If you believe that President-Elect Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election because of hacking on the part of Russia, then I've got some cheap ocean-front property in Nebraska to sell you.

My intention was to take a bit of a break this past December, clear my head from the nastiness of the 2016 election, and let the Christmas spirit re-energize my batteries.  I've slowed the blog to a crawl, with the intention of refocusing in 2017 on the international spread of terrorism.  Unfortunately, I've been obliged to occasionally deviate from that plan in order to shed some much-needed light on the actions and intentions of the lame-duck Barack Obama Administration.  Proceeding on the idea that if something is repeated often enough, it becomes fact, the Democrats continue to use different avenues in an attempt to "delegitimize" the incoming Trump Administration.  The Democratic Party continues to utilize the mainstream media as its military arm by deluging the public with stories about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the Trump Administration's alleged ties to Russia.  Obama, never one to shy away from politicizing the tools of government, used sanctions against Russia and weak investigations by the intelligence community to validate the absurd notion that the Russian government, through the use of computer hacking, impacted the 2016 Presidential Election.  Juggling apples and oranges with great nerve, Obama managed to bring together three disparate elements: the WikiLeaks organization, Russia's history of hacking into US computer systems, and Donald Trump's 2016 decisive electoral victory.  Explaining the alleged plot takes a bit of effort, but I'm going to give it a try.

As a bit of background, WikiLeaks is the organization which is intent on releasing and publicizing as much US government classified intelligence as it can get its hands on.  Throughout 2016, WikiLeaks released various information which had been obtained from the emails of certain US government officials.  As the presidential election heated up, WikiLeaks focused on disseminating details which had been obtained through the hacking of John Podesta's email account (Podesta being Hillary Clinton's Campaign Chairman at the time).  The emails were embarrassing, but nothing which has been released to date should have caused any concern in the Clinton camp.  The real damage to her campaign was delivered by Clinton's illegal email server, and the concern that said server was used to share classified information with donors to the Clinton Foundation.  Be that as it may, The Obama Administration (and its media support network headed up by the New York Times and the Washington Post) is promoting the false narrative that the Russian government, in an effort to get Donald Trump into the White House, hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and other Democratic useful targets, including, I assume, John Podesta.  The information that was allegedly obtained was then secretly passed on to WikiLeaks, who proceeded to release whatever details they considered damaging, at the most beneficial time for the Trump Campaign.  The end result, according to the Obama narrative, being that thousands of voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida chose to vote against Hillary Clinton because they were disturbed by the contents of the released emails.  Other bits and pieces of the allegation are difficult to decipher.  By accusing Russia of utilizing hackers to impact the 2016 election, does the Obama Administration mean to infer that the election offices of each and every State were under attack by Russian computer experts?  Were the Russians trying to change vote totals electronically, or was this effort limited to the targeting of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, in order to obtain controversial email information which would cause enough of a scandal to cost Clinton the election?  I can't help but wonder exactly what the Russians might have discovered which would have been so damaging that it would have completely derailed the entire Clinton Campaign.

Please stick with me as I try and inject a bit of sanity into the conversation.  First and foremost, yes, the Russians are engaged in espionage which does not have our best interest at heart.  So are the Chinese, and our two new friends Cuba and Iran.  Anyone with even the slightest grasp of international diplomacy understands that countries are constantly spying on one another.  The real issue should not be if Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign, but why it took Donald Trump's unexpected electoral victory to finally get the Obama Administration interested in attempts by foreign nations to commit espionage against our government.  Put aside the bizarre idea that Russia was responsible for Trump victory for a second.  Without giving away any state secrets, I can guarantee you that the Chinese have been robbing us blind for decades through the use of espionage-related computer equipment.  Our Laboratories are under constant attack, and the numerous Universities that engage in highly classified Department of Defense research, are always a juicy target for Chinese.  In fact, the Obama Administration had been aware of targeted hacking operations by the Russians for months before last week's announcement of new sanctions.  It appears that Obama only became interested in this issue once a political angle was uncovered. 

At every opportunity, WikiLeaks founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange has flatly denied that Russia is the source of the hacked emails in question.  In fact, one particular rumor that won't go away is that the emails were provided by a former DNC staffer who became disenchanted with the Clinton candidacy because of its treatment of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.  Regardless, the actions taken by the Obama Administration to "punish" Russia for interfering in our electoral process do nothing but damage the efforts at a smooth administrative transition.  Obama continues to stress the importance of cooperation and good faith whenever the media are about, but as the old cliché reminds us, actions speak louder than words. Donald Trump is the President-Elect and he deserves the opportunity to put together his Administration with as little distraction and interference as possible.  This Russian hacking-to-impact-the-election "Red Herring" is a nasty distraction at best, and an organized effort to delegitimize the incoming Administration at worst.  Regardless of the protests and the never-ending despicable commentary from various members of the entertainment community, the majority of Americans are looking forward to the Trump Administration, and with good reason.  Since the election, thousands of jobs that were headed overseas have decided to stay.  Our economy is set for an expansion that we haven't seen since the Reagan Presidency.  I would give anything to be a part of the incoming Trump Team; they have my resume and application (a little reminder never hurt!).  Trump earned the opportunity to lead this nation, and the American people deserve a smooth transition and a united government that serves the people, not vice-versa.  I spent my career as a member of the intelligence community and even as a civilian, I remain dedicated to disrupting any foreign influence in our government, regardless of the target.  From the evidence that I've seen presented to date, The Obama Administration's claim that Russian espionage-through-hacking impacted the 2016 election rings flat and very hollow.

