves exposed to attacks or, alternatively, pretending as if we can just take shots wherever we want, whenever we want, and not be answerable to anybody,” he said. “What I’ve tried to do is to move the needle in the right direction, to set some trends in the right direction. But there’s gonna be a lot more work to do.” Correction: This story initially omitted Teddy Roosevelt’s Nobel Peace Prize. Obama was the third sitting president to win the award, not the second.* (Yahoo News)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Menu

Forums

Welcome To One of The Most Pivotal Weeks In Modern American History

Hundreds protest gas pipeline in Florida over health & environment risks (VIDEO)

8 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world – Oxfam

Obama Poisons the Swamp for Trump

The Last 100 Days: Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize edition

Like us on Facebook!