Rumors of the death of Minsk2 have been exaggerated.

The cease fire holds, heavy weapons are being withdrawn but hostilities remain. A flareup later in the Spring is expected.

A Chinese view of the Ukraine conflict.

Western nations should heed Russia's legitimate security concerns over the volatile situation in Ukraine, a top Chinese diplomat has said in a rare public statement on the crisis that has damaged relations between Russia and the West.
Qu Xing, China's ambassador to Belgium, said the Ukrainian crisis came about due to the ongoing “game”– a metaphor similar to that used by US geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, who referred to it as the “grand chessboard” – between Russia and the West, which has not abated despite, or because of, the collapse of the Soviet Union.

READ MORE: China agrees to amend $3.6bn loan agreement with Ukraine
Arguing that outside interference by various powers inflamed the Ukrainian situation, Xing said Moscow would naturally feel threatened unless Western powers engaged in a more constructive approach.

Xing advised Western powers to “abandon the zero-sum mentality” in their efforts to deal with Moscow and the Ukraine crisis and “take the real security concerns of Russia into consideration," Reuters reported, quoting state news agency Xinhua.

China in the past has urged all involved parties to sit down and negotiate for peace.

The Chinese ambassador, whose Brussels office is in the same city as NATO’s headquarters, then offered some insight as to what motivates the United States on the international stage, and what could lead to its possible decline.

“The United States is unwilling to see its presence in any part of the world being weakened, but the fact is its resources are limited, and it will be to some extent hard work to sustain its influence in external affairs,” he was quoted as saying.

Reuters / Jason Lee

Xing said Washington's involvement in Ukraine could “become a distraction in its foreign policy.”

The Chinese diplomat’s comments represent a sharp departure from the relentless wave of hostile rhetoric coming from the West, which has gone to great lengths to blame Russia as the aggressor in the crisis.


Russia has been accused of arming eastern Ukrainian militia and dispatching soldiers and armaments as reinforcement – claims Moscow has denied on numerous occasions. There were even suggestions that Russia was somehow involved in the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.

Despite the extreme nature of the allegations, no substantive evidence has ever been presented to support such claims.

Indeed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has blamed the United States as being the primary destabilizing factor in Ukraine.

“Through every step, as the crisis has developed, our American colleagues and the EU under their influence have tried to escalate the situation,” Lavrov told participants at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month.

Lavrov pointed to the failure of the EU to engage Russia over Brussels’ efforts to have Ukraine sign an economic association agreement with the bloc; the involvement of Western political figures during the Maidan protests; the failure of the West to condemn Kiev for branding its own citizens “terrorists;” and for supporting a coup that led to the toppling of a democratically elected president.
READ MORE: Lavrov: US escalated Ukraine crisis at every stage, blamed Russia
“The US made it public it brokered the transit of power in Ukraine. But we know perfectly well what exactly happened, who discussed candidates for the future Ukrainian government on the phone, who was at Maidan, and what is going on [in Ukraine] right now,” Lavrov said.

China is a member of BRICS, the economic association that includes Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.

How US Dollars are created.