Europe suffers another terrorist attack, as the free world continues to search for a champion.

On Tuesday, terrorists conducted suicide attacks in Belgium, killing upwards of 31 people and at least  160 injured.  The terrorist operators chose to detonate their suicide gear in the crowded Maelbeek Metro Station in Brussels, and also at Zaventem International Airport.  This horrific event was no doubt some sort of retaliation for Belgium's aggressive efforts to assist the French authorities in identifying, locating and apprehending terror suspects who are using Belgium as a safe haven.  Only three days ago, Belgian police apprehended one of the individuals suspected of direct involvement in last year's Paris attacks.  I have nothing but admiration and support for the law enforcement authorities in Belgium and France.  Over the previous four months, a great deal of attention has been generated regarding the issue of national security, as everyday French (and Belgian) citizens have to consider just how safe rheir families really are.  Sadly, we aren't discussing Europeans on vacation who inadvertently got caught up in local violence.  The people of Europe are obliged to have public discourse regarding the safety of their own communities. This is a very sobering time for resiidents of Avila, Spain, or Cork Ireland, or maybe Schlitters, Austria, who have basically always been able to assume the relative security of their neighborhoods and villages, at least as far as foreign threats go.  The world has become a much smaller place, and liberal immigration laws and the lack of enforcement has provided those persons who harbor latent resentment towards anything from the west, to move in next door.  That reality is no longer worth the argument.  These people had to come from somewhere, which makes the continued debate regarding refugees from Syria even more important.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the terror attacks in Belgium, is the predictable, toothless response of the United States.  President Barsck Obama, who just happens to be visiting Cuba (enjoying Cuba Libres and good seafood while political prisoners and no doubt a number of U.S. citizens, starve in the Havana jail), tossed out the tired "our thoughts and prayers" comment to the press, and then continued his original speech, which was so ideologically leftist that Che Guevara saluted from the grave.  It is so difficult to accept (but we must, at least for the next nine months) the direction we are taking with regards to Socialist Cuba, when at the same time the Obama Administration has gone out of its way to embarrass Israeli President Netanyahu and create difficulties between our nations.  In truth, it wouldn't have mattered if Obama had been in DC or Durban when the news from Brussels first broke.  President Obama has laid down the law, policy-wise.  ISIS does not pose a threat to the United States, and any effort by the United States to take a leadership role in the fight against ISIS would be innappropriate.  This hardline "laissez faire" approach to international terror is living our European allies in a bit of a fix.  In 2008, when Barack Obama took office, the leaders of Europe were tripping over each other to be the first to be best friends with the first African-American President of the United States.  This sickening lovesick attitude (which pervades amongst the people of Europe as well), was on display in foreign relations, as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands were perfectly willing to grt in line behind whatever policy Obama thought best.  Examples include the terrible New Start Nuclear Disarmament Treaty, which was supported by Europe, the lack of spine in dealing with Russian threats against Nato expansion, and the never-ending sanctions regime put in place to force Russia to end its support of murdering thugs and guerillas in Ukraine.  Where has that policy gotten us?  Nowhere, except we have to change our maps to correctly show Crimea as again a province of Russia.

Now that the leaders of Europe have lined up their equities alongside Obama, they impatiently wait for the United States to step up and show some aggressive leadership in the fight against this evil plague that continues to expand and continues to kill.  Sadly Monsieur Hollande, Frau Merkel, and Mr. Cameron will have to wait at least until late January 2017.  Unless ISIS conducts a major terrorist operation within the United States, the European nations, as they are doing with the refugee crisis, will have to formulate policy sans the U.S.A.  The Obama Administration's wilingness to wait until the bad guys strike us domestically before we recognize them (and all Islamic Extremists) as the enemy is a terrible mistake, and very well may prove costly.  For a month or so, it appeared that possibly Russia and Vladimir Putin might be willing to take the lead in the campaign to destroy this group, but we found out, not surprisingly, that all Putin wanted was to strengthen the bargaining position of Russia's Syrian puppet, Bashar al-Assad.  So the free world continues to look for a champion, someone who will rain destruction on these thugs.  As things stand, ISIS has no opposition to its expansion into Africa (through Boko Haram and al-Shabaab), Latin America and Southest Asia.  Militarily, ISIS appears to have no problem fighting the Iraqi Armed Forces to a stand-still (even with air support and ad hoc special forces ops for Iraq).  Now that the Russians have stepped things down in Syria, ISIS feels no real threat or pressure.  I fear that this summer may bring tragedy to many people; I pray everyday to be wrong.

Russia taking advantage of disinterested Obama Administration to project military strength internationally.

