President Obama Wants To Start World War III with Putin

President Obama is provoking a World War III with the Russians.  President Obama has been agitating for a conflict almost single handedly hoping to lead the rest of NATO into war.  Some have said that basically NATO is the military arm of the United States in Europe.  Of course we hear it’s also the military arm of the ‘New World Order’ with its Fascist roots.  Obama was pretty much bragging on how much our economic sanctions have hurt Putin and the Russian economy.  Now the G7 nations (they were the G8 before the group kicked Russia out so they don’t even have a seat at the table) are not only lifting but will be putting on new sanctions against Russia.  Europe at times doesn’t like the US taking a provocative stance on something which it’s THEY and not We who’ll have to pay for it.  We are sending heavy arms into Eastern Europe for the first time since World War II.  For the longest period this was not the case.  We kept our weapons in “safe” places such as Germany and France.  But no more.  Putin is not the sort of guy who would back down in the face of an economic sanction and not “allow the US and NATO to win”, and we really should know him better than that.  If I might revive an old Rush Limbaugh saying, “Don’t poke the bear”.  This is just stupid.  Clearly we don’t want a major war and particularly a war with a major Nuclear power, with a leader who has stated that he’s not afraid to use them.  Putin is not going to make the first move in terms of advancing into NATO territory such as the Baltic States.  But I think we know that when Putin does decide to move ‘It will be too late then to back down’.   These sanctions have a solid majority support of the American public, and smaller numbers of Britishers are for it, and by the time you come to Germany it’s 38% for the sanctions.   Clearly Putin is a cult figure to the Russian people who tells lies.  But that doesn’t make him any less dangerous just because the things he says aren’t true.  It just means that Putin and the Russian people are mutually insilated from Reality by telling each other lies constantly.   Russia is a dictatorship and every bit as dangerous, if not more so, than before Communism fell.  It would seem that Joseph Stalin is being “rehabilitated” after sixty years for the Russian people.  Putin is even touting the “glories of suffering” like he’s a Biblical epistle writer or something.  There is a “Russian narrative” about the Ukrainian government overthrow in Feb of 2014.  But it would seem to me that is Putin were at least “at the table” we would establish the facts of the coup as to exactly what happen.  If your argument is over the facts, why not nail down those facts once and for all and establish one narrative as True, and establish the other narrative as False?

 I watched Hillary’s speech in “Four Freedoms Park” and the picture this day was really wasted.  I got the end of the speech but then went back and played the beginning.  It seems the first hour of the thing was just lively music groups, either African or some sort of Cuban rhythms.  Hillary’s speech itself was pretty wasted.  The thing was so cliché ridden and has this typical “ranting quality” Hillary has, that people are going to get pretty tired of that in short order.  Some of the Republicans from the clown car just might have a chance.  I hate to put this so indelicately but many Republicans are thinking "One day soon we'll be free from that Nigger in the White House" and all of Obama's "niggardly" policies.  (Look that word up)  My point is that Hillary went out of her way to indicate she was the third term of an Obama administration - - and just as the foreign policy between Bush and Obama was seamless, it will be the same between Obama and HIllary.  She made it pretty clear that "If you like (or don't like) Obama, you'll feel the same way about Me.  They want to know what HIllary is going to do about the Federal Reserve or trying to secure that "Peace dividend" her husband talked so much about, and what about the Trans-Canada pipeline?  Is she for it?  Is Hillary for fracking?  Most of all they want to know about Hillary's position on the Trans Pacific Partnership, which is the issue of the day.  They don't care that much about getting ten weeks off per year in paid sick leave, which is something few employers would tollerate, or "taking the dog to the vet".  And they aren't concerned about increasing the number of immigrants competing for a dwindeling number of jobs.  They want to know whether Hillary is going to change the tax laws so businesses aren't paid to relocate off shore and take US jobs with them.  I heard none of this in Hillary's speech.  All I heard was a lot of cliche laden fluff and hype.

In terms of Barock Obama being a secret “agent” or something and a “plant” in the White House, it’s about as extreme on the left as the “2016” movie was on the right.  Obama said “Interesting things happen in the fourth quarter”.  Clearly allying himself with the hard core Republicans is a major position turn-about.   So is Obama really a "plant" in the White House of the Ford Foundation, who have been funding not only Barock himself but his parents too, for decades?  How many people's parents met in Russian class in Hawaii?  Any particular reason why they were interested in Russian?  For vintage Born Again Christians Washington’s blog today is a walk down memory lane.  He talked about David Rockefeller and the Builderberger organization and one world government, and how NATO is tied in with the whole thing.  At the end of WW II there was early rumblings about it and even FDR had visions of a one world democratic government.  But then in 1955 after FDR and Truman were gone, the thing evolved into a more fascistic and corporate organization.  I think even Brazhinski’s name got tossed into the mix.  The early part of this article was saying how the founding fathers regarded a treaty as the same as an alliance, and both should be discouraged “because it diminishes the atmosphere of friendship and honesty and fairness with all nations”.  Washington preached about becoming involved in entangling alliances- - which are the same as treaties, and even the dictionary says so.

 It’s been five months since I gave my general “sell” signal for the securities markets.  If you had sold then you would have lost the five percent of principal gains that we’ve had in the last five months.  We are in, in technical terms, an ascending wedge that’s flat on the top and rising on the bottom, and it’s getting narrower and narrow as we make our way down to the point (or apex) of it.  The distance is so small now it can be spanned in one day’s trading.  If you had bought stocks five months ago you’d have made five percent.  But you have to ask yourself right now if you had a bi-polar choice, would you rather be buying or selling right now.  Clearly my prediction of a June dip was scuttled by that one 250 point rise we had in a single day.   How do you (for lack of a better term) “feel” about the general economy now?

Breakfast with the Beatles was an all Paul Mc Cartney day.  Laurence Jubar was on and he played “I saw her standing there” on acoustic guitar, and don’t even ask me how he makes one guitar sound like two guitars.  They also played a Jubar solo of “Let it Be” recorded in 1979.  And Laurence Jubar played on the Live bonus track of “It’s Coming Up” on the Mc Cartney II album.  They played “If it happened to You” from Back to the Egg.  In terms of “What was Paul Mc Cartney doing fifty years ago today?”, the answer is “Recording three songs, “I’ve Just Seen a Face”, “I’m Really Down”, and “Yesterday”, a good day’s work. They also played “Dear Boy” and “Little Woman Love” and “Tomorrow” and “Get on the Right Thing” and “Beware My Love”.   But when you think about it, they really didn’t cover that many songs.  I went out for snacks and had two glasses of punch.  We had domestically made pizza for lunch for the first time in quite some months.  Dora came by with partial seconds which I had.