“That Couldn’t Possibly Be True”: The Startling Truth About the US Dollar from Casey's Daily Despatch. For years I had heard people talking about “the fraud of the Federal Reserve.” But I was busy trying to survive and the dollars I was paid with bought food at the grocery store, so I didn’t give those reports a great deal of attention. The more I began to study economics, however, the more I understood that this was an essential issue: that if I didn’t understand the foundation, I’d never really understand what was built upon it. So, little by little, I began to pay attention to the question, “Where do dollars come from?” One of my first discoveries was that almost no one knew anything about this. Shocking though it may seem, they don’t teach this in general economics programs. I’ve had econ grads from well-respected programs come to me and say, “I’m kind of embarrassed to ask, but they never taught it to us in school: Where do dollars come from?” “No, That Can’t Be True” That’s what I said when I first understood where dollars came from. I said, “No way. That couldn’t be what it is.” Unfortunately, I was wrong; it really is this way. The secret to understanding the creation of dollars and of the operation of the Fed lies in two quotes from economist John Kenneth Galbraith: The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. I must give the Fed credit for one thing: it has admitted to what it does. A publication called Modern Money Mechanics identifies how the Fed creates dollars. It cloaks that admission in unnecessarily difficult accounting and a convoluted discussion (confirming the first Galbraith quote), but still, it does admit it. You can find Modern Money Mechanics online, and I recommend that you do. You should see it for yourself. Brief Points There’s a lot to discuss here and we have limited space, so allow me to make just a few central points. It will be your job to verify them. #1: Dollars originate with an accounting trick. Dollars begin with a process that looks like this: While intricately accounted for, dollars begin as a check that the Fed writes “drawn on itself.” Those are the precise words from Modern Money Mechanics, by the way. Can you and I write checks “drawn on ourselves”? Of course not. We have to back them up with value. The Fed does not. So, the mighty US dollar is not backed by gold or silver or anything at all; it’s simply an accounting trick. #2: Every dollar is skimmed from, as it is created. As shown in the chart above, dollars come from a transaction between the Fed and the Treasury. Can you think of any reason why these two institutions would be unable to handle this transaction by themselves? (And in fact, we know they can, because they gave the Chinese an exemption from the middle step a few years back.) So, what’s the purpose of the primary dealers (simply called “dealers” in Modern Money Mechanics) that sit between the Fed and the Treasury? In fact, there is no purpose, aside from the obvious. The primary dealers take a slice from every dollar as it is made. Again, get Modern Money Mechanics. Go through it slowly. Check this for yourself. I know it sounds crazy, but most of it is right there in black and white. And who are these primary dealers? The big banks, of course. #3: Your mortgage loan was created out of thin air. It's A Wonderful Life is a fine film, but Jimmy Stewart’s character was entirely wrong when he claimed that he borrowed the savings of one virtuous person to make a home loan to another. When you take a loan from a bank, they do not take Mr. Smith’s money or Mrs. Jones’s money and lend it to you. They make it up on the spot with a bookkeeping entry. Until you take the loan, that money doesn’t exist. You don’t have to take my word on this. Here are the words of Robert B. Anderson, who was secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower: When a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account by the amount of the loan. It does not take this money from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower. You may have to work overtime to pay those dollars back, but no one worked overtime to get them in the first place. They were simply made up, on the spot. #4: Money for interest is never created. Every dollar is created with interest attached: T-bills yield interest—buy one for $1000, and you will, over time, receive more than $1000. A $1000 loan, as we all know, must eventually be repaid with $1000 plus extra dollars as interest. So, every dollar is birthed with a debt obligation attached. This creates an interesting problem: Extra dollars will be required to pay back all of that interest. Where will they come from? I can work hard and pay back my $1000. loan with interest, but every dollar I use to pay interest is created with an interest obligation of its own. Where does it end? In fact, it cannot end—it cannot resolve—unless there are debt-free dollars that can cover the gaps. And there are none. This means that the dollar system can run effectively in one direction only. It can operate smoothly while creating ever-more currency, but if the system starts to contract, there will be a currency shortage. And that leads to all sorts of troubles. I Know This Sounds Crazy… If all of this is new to you, you have my sympathies; I know it’s a lot to take in. Go slowly and double check it all. Make up your own mind. Like I say, the first time I saw this, I couldn’t believe that it could possibly be true. Reading the Fed’s own words, even though I had to plod through them slowly, convinced me. And if you want to read the wild story of how this astonishing system was created, you can find it in The Creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin. A Free-Man’s Take is written by adventure capitalist, author, and freedom advocate Paul Rosenberg. You can get much more from Paul in his unique monthly newsletter, Free-Man’s Perspective.   AJ adds: Since, the US Dollar is the world's currency, this means that we can obtain some of the world's worth by simply printing Dollars. The Chinese want the deal and they will offer a currency that is backed by gold. Yet, the Dollar's value has risen from 79 to above 95. It is because other pieces of currency are even worse than the Dollar. Where and when will this scam end? I don't know but it will not end well.

Is there a Russian plan to divide Ukraine?