In the last few months, Russia has aggressively extended its military footprint around the globe.  While most eyes are focused on Russian military action in Syria, Moscow has completed construction on a military facility in the Arctic, and stepped up diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis Baghdad, Cuba, and the United Nations.  Everytime that Russia succeeds in extending its military influence, the United States suffers accordingly.  Russia's move to establish s military base in the Arctic comes on the heels of discoveries that the vast frozen areas north of the Arctic Circle hold great potential for mineral and fossil fuel exploration.  Researchers and businesses in the United States have also expressed interest in Arctic resource exploration, but the Obama Administration has responded to such entreaties with suspicion and concern regarding the potential ecological impact.  Also, the recent rapprochement between the United States and Cuba has apparently not dimmed the close relationship between Moscow and Havana.  Many expect Cuba to lead the proposed Russian military "coalition" in Syria.  Presently, this coalition can count Iran, pro-regime Syria, Hezbollah, and possibly Belarus as members; many consider this grouping of Russian allies to be a counter to the U.S. coalition already in place in Syria.

A number of U.S. allies are beginning to discreetly express concern over the apparent apathy that appears to dominate the foreign policy of the United States in the later period of the Obama Presidency.  Since the election of 2008, most European leaders have been quick to support the Obama Aministration's policies, with the crises in Ukraine and Syria being two prime examples.  But as the failure of these policies become more apparent, and Obama seems unwilling to stand up and confront increased Russian global activity, certain European leaders are reviewing what options might be available that do not require the presence of the United States government in a leadership role.  No doubt our allies outside of Europe are also concerned about the lack of movement on the part of the United States.  China must also recognize that an opportunity currently exists, and will assuredly take advantage as well, while Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Australia wonder if the status quo can hold until a new administration takes over in Washington DC.

At present, more so than at any point in the last seven years, the United States needs to be an international leader.  This administration was quick to mobilize its diplomatic resources to conclude terrible treaties with both Russia (2010 New Start disarmament treaty with Russia), and Iran (2015 agreement on Iranian nuclear research).  Given that our allies are simply waiting for some sign of strength and consistency, it's not too late to check Vladimit Putin's strategy to create in Russia the world's sole super-power.  A fascinating aspect of these developments is that Russia's aggressive military and diplomatic moves have come while the Obama Administration continues to characterize Russia's economy as being close to collapse.  It seems as is if we've been waiting for that collapse ever since the beginning of the sanctions regime that was imposed on Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.  I'm glad we weren't holding our breath.....

Has the United States ever been on the wrong side of a war? Just a few to think about:

Links: A. The American Legion breaks down the Vietnam War
           B. Triggers of World War One
           C. Spain did not destroy the U.S.S. Maine   

I've decided that once every week I will have a "random history" day, in which I chose a subject from world history and hopefully present it in a manner which encourages comments.  The majority of my viewers are not from the United States, a fact of which I'm actually very proud.  With that in mind, the subjects I chose will rarely, if ever, be about the United States.  Today, though, we start off with a topic which should be of interest to everyone.  Certainly in my travels around the world, I've heard non-Americans offer opinions on the subject.  Has the United States ever fought on the wrong side of a war?  I have to choose the noun "war" as opposed to "conflict", because including every little scrape and rumble would have made any kind of focus impossible.  And lets not be shy - lets dive right in with the most controversial of wars: Vietnam, or the Second Indochina War (1961-1975).

When the United States started paying closer attention to events in Indochina, France, the former colonial power, and picked up stakes and moved on.  Following the Second World War, France, which had made a tremendous financial investment in French Indochine, decided to fight tooth-and-nail to defeat the communist insurgency that had flared up after the departure of the Japanese.  While the communists were raising hell in Korea with the U.S., they were also raising hell in Vietnam with France.  For many years, though, the French gave back as good as they got.  Both Saigon and Hanoi had been modernized along French lines, with grid-like downtowns, bakeries, streetlights, traffic signals, and a large City Hall.  Unfortunately, not much is left, but Saigon still has a few old colonial buildings standing.  The French Foreign Legion accomplished things in Indochina that are basically impossible to comprehend.  Almost outnumbered and usually outgunned, the Legionnaires just refused to quit.  The famous battle of Dien Ben Phu, standard fodder for all arm chair generals, is replete with examples of bravery and heroism in the face of overwhelming opposition.  The surrender at Dien Ben Phu ended France's efforts to keep its Asian colony, and introduced a perspective that would hit home to the United States in the decade to come; the perspective that its impossible to fight to defend a country when the country isn't your home.

During the Vietnam War, the United States went through three presidents: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.  Each man was faced with the decision of whether or not to escalate the war.  Even with the draft in place, at no time did the United State have anywhere near its full combat strength in Vietnam.  If necessary, the United States in 1970 could put millions of soldiers into the field.  But more soldiers no doubt result in more casualties.  As most students of military history are aware, almost all the battles of the war were victories for the United States and South Vietnam (pre-1973).  But while we were winning victories in the field, the north was flooding South Vietnam with both irregular troops and civilians, to put pressure on the economy and spread the ideology at the same time.  Strategically speaking, the famous Tet Offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam.  Nothing was gained and many well-trained soldiers died.  But it created a permanent fear in the heart of the South Vietnamese people, that a North victory was only a matter of time, and the Yankees would be leaving as soon as the winds changed direction. 

Even though Nixon campaigned on ending the war, he did consider certain military options that might have destroyed the Viet Cong permanently.  But Nixon was unable to control the monster of public opinion and pressure from our European allies.  If Nixon had doubles the number of troops and called for a full, non-stop bombing campaign of the north, the war would have been over in a few months.  Unless, of course, the Chinese invaded, as they did in Korea.  Or the Russians decided to up the ante.  Nixon also had the option of introducing Atomic weapons.  But the question today is not whether the war could have been won, the questions is whether we were fighting for the right side.  I think history has answered that question.  After defeating the south in 1975, Vietnam became a violent, reactionary, totalitarian state.  Hundreds of thousands, of not millions, died, AFTER the departure of the Americans.  And, as is the nature of communist regimes, the attempt was made to transport its brand of communism to both Laos (successfully), and Cambodia (eventually).  We were fighting in an effort to support the legal right of South Vietnam to exist (guaranteed by the United Nations, and also to hopefully prevent the genocide that unfortunately, followed.

The justification for going to war is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.  In 1915, if you were to ask any Austrian why a war was being fought in Europe, they would reply that it was because of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by guerillas trained in Serbia.  In Russia, you would be told that Russia went to war to defend tiny Serbia from the military might of Austria.  France would say that they were obliged to go to war with Austria because of a mutual defense treaty with Russia, the same excuse Germany would use for coming into the conflict on the side of the Hapsburgs.  Whew!  The British waited a bit until recognizing an obligation to fight alongside France, and Italy decided to wait a year or two, and see who was winning before deciding what side to join.  The United States stayed neutral until almost the last year of combat.  A powerful and active anti-war movement kept President Woodrow Wilson from taking that final step until the Germans stupidly sent a telegram to Mexico, offering the Mexicans a return of all lands lost to the United States over the years if they came into the war on the side of Germany.  For some reason, the American people were more angry with the Zimmerman Telegram than they were with the continued sinking of U.S. passenger liners full of innocent civilians.

Back to the original question.  The United States declared war on Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire in 1917.  Was the United States justified in going to war over the telegram, and/or the continued sinking of U.S. ships?  I have a different opinion.  First and foremost, if the United States did not want to lose passenger liners (and innocent Americans), then it shouldn't have filled the hold of these liners with military equipment bound for Great Britain.  Secondly, why are Americans willingly sailing into a war zone anyways?  In 1863, if an Austrian ship delivering rifles to the Confederacy were sunk by Union blockading ships, would Austria be justified in declaring war on the United States?  And one must keep in mind that by 1917, the British maritime blockage was causing famine in Central Europe.  Children and the elderly were starving to death in Austria and Germany, while the soldiers were kept fed so they could continue fighting. Germany was searching for any way to combat the British blockage, so they were unsuccessfully attempting one of their own.  The telegram, which some experts continue to claim is a fake, is a red herring as far as I'm concerned.  In other words, it's an effort to distract folks from the truth.  If we go back to 1914, and imagine if the French Vice President were assassinated in Belgium by anarchists trained and armed in Germany, I can assure that France would be preparing for war.  The same can be said for a British Prince, or a Russia Archduke.  Austria's attempt to respond to the assassination of the heir to the Hapsburg throne was to punish Serbia, the guilty party.  At that particular time in history, it would have been a very normal course of action to expect.

Last but not least, my favorite: the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898.  At the time of the destruction of the battleship Maine in Havana, the U.S. Congress was debating several measures regarding the Spanish possession of Cuba and Spain's treatment of the "indigenous" population.  Spain was portrayed as being borderline slave masters to the population of Cuba, save for a tiny class of Castilian plantation owners, civil servants and diplomats.  The same scenario was widely discussed regarding both Puerto Rico and the Far East colony of The Philippines.  In reality, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines basically constituted what remained of a once mighty Spanish Empire (excluding Spanish Sahara, Rio Muni and Equatorial Guinea in Africa, and a few other small enclaves).  Spain itself was broke, and staggering from internal conflicts relating to failed Republican governments and inept Monarchs.  But the new young King showed great promise, and the people of Spain sensed a new beginning.  Some of the ship-building facilities were modernized and orders placed for the beginnings of a new fleet.  In all honesty, the American interest in these Spanish possessions had almost nothing to do with philanthropy.  It had to do with economics and business, and also a growing sense of wider "Manifest Destiny"; something that stretched further than California.  Cuba was less than one hundred miles from Florida, of course it should be part of the United States, not crumbling, decrepit old Spain.  Its very likely that U.S. officials were being honest in their accusations of sabotage against Spanish authorities in Havana.  The battleship, which should never have been sent to Havana in the first place (an effort at intimidation, no doubt), just "blew up".  The Americans claimed that the Spanish purposely mined the harbor so as to come into contact with the Maine, or some such thing.  As you will learn from examining the third link I have provided, Spain has been completely exonerated.  In all likelihood, the explosion of the Maine was an internal, accidental event.  tragic, yes, but justification to go to war?  We did go to war, and Spain fought valiantly both on land and on sea.  But the Spanish fleet was twenty years too old to stand up to the powerful American squadron, and Teddy Roosevelt and his Roughriders eventually subdued the Spanish garrison on Cuba (with heavy losses).  The United States got to keep Puerto Rico permanently, and the Philippines and Cuba temporarily.  I'm not sure if an apology has been delivered to the Kingdom of Spain, but if not, then one is due.  Pure and simple, it was a war fought on false pretenses, and something beneath the fine, commendable, and respectable reputation of the United States government.

Review Of The Fight Against Islamic Extremism since 2009

Link: A. What Is Our Strategy To Defeat Terrorism?
          B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?

Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009.  In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain.  Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target.  What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense?  I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors.  Ouch?  Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden.  The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls.  I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan.  Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden?  Can anyone help me out here?  In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda?  It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention.  I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.

The truth is, there wasn't a plan.  What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq.  I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well.  But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq.  The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity.  Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there.  Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.  You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office.  But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or

Barak Obama at Cairo Univ. 6/4/2009
Source: The Official White
House Photostream-Flickr

plan did Obama have for dealing with Al-Qaeda and the like? The apology-tour must have been part of someone's plan, because something like that doesn't get decided over night.  Strange that during the campaign, he didn't announce his intention to travel to the Middle East, apologizing about the brutish behavior and U.S. history of bullying, to anyone who would listen.  And no doubt, behind closed doors, he also announced that Israel would no longer be getting a "free ride", and that the Arabs and Palestinians finally had a friend in the White House.  I'm positive this message was shared, if not by Obama directly, then by Hillary and her team of State Department apologists.  The coup de grace was Obama's speech in Cairo.  Obama certainly has some strong feelings about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but did he mention any of this during the campaign?  I don't think the American people would have taken well to our president groveling in front of this particular group of people.  Did I say grovel?  Remember, this is only my opinion.  I saw his attitude as an effort to make the United States appear as a racist, guilty, internally-broken country.

Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office.  Let's do this by continent, shall we?

• North America: The attack at the Boston Marathon was handled brilliantly by local authorities and because of this, the casualty rate was low.  The FBI has disrupted a number of planned domestic attacks; remember, the news media doesn't always know what's happening behind the scenes.
• South America: The Islamic Extremist community has been involved in criminal activity in South America for sometime.  Both Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of operating in the Tri-Border Region (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina), and recently Al-Qaeda has arrived.  Since the 1994 terrorist attack at the Jewish community office in Buenos Aires, the majority of the Jewish population has emigrated from Argentina.  And let's not ignore the fact that a number of South American governments are openly Socialist, and hostile to the United States (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina).
• Africa:  Al-Qaeda is having a field day in Africa.  The organization is growing in size and influence in West Africa, and its surrogate Boko Haram has repeatedly embarrassed the Nigerian Army. In the East, Al-Shabaab has become more active in Kenya, taking advantage of the endemic poverty and lack of jobs, to recruit in the townships.  In the last few years, Al-Shabaab has successfully conducted a number of high-casualty terrorist operations.  They have no fear of operating in Mombasa, and enjoy shooting up the wealthier suburbs of Nairobi.  The South African anti-terrorism unit of the SAP had better be keeping a close eye on its townships, especially the ones with high-immigrant populations.  Al-Qaeda and ISIS are there as we speak, recruiting jobless, disaffected young men — especially those with military experience.
• Europe:  Besides the highly-publicized recent episodes in Paris, the UK has also suffered through a number of terrorist-related attacks.  No doubt the governments and police of Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, etc., are keeping tight-lipped about the number of operations they have disrupted.
• Australia:  Late last year, Australia suffered is own horrific pro-ISIS attack in a cafe in Sydney.
• Asia, which includes Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and is just too much for me to tackle in this post.  Thank goodness the terrorists haven't reached Greenland…yet.

It's safe to say that Islamic Extremism has advanced on all continents with barely a whisper from the world's most powerful nations.  No doubt, the Europeans were waiting for leadership from the United States.  Since 2009, the message has been one of confusion at best.  We went after, and got, Bin-Laden— but his organization has been allowed to aggressively influence policy in two nations (Pakistan and Yemen), and to expand its operations internationally.  Our policy in Syria seems to be a bit confused as well.  Where is the Free Syrian Army?  We are pursuing an important treaty with Iran, but are we at all interested in their military activity in Iraq?  I'm hoping that one day we will look back at February 2015 as the high-water mark for Islamic Extremism.

Is Obama Secretly Reaching Out To Russia?

Links: A. Obama and Russia
           B. Obama Claims Victory In Stand-Off With Russia
           C. Latin American Perspective on Obama


Please be sure and read all three links before diving in to my commentary today.  After the wreckage of Ferguson and the debris left over after the unilateral Executive Branch fiat to normalize relations with Cuba, President Obama is talking about Russia.  On one hand, he appears to be discreetly inviting Russia to a round of formal discussions, and on the other hand, he is informing the free world that Sanctions on Russia have crippled the Russian economy.  True to form, I like to start with the truth.  The Sanctions enacted by President Obama and the European Union have not crippled the Russian economy.  Have a look at what the Sanctions were actually targeting.  Yes, the Russian economy is in the tank and the Ruble should change its name to the "Cossack Lira", but it has very little to do with the Sanctions regime as it currently exists.  It has everything to do with the price of oil.  President Obama admits this fact himself when, in the second link, he points out that Russia's economy is too dependent on the fluctuations of the oil market, while the U.S. economy is much more diversified.