That is the claim of a Russian paper that purports to outline Russian moves and some justification in the vacuum created by the Maidan coup. I will reproduce the translation of the Kiev Post. There are questions about the authenticity of the document. We should not discount the Ukrainians or the Russians engaging in psy ops.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/roadmap-for-annexing-eastern-ukraine-leaked-from-putins-o

 

Editor's Note: This is an English-language translation done by the Kyiv Post of a leaked analytical note published by the Russian online newspaper Novaya Gazeta on Feb. 24. According to sources of Novaya Gazeta, one of Russia's last independent newspaeprs, this document was written and provided to the President Vladimir Putin's office for consideration between Feb. 4-12, 2014, the same month that the EuroMaidan Revolution drove President Viktor Yanukovych from power on Feb. 22, 2014.
The following is the Novaya Gazeta introduction:
Novaya Gazeta is publishing the plan for alienation by Russia of some territories of Ukraine, composed in the times when (Viktor) Yanukovych was still president of the country.
According to the information we possess, and also according to the evaluation of experts to whom we showed this analytical note for analysis, “Orthodox businessman" Konstantin Malofeev may have taken part in its preparation.
However, the businessman's press service, after the preview of this information at Ekho Moskvy radio categorically denied this assumption and said that Malofeev intended to go to court.
The document we're printing is interesting because, at early stages of the Ukrainian political crisis, even before the escape of Yanukovych and arrival to power of the “Bandera junta," it lays out, step-by-step, the basis and political and PR logistics of Russia's interference into Ukrainian affairs and estrangement from Ukraine of Crimea and eastern provinces. Even though the real unfolding of the Ukrainian drama made some corrections, in general a great degree of correlation of this project with the following actions of the Russian authorities catches the eye.
See more editorial comments from Novaya Gazeta in the bottom.

(The text was edited for length.)

1. While evaluating the political situation in Ukraine, we have to firstly recognize political bankruptcy of Yanukovych and his ruling “family," which is precipitously losing control over political processes.

Secondly, there is a paralysis of the central government and absence in the country of a distinct political subject with whom the Russian Federation could negotiate. Thirdly, there is little probability that such a subject will appear on consensus basis after the announcement of early parliamentary and presidential elections announced by Yanukovych on Feb. 4, 2014.

While in Russia the oligarchy is counterbalanced by a powerful class of bureaucrats, in Ukraine the state apparatus is by definition weaker than oligopolies. It, as well as the public policy sphere, is controlled by the oligarchs.

It is those oligarchs (Rinat Akhmetov, Dmytro Firtash, Igor Kolomoisky) that rule the Kyiv political community, including the Verkhovna Rada and the organized opposition. The sporadic opposition (the so-called Maidan) is not controlled by the leaders of organized opposition. The tone is set by the “field commanders" (mostly football fans and representatives of crime groups), which have no electoral support and apparently controlled not by the oligarch groups per se, but the Polish and British special services. At the same time, many oligarch groups finance the Maidan, to make sure they're not putting all eggs in the same basket...

President Yanukovych is a man of low moral and volitional qualities. He is afraid to lever the presidential post and simultaneously is prepared to exchange law enforcers for guarantees of preservation of his job as president and immunity after he leaves the job. Meanwhile, parts of the Berkut that were used to subdue disorder in Kyiv, were mostly formed out of natives of Crimea and eastern regions.

According to local observers, any attempts by Yanukovych's successor to organize repressions against the Interior Ministry and the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) as punishment for suppression of Maidan will inevitably come across a tough power reaction.

Even more ambivalent is the position of the Ukrainian army, which, according to a staffer of the Defense Ministry of Ukraine, is “locked in barracks, and officers are guarding stockpiles of weapons so that, God forbid, it does not fall into the hands of contract soldiers, who in this case will start to shoot each other."

The early parliamentary and presidential election can become an excuse for a new spiral of rallies-and-assault-type civil war, the deepening of the East vs West electoral breakup and, as a result, will speed up disintegration of Ukraine.

The flow and conclusions of the Munich security conference (Editor's Note: this regular conference was taking place on Jan. 31- Feb. 1, 2014) give enough grounds to suggest that the European Union and USA presume disintegration of the country and do not consider this development of events extraordinary.

The concept of element-by-element absorption of a large Eastern European state by the European Union not only is publicly articulated by a number of official speakers from the EU, but also finds allies in the ranks of the Ukrainian elite. Will Russia take part in this geopolitical scheme?

2. Russian policy towards Ukraine has to finally become pragmatic.

Firstly, the Yanukovych regime is completely bankrupt. His political, diplomatic, financial and information support by the Russian Federation no longer makes sense.