Earlier this week, two prominent opponents of Putin were arrested and thrown in jail.  Reviewing the rap sheet has become a way to kill time and nothing more.  They were arrested for opposing Putin and for becoming a bit more vocal and effective than the government will allow.  Did the Russian people storm the prison?  Has the international press taken up a story of Russian political reformers in jail on a hunger strike?  Does Putin have an Aeroflot jet, warming up at the airport, to whisk him and his family to safety when the revolution takes hold?  Of course not. Obama pretends that pressure on Putin exists when in fact, it doesn't.  The Russians will put up with much more before they take to the streets.  Putin knows this, and he also understands international economics a bit more than President Obama.  Oil will rebound, as will the Ruble, regardless of the Sanctions regime.  Crimea is an integral part of Russia, and Putin continues to call the shots in eastern Ukraine.  The point being: Vladimir Putin is in no danger and sleeps well at night.  He can ride out this economic crisis because he understands the long-term value of oil.

The first link implies that the Obama Administration is looking for ways to discreetly reach out to Russia.  Even after six years, this administration still doesn't understand the basics of diplomacy and negotiation.  WE HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER PUTIN.  So why would he want to "mend fences"?  He has Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which I don't believe he really wants (but will keep for the time being as a bargaining chip).  Putin understands his adversary.  He has seen six years of Obama's international diplomacy, which, when boiled down, is basically about giving away the store.  Would you like an example?  Take a look at the recent Cuban rapprochement.  The United States is prepared to remove trade restrictions, work around the Congressionally mandated sanctions to re-establish banking ties, remove restrictions on travel, etc.  And what about Cuba?  Alan Gross was released, but no mention of any other steps to be taken.  The United States announced that Cuba would be releasing 53 political prisoners.  But it hasn't happened, and the Cuban press has not mentioned any agreed upon release of political prisoners.  To cut to the chase, we will give all, and Cuba will give nothing.

I'm actually a bit angry because writing this post has reminded me of some of the comments made over the last week or so.  Lets talk about Alan Gross.  Most Americans don't realize that this new agenda with Cuba included the release of three Cuban spies that were incarcerated in the United States.  Cuba has treated the release of Alan Gross as a trade-off.  The U.S. releases three Cuban spies, and Cuba releases one American spy.  Only Alan Gross was not a spy.  The implication in Europe and Latin America will always be that he was engaged in espionage, because the Cubans were allowed to spin this as they pleased.  During his announcement, Obama continued his habit of blaming the United States and the American people for the suffering of others.  This is the one reason why I personally despise the man.  Obama announced that our policy of fifty years of isolating Cuba was misguided, and responsible for the collapse of the Cuban economy (ergo, the suffering of the Cuban people).  I have grown weary of being the guilty party, Mr. President.  I am a 48 year-old white male and an American citizen.  According you to, I am responsible for racism in America (which flourishes, according to the speech you gave at the United Nations), I am responsible for the sad state of relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world, I am responsible for the poverty in Mexico, I am responsible for illegal immigration (I hire them to work in my factories and to water my lawn), I am responsible for people not having health insurance, I am responsible for Global Warming, I am responsible for all the failures of your administration (we've been out to get you since you took office), and now I'm responsible for the suffering of the Cuban people.  Its quite a burden to carry, but I have no choice in the matter.  I'm just trying to lay low until we get a new perspective in the White House.  One that doesn't believe that there is something inherently unfair and wrong with the American Dream.  A perspective that announces loud and clear that the United States and its economy can choose with whom, when and where it wants to do business.  Interestingly enough, Sanctions on Russia work fine for President Obama, but caused misery and suffering for the Cuban people.  Sometimes I wonder if one mouth knows what the other mouth is saying.

The War Against ISIL Is Being Lost While Obama Vacations...Again

Links: A. Iranian Militia-Leader Killed In Iraq
           B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq 
           C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria


I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent.  I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology.  And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba.  Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion.  By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing.  No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail.  They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship.  Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent.  Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.

Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq.  Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria.  Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week).  Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL.  Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast.  What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers.  Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!).  I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL.  In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock.  Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems.  Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply.    As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy.  But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government.  Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.

Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq.  The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents.  Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province.  Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic.  I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq.  These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade.  C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together?  Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia.  At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation.  The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction.  After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period.  Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military  intervention in Iraq.  Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.

ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq.  What about our bombing campaign?  Where are the figures?  I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost.  You know the military has those figures at their fingertips.  Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity?  How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE?  Anyone?  I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out?  John Kerry should understand the policy.  Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?

On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles.  I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised.  Cuba isn't going to change, folks.  What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money.  The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA).  Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people.  If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat.  The goal isn't to change Cuba.  ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES.  More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred.  This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation.  And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions.  Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016.  I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote.  The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.    

In One Fell Swoop, Rand Paul Has Lost Me

Link: Rand Paul Supports Relations With Cuba


Politics can be very unpredictable.  This morning I woke up, believing that Senator Rand Paul would most likely be my choice for the GOP nomination for President in 2016.  President Obama normalizes relations with Cuba, Rand Paul supports Obama's actions, and I'm through with Senator Paul. It wasn't just Paul's announcement that he supported President Obama.  What really changed my mind were Paul's comments regarding the issue.

The link that I have included provides all of the comments from Senator Paul which have caused me to rethink my support.  Rand Paul claims that sanctions on Cuba have failed.  What, exactly, did Paul expect the sanctions to achieve?  Our diplomatic and economic non-involvement with Cuba has to do with the foreign and domestic policies of the government in Havana, not some effort to create a democracy.  The United States has the same sovereign right to chose its trade partners as does every other member of the United Nations.  If we chose not to trade with Cuba, then that is our business, and Cuba is free to find other, more sympathetic regimes with which to carry on trade.  Rand Paul also claimed that U.S. sanctions on Cuba hurt the Cuban people.  Absolute HORSE SHIT.  Its crap like that which makes me question how I could have ever supported this man for political office.  Cuba is what it is because of the repressive, leftist/fascist rule of Fidel Castro, not because of the United States.  Not surprisingly, Havana has an expensive, elite neighborhood, with mansions and all the trappings of wealth.  Who lives there?  the cronies and sycophants of Castro, that's who.  Socialism in the best circumstances will eventually collapse upon itself, and in a poor, underdeveloped nation with very little industry or infrastructure?  People are never really given the opportunity to better their lives.  It's impossible to generate wealth when what little the government receives is stolen or spent on military escapades in South America and Angola.  Tell me, Senator Paul, as an American, is it my fault that Castro chose to pay for Cuban Mig fighters and tanks in Angola instead of food on the tables of Cuban families?  I have grown to expect President Obama to blame the American people for the ills of foreigners, but hearing it from Rand Paul was really disappointing.  Newsflash: endemic poverty in Cuba is not the fault, or the responsibility of the United States.

On Thursday, during a radio interview, Rand Paul commented that, “When we first opened up trade with China we were thinking it was a bad idea. But you know over time I’ve come to believe — and many conservatives have come to believe — that trading with China is actually the best way to ultimately defeat communism, and it makes us less likely to fight.”  Lets take a look at this picture, shall we?  Since President Richard Nixon went to Beijing in 1972 (and threw Taiwan right under a speeding bus), and we have become progressively more economically involved with China, communism has somehow suffered?  Not according to reality, Senator Paul.  The Chinese economy, with our assistance, has become an international monster that has a special taste for all things American.  The Chinese have made an art form out of buying up our debt, not to mention millions of acres of real estate all over the United States. Since relations with the United States improved, the Chinese military has greatly improved its offensive capacity and its missile delivery systems.  Much of that missile technology came from the United States.  And a quick look around the current Chinese political environment, the Communist Party is just as much an immoveable object as it always was, and the Red Army has become much more active in espionage and international banking. As for the Chinese government's dedication to the basic principles of Communism, I only have to look at Tibet and the more western provinces to remind myself what the Chinese government really thinks about open, political dialogue.  Basically, the Chinese still do not enjoy the freedom to worship as they please.  The education system is tightly controlled by the government, textbooks are total propaganda, and teachers are almost as left-wing as they are in American schools.  Also, it is highly discouraged (some would say illegal), to have more than a certain, approved number of children.  The political system does not allow for dissent, nor does the average Chinese citizen get to participate in a representative electoral process.  The government controls the media and all aspects of the internet.  So how, exactly, have we been "defeating" Communism with our economic and diplomatic embrace?  I don't see it.  No doubt a growing middle-class exists in China, but it is a segment of the population that does not question authority.  The truth is, Senator Paul, that we have enabled the Chinese Communist Party to become even more entrenched and powerful by forgoing economic and political isolation.  The mouthpiece of the Party continues to look for opportunities to threaten and insult the United States.  This China that Senator Rand brags about is Kim Jong-Un and North Korea's lifeline.  China could shut down Kim Jong-Un and free the people of North Korea in a heartbeat.  But they won't.  Let me tell you what China WILL do.  The Chinese government will export nuclear technology to terrorist states, and also create an elaborate system of spying using Chinese citizens studying at U.S. Universities who just happen to have contracts for research projects with the U.S. Department of Defense.  And spying at the laboratories in New Mexico is another example of Communist China's love for Democracy.

Lets move away from the criticism of Rand Paul and continue the discussion of Cuba.  Today, President Obama gave away the kitchen sink without getting anything in return.  Just last month, the Cuban regime was denounced for continuing to illegally jail Alan Gross, a U.S. Aid worker who was in Cuba to assist the poor.  That government, which jails protesters, refuses to reform, controls all aspects of the lives of the Cuban people, and embraces any political movement that expresses anti-American sentiment, shouldn't exist in our sphere of national security, let alone gain diplomatic recognition.  Cuba has not had a real election in over 60 years, and the government that has been squatting in Havana all that time, has been recognized by the Obama Administration.  Would Obama have recognized apartheid South Africa?  To be honest, if this decision had been debated in Congress and vetted through our tried and trusted legislative system of checks and balances, and passed a vote, I wouldn't complain.  I might express my disagreement, but I would continue to be proud that our system was still functioning as intended.  Instead we have one man making a decision that used to be important enough for full Congressional consideration.  How far is this going to go?  First immigration Amnesty, now normalizing relations with Cuba.  What's next?  Returning Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico?