Secondly, in the conditions when a sporadic civil war in the form of urban guerrilla warfare of the so-called “Maidan supporter" against leaders of some regions in the east of the country has become a fact, and when disintegration of the Ukrainian state along the geographical lines separating “western regions plus Kyiv" and “eastern regions plus Crimes" have become a part of the political agenda, in these conditions Russia should by no means limit its policy towards Ukraine with just attempts to affect the political balance in Kyiv and relations between organized opposition (Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Vitali Klitschko, Oleh Tyahnybok, Petro Poroshenko and so on) and the Council of Europe.

Thirdly, in the conditions of near-paralysis of the central government, which is unable to, even under the threat of default and absence of money for Naftogaz to pay for gas, form a responsible government, Russia...

Primarily this is because our country is under risk of losing not just the consumer market for energy sources, but – even more dangerously – even indirect control over the gas transit network of Ukraine. This will make OAO Gazprom vulnerable in Central and Southern Europe, and cause major damage to our country's economy.

3. The Constitution of Ukraine can't become a mechanism that would allow the integration of eastern Ukrainian territories and Crimea into Russian Federation.

Article 71 of the Ukrainian Constitution says that changes of country's territory can be made only through an all-Ukrainian referendum. At the same time, a referendum, according to the Article 72 of the country's constitution, can be announced by people's initiative on demand of minimum three million people with voting rights. The signatures for referendum must be collected in minimum three thirds of Oblasts and with a minimum of 100,000 signatures in each Oblast.

But, paradoxically, the legal basis for integration of Russia and Ukraine has already been created as a system of Russian-Ukrainian Euroregions (European cross-border regions) included into the Association of the European Border Regions, which is itself a member of Assembly of European Regions. Thus, a euroregion “Donbas" includes Donetsk, Luhansk, Rostov and Voronezh Oblasts, a euroregion “Slobozhanshchyna" includes Kharkiv and Belgorod Oblasts, and a euroregion “Dnepr" includes Bryansk and Chernihiv Oblasts.

Using the Euro-regions as an instrument that is legitimate from the point of view of the European Union, Russia should achieve the deals on cross-border cooperation and then establish the direct interstate relations with the Ukrainian territories where the stable pro-Russian electoral sentiments exist.

First of all, these are the Republic of Crimea, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolayiv, Dnipropetrovsk Oblasts and to lesser degree – Kherson and Odesa Oblasts.

(We deliberately excluded Sumy and Donetsk oblasts from this list. The first one because of high electoral influence of Batkivshchyna party there. The second one because of tight business and political links of the local business elite headed by Rinat Akhmetov with several representatives of opposition oligarchic alliance who have interests there.)

The local elites are motivated for the reciprocal movement to the new integration initiatives of Russia more than ever. Before the crisis the elites of eastern Ukraine preferred “weak Kyiv" to “strong Moscow." But now under the threat of losing everything they are not going to silently wait for massive purges, including over the compromising economic evidences which have been collected against them in the center. After Yanukovych leaves his presidential post, the central authorities will inevitably start these purges regardless of which political forces create the “new Kyiv consensus". In this situation, the local elites are ready to lose their “independence."

The ongoing events in Kyiv clearly show that Yanukovych's authority may come to the end at any moment. So less time remains for an adequate reaction from Russia. The number of people killed in riots in Ukrainian capital shows that civil war is inevitable, and a consensus where Yanukovych could save his post is impossible.

In this situation it would be right to play on decentralization sentiments of several regions of the country in order to initiate including of the eastern oblasts into Russia. Crimea and Kharkiv Oblast should become the dominating regions for these efforts as they already have rather strong groups supporting idea of maximum integration with Russian Federation.

4. If Russia starts supporting Crimea and several eastern territories, it will obviously be a burden for the budget in the current situation.

It will obviously have consequences for the macroeconomic stability and economic prospects. But in geopolitical perspective it will give us a priceless gain – our country will receive access to new demographic resources and highly-qualified personnel in the industrial and transport sphere. In addition to that, it will be able to rely on new Slavic migration flow from west to east contradicting Central-Asian migration trend. The industrial potential of eastern Ukraine with its military industrial sector included into the Russian military industry will allow to fulfill the process of rearmament of Russia more successfully and more quickly.

Last but not the least, constructive and “smoothing" participation of Russia into a highly-probable process of disintegration of the Ukrainian state will not only give impulse for the Kremlin integration projects, it will also allow our country to keep, as it was mentioned above, a control over Ukrainian gas pipeline system. It will also allow to significantly change geopolitical landscape in Central and Eastern Europe, with Russia getting back one of the main roles there.