The United States and its Third World State Department

Links: A. Oregon Woman Trapped In Timorese Jail
           B. Contractor Held In Cuban Jail Because he Is American
           C. Marine Locked Up In Mexico
           D. Two Americans Freed In North Korea

If you happen to be anywhere near Foggy Bottom in the District Of Columbia, you might notice the distinct smell of rot.  Granted, the Potomac is just around the corner, and who knows how far Barney Frank's old male whorehouse is, but today the smell of rot comes from the U.S. Department of State.  As usual, the decay is not in any way connected to the performance of the State Department's ground troops: the heroes and heroines who sit behind a desk all day processing visa applications and  conducting interviews.  The rot comes from the top, and the infection began before Hillary Clinton resigned.  The United States Department of State has a myriad of responsibilities.  In addition to processing the foreign nationals trying to get Tourist and Immigrant Visas, The State Department is responsible for helping Americans in foreign countries every single day.  Well-traveled Americans expect the Department to be on hand in case they have trouble with local authorities, and Americans abroad have a tendency to lose things like passports and return tickets.  It's rarely a glamorous job.  From the links I have provided, it should be obvious that I will be addressing the number of Americans who have ended up in foreign prisons and have not received assistance from the State Department.  Of course, when I refer to assistance, I'm not talking about letters from home, a list of local attorneys, or a package of food and dry socks.  Unless the U.S. State Department has advertised against U.S. persons visiting a particular country, then any American citizen unlawfully detained in a foreign country should be assisted by the U.S. Department of State.

For many years, if a U.S. citizen was unjustifiably incarcerated overseas, and the U.S. government was unable to secure their release, it made the news on all three networks and CNN.  The instances of this occurring were so few and far between, it was naturally a big story.  If an American ended up in a foreign jail, the State Department was usually able to obtain their release, even when the person had committed a minor local offense (driving drunk, bar fighting, etc.).  Our government, and by projection the United States Department of State, carried such gravitas that foreign governments welcomed the opportunity to resolve an issue of this type, as part of efforts to build a strong diplomatic relationship with the United States.  If an American committed a serious offense, such as murder or narcotics possession/smuggling, The United States Department of State would assure that the U.S. citizen had adequate counsel and a fair trail (to some extent).  Things have changed.  The number of countries that I would visit as a tourist has diminished lately, because of the fear that I might get railroaded into something and then be left in a foreign jail to rot.  The first link details the experience of an American veterinarian who was

traveling in East Timor.  She shared a cab with a stranger who was arrested for narcotics possession.  She is currently in jail and has no clue when her case will be adjudicated.  EAST EFFING TIMOR, PEOPLE.  That's have far we've fallen.  The legal system of East Timor gives its finger to the people of the United States.  In the "good ol' days", our Ambassador would make a phone call and the issue would be resolved.  In 2009, President Obama conducted his "Apology Tour", which announced to the Third World that for four, maybe eight years, they would have the opportunity to screw with the United States with NO repercussions.  And a number of countries are taking flu advantage of that opportunity, without risking their aid from the U.S. Government.  The government of East Timor should at least be concerned about the aid they receive.  Get ready for this, folks: Between 2001 and 2008, USAID gave $2,215,997 to the East Timor International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), $3,619,134 to the East Timor International Republican Institute (IRI), and $3,728,490 to the East Timor National Democratic Institute (NDI).  Almost $10 million, and an innocent American woman rots in an East Timorese jail.    Why haven't we DEMANDED her release?

Per the second link, we also have an American sitting in jail in Cuba.  Alan Gross made the mistake of accepting a contract with USAID which required his presence in Cuba.  To the Cuban government, that means they get to accuse him of being with the CIA, which most of Latin America will accept as fact without a shred of evidence.  Lets throw them some more money as well.  Gross is not a young man, and he has health issues.  And he sits in a Cuban jail solely because he is an American.  I won't spend too much time revisiting the case of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tamooressi.  He was finally released from a Mexican jail after nine months of confinement and episodes of torture.  Some questions remain about the exact circumstances of Tamooressi's attempted entry into Mexico and lies he initially told to the Mexican court.  But Tamooressi is a decorated veteran, and he earned my benefit of the doubt.  How about you, President Obama?  Why didn't the Administration instruct Secretary of State John "Frankenstein" Kerry to travel to Mexico City and ORDER the Mexicans to release our Marine?  Any response besides "yes, sir" should have been met with a disruption of relations and an end to all aid for Mexico.  Also, all Mexican nationals in U.S. prisons should have been treated exactly as Tamooressi until his release.  Instead, we did nothing but wait until the broken Mexican penal system decided that Tamooressi had served enough time for his crime.  The last link details the release of two American citizens from North Korean jails.  I was not the only person surprised at this decision on behalf of North Korea, and out of instinct I wondered which U.S. diplomat had negotiated their release.  I was wrong.  It was not a U.S. diplomat, but Chief of U.S. Intelligence James Clapper who secured their release;  No U.S. Department of State involvement whatsoever.

So the message is clear.  If you are planning an overseas vacation, be very careful of your

Stacey Addison

intended destination.  Do not visit a country where someone may plant something in your luggage.  Do not get touristy in a location with an anti-American segment to the populace.  If you end up in jail, you're on your own, although the State Department will undoubtedly send someone around with a two year old list of phone numbers for local attorneys.  This puzzling, disturbing and infuriating development started in 2009, when Hillary Clinton was doing such a grand job as Secretary of State, giving $5 billion to the Palestinian Authority and signing away our last nuclear deterrent to Vladimir Putin.  I'm glad that Tamooressi and the two Americans stuck in North Korea are back home, but I worry about Stacy Addison in East Timor and Alan Gross in Cuba.  Yes, folks, we live in a world where being an American can be crime enough to get you incarcerated with no due process.  How far we have fallen.