5. To launch the process of the “pro-Russian drift" of Crimean and Eastern Ukrainian territories, it's needed to create the events that would give this process political legitimacy and moral justification, beforehand.

And also to built the PR strategy which would emphasize the forced and reactive nature of corresponding moves by Russia and pro-Russian elites of Ukraine's south and east.

The recent events in western Ukraine (Lviv, Volyn, Ivano-Frankivsk oblasts), when local opposition proclaimed independence from the Kyiv government, provide the grounds for the eastern oblasts to proclaim their own independence with subsequent reorientation towards the Russian Federation.

6. Eastern Ukrainian actions in response should be double-faceted by structure and scenario:

The participants of protest rallies should demand that the Verkhovna Rada expands the format of constitutional reform being discussed, including simplifying the procedure of organizing all-Ukrainian referendum:

“We cannot be the hostages of Maidan. The unitarian system of Ukraine's state that allows aggressive nationalistic minority impose its choice to the whole country needs to be revised. Russia is a federal state and such things are unthinkable there. By strengthening the state and legal ties with Russia, we will reinforce Ukraine's unity."

In the beginning, the protesters have to articulate their unwillingness to be the “hostages of Maidan," and its attempts to deprive other regions and majority of population from having their own civilization and political choice, and their refusal to accept the “ideology of civil war and breaking up the country," followed by the political representatives of western Ukraine.

The protesters, carrying Russian flags, should not insist on changing the constitutional order. They should be given a task of decisive condemnation of actions by “western Ukrainian separatists, who are undermining the country's territorial integrity at the cue of their foreign masters." They should also demand to urgently develop “association of eastern Oblasts of Ukraine with the Russian Federation." “We are with Russia. No to civil war."

The justified unwillingness “to support with taxes the pro-fascist forces" of western Ukraine and the government that's dependent upon them and is guided by the demands of European Union, and not its citizens' needs must become the slogans of the momentum.

It's recommended to put forth three slogans which would gradually stem from one another:

- The demand to “federalize" (or even confederalize) as a guarantee for these regions that pro-Western and nationalistic forces would not interfere in their internal affairs;

- Eastern and south-eastern Oblasts' entry to the Customs Union on the regional level, independently from Kyiv, that would enable normal functioning and development of their industry;

- The direct sovereignization with subsequent joining Russia, as the only guarantor of sustainable economic development and social stability.

The political movement supporting pro-Russian choice and association of Ukraine's eastern and south-eastern territories with the Russian Federation, as we see it, must be constructed in the orderly manner and legitimately registered. In order to do this, it's necessary to prepare the grounds for holding the referendums on self-determination and further possibility of joining the Russian Federation in Crimea and Kharkiv Oblast (and in the other regions afterwards).

It's deemed important to hold informal gathering of heads or representatives of eastern regions in Moscow, where a person holding adequate powers would support them and provide political guarantees (if only verbal). Such representatives of eastern Ukrainian elite are N. Dobkin (Mayor of Kharkiv), V. Konstantinov (head of supreme council of Republic of Crimea), S. Aksionov (head of Russian Unity party).

It's highly important that “international community" would have as few as possible reasons to doubt the legitimacy and integrity of these referendums.

To do that, it's advisable to provide the referendums with modern mean of verification (web-cameras and online broadcasting). Such preliminary plan has already been developed and can be implemented in two-week time.

7. It is necessary to accompany these events with a PR campaign in Russian and Ukrainian press.

The campaign must include the development of the concept documents - kind of a manifesto of the eastern and the western Ukrainian separatism - and putting them into a media rotation. A wide range of the communities in Russia should show their support to the accession of the eastern regions of Ukraine to Russia (a possible slogan is "Putin 2.0 - give us the Pereyaslavska Rada 2.0").

Editorial comment of "Novaya Gazeta":

This document has a few notable features.

1. As we have already noted, it was written before the escape of Yanukovych and before the temporary government of the "systemic opposition" representatives came to power.

That is, before that moment that Moscow calls a "coup", and which has been the justification for the following actions of Russia.

2. The paper gives a pejorative assessment of Yanukovych, whom Russia will later present as a victim of a coup and the only legitimate leader of Ukraine.

3. The note is compiled in a pragmatic, cynical style. It doesn't contain any "spiritual-historical" justification for Russian interference in Ukraine. No reasoning about "Novorossiya," about protection of the Russian-speaking people, about "Russian world" and the upcoming "Russian spring". Only geopolitics and cold expediency.

4. The authors of the document are concerned about the "legitimacy" of the inclusion of the Ukrainian territories into Russia. They, in particular, believe that there is a legal basis for the first step - mixed Russian-Ukrainian euroregions (the euroregion "Donbass" includes Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as Rostov and Voronezh regions) that are part of the Association of European Border Regions. The authors are sure that by using this legal instrument it is possible to drag Ukrainian regions with "stable pro-Russian sympathies" into direct public-contractual relationship. And thereafter, into "legitimate" referendum on self-determination.

5. The note contains a number of gross distortions of reality aimed to show a "reactivity", necessity of Russian actions (Maidan leaders are recruited from football fans and criminals, they are controlled by Polish and British intelligence; the U. S. and the European Union allow the disintegration of Ukraine, the European Union started a geopolitical intrigue to split Ukraine, etc). All these arguments were actively used later by Russian propaganda.

6. The paper also contains many arguments of geopolitical and economic kind

that aimed to convince the leaders that the immediate intervention in Ukraine is necessary as it will strengthen the Russian position not only in Ukraine, but also in Central and Eastern Europe, preserving control over the gas transmission networks that go through Ukraine, getting control over Ukrainian military and industrial enterprises located in the east of the country (for faster rearmament), and even replacing the "central Asian" flow of migrants by the "Slavic", "western" migrants.

In general, it can be seen that the recommendations of the authors of the note about the Russia's step-by-step interference into Ukrainian affairs, with the ultimate aim to take a range of Ukrainian territories have mostly been embodied in the real actions of Moscow:

organized actions of disobedience to Kyiv regime in areas with pro-Russian moods;

making this process "politically legitimate" and "morally justified";

demand of the protesters to simplify the procedure of Ukrainian referendums;

then raising of claims for "federalization" or even a "confederation";

the requirement of independent from Kyiv joining of Crimea and the south-eastern regions to the Customs Union;

organizing "legitimate" and "fair" referendums on self-determination and unification with Russia;

active PR support of these processes in Russian and Ukrainian media.

The significant error of the authors of the document occurs with the definition of the regions, that are most ready to unite with Russian: they name Crimea and Kharkiv Oblast, considering the "Akhmetov empire", Donetsk region, less promising. Life made its adjustments into these plans. But in general, the scheme was implemented./

Is Jihad the same as the Crusades?

That is the argument Muslims make. But it is a specious argument. Mohammed and his Arabs and Turks burst on the Middle East and Europe, murdering, raping and enslaving. Over a million Europeans were dragged off to slavery by the Muslims. Christians then counterattacked to free the Holy Land and Spain, Portugal and France and the Mediterranean islands. That is the truth. See the battles by the Jihadis and then the Crusaders:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

What is Obama's religion?

Byron York has an article in the Washington Examiner in which he discusses the question. Only 18% of those queried in a PEW poll said they believed Obama to be a Muslim. The majority does not know. Here is one man's answer:

            It Was You!

 

            ​  

 

            Written by Mike Gallagher.

 

             

 

             

 

            Many listeners have asked about the "President Obama:

 

            It Was You" essay that someone sent me.

 

             

 

            Here it is:  [Most of this is already in Obama's books]

 

             

 

             

 

            President Obama: This is why you didn't go to France?

 

             

 

            It was you who told an Islamic dinner - "I am one of you."

 

             

 

            It was you who on ABC News referenced - "My Muslim faith."

 

             

 

            It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.

 

             

 

            It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict -"I will stand with the Muslims."

 

             

 

            It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that - "I am a Muslim."

 

             

 

            It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.

 

             

 

            It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church

 

            condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.

 

             

 

            It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties

 

            under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.

 

             

 

            It was you who purposefully omitted - "endowed by our Creator" -

 

            from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.

 

             

 

            It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon On The Mount

 

            while repeatedly referring to the 'HOLY' Quran.

 

             

 

            It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.

 

             

 

            It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind

 

            the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking

 

            the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.

 

             

 

            It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast,

 

            but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the WH.

 

             

 

            It was you who ordered both Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame

 

            to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree

 

            to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested

 

            that the mosques you have visited adjust their decor.

 

             

 

            It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.

 

             

 

            It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.

 

             

 

            It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission"

 

            was an outreach to Muslim communities.

 

             

 

            It was you who as an Illinois Senator were the ONLY

 

            individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.

 

             

 

            It was you who were the first President not to give a

 

            Christmas Greeting from the WH,

 

            and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.

 

             

 

            It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.

 

             

 

            It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.

 

             

 

            It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions

 

            of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona

 

            to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.

 

             

 

            It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge

 

            the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead

 

            profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu

 

            and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.

 

             

 

            It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.

 

             

 

            It was you who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday

 

            with a new commemorative stamp.

 

             

 

            It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach

 

            to help "empower" the British Muslim community.

 

             

 

            It was you who embraced the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood

 

            in your quest to overthrow the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.

 

             

 

            It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies

 

            in Grammar schools across our country.

 

             

 

            It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.

 

             

 

            It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid

 

            past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.

 

             

 

            It was you who was un-characteristically quick to join the chorus

 

            of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak,

 

            formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa;

 

            but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.

 

             

 

            It was you who appointed your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, who is a member

 

            of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

             

 

      

 

             

 

             

 

 

           

           

 

 

Ukraine and Greece: spotlight on economics.

1. Ukraine. The one year long turmoil and fighting is beginning to take its toll in a serious way. The hryvnia's value (always an indicator of economic trouble) fell from 9 to a Dollar a year ago to 30 this week. Donetsk and Luhansk are basket cases economically and towns have been subjected to brutal shelling with heavy artillery. The Ukrainian army lost most of its tanks so it relies on self-propelled artillery. Unemployment is rising and only European aid in the billions keeps the Country afloat. Unless the Country can find an accommodation with its Eastern provinces and Russia, it will implode economically as well as militarily.


What are the chances of accommodation? Poor it seems. Minsk2 is now dead and Ukrainian politicians are urging NATO to go to war with Russia, even if it means an atomic war.


2. Greece. The Country is broke. It can not continue doing what got it into trouble and the people will no longer tolerate austerity. Greece needs money to stay in the EU, but that collides with the promises of Syriza. Preliminary negotiations between EU finance ministers and the Greeks have resulted in a 4 month delay of reckoning and Greek proposals to discuss the situation were accepted as a basis of further discussion. In diplomatic speak that means that the proposals have been rejected. In the meantime, some Syriza members accuse the govt of having broken its election promises and opposition is rising to keeping ANY of the austerity. According to the EU, Greece needs to record a 4% budgetary surplus to service its loans and Greece is still running a deficit. As in Ukraine, the prognosis is bad.

Minsk2 is dead.

Minsk2 is over. Why? Because neither Russia nor the Ukraine is approaching the problem honestly and correctly. Ukraine refuses to acknowledge the aspirations of its Russian minority, while Russia is definitely sending men and arms. The problem is not Russia sending arms, it's the Russian response to the problem. The problem is that NATO has gone back on its promises of keeping central Europe neutral. Instead, the EU has extended to the Russian border. That is not acceptable to Russia or the Russian population of the Ukraine. The following map shows where anti-EU (i.e. pro-Russian) unrest has taken place.

Luhansk and Donetsk are being taken back by Russian speakers. If the Ukraine refuses to face the problem it has and refuses to come up with a solution acceptable to the Russian speakers then it will lose all the areas in color and Russia will extend to Moldova. Calling the Russian speakers "terrorists" will not solve the problem. And complaining about Russian troops is engaging in irrelevancy. The Ukraine and Russia have been joined at the hips and Russia has a special regard to Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Southern Ukraine was purchased from the Ottoman Turks by the Tzar and is rightfully regarded as Russian in interest. Ceding that to Western Europe is a non-starter. Sending arms to the Ukraine will goad the Russians to all out war. And it will not be a halfway affair like in Donetsk but will include all the Russian arm forces including their air force. I hope that cooler heads will prevail. The anti-American tirades of Senator (the Dunce) McCain are not helpful. He should be ashamed all right, but not because the US is not fanning the spirit of war in the Ukraine, but that he lost to the dictatorial monster Obama.