Obama warns China on South Sea expansion

 I think he meant yellow.

President Obama calls on China to halt advances in disputed South China Sea

President Obama called on China to halt land reclamation and construction in the disputed South China Sea in his latest show of support for Southeast Asian nations unnerved by China’s assertiveness in the region.

Obama met Wednesday with Philippine President Benign Aquino III on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Manila, where he called for “bold steps” to lower tensions over the contested waters.

The last time Barry took bold steps it was to get to the bathroom because he had diarrhea.

China claims most of the South China Sea, creating a fault-line in relations with its Southeast Asian neighbors including the Philippines and Vietnam.

Through land reclamation, China has created artificial islands from reefs to bolster its claims. But the U.S. has recently responded with military maneuvers near the islands to show it won’t allow freedom of navigation to be compromised in seas that are crucial to political stability in Asia and global trade.

Obama said he and Aquino discussed the impact that China’s land reclamation is having on regional stability. He’s said that maritime disputes need to be resolved peacefully.

“We agree on the need for bold steps to lower tensions, including pledging to halt further reclamation, new construction, and militarization of disputed areas in the South China Sea,” Obama said.

Aquino said freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea must be continuously ensured, consistent with international law.

South China Sea disputes and the Paris attacks have overshadowed the trade- and business-focused agenda of the annual APEC summit.

China’s president Xi Jinping did not mention the South China Sea in his speech Wednesday to a business conference held alongside APEC.

The 21-member bloc accounts for about 60 percent of global GDP. It groups the United States and China with midlevel powers such as Australia as well as developing nations in Asia and South America.

Obama warns China on South Sea expansion

More than half the nation's governors say Syrian refugees not welcome

So what we have is Republican governors who are more concerned about citizen safety juxtaposed to Democratic  governors who are more concerned about political correctness. Another interesting facet is Federal law trumps State law. So if this is the case why are sanctuary cities allowed to exist in direct violation? 

At least one guy in Europe gets it. Maybe we should take a cue from him.

Please watch to the end. Sorry about the lip sync.

Video 171  

When Muslims immigrate to a new country they take no pride, have no loyalty, and show no patriotism for that new country. Because the goal never was assimilation... it is colonization.

For the most part there are two basic groups of Muslims. Those who commit the atrocities and those who give their tacit approval by keeping their mouth shut. 

Barry at the G20 Summit... “ISIS is a handful of killers brutalizing local populations." 

Then how do you explain this?

Soccer Fans Boo Paris Moment Of Silence, Chant ‘Allah Akbar’

More from the "religion of peace" 

Al Jazeera poll suggests 81 percent of Arab Muslims support ISIS

Think it may be a bit more than a handful.

------------------------------------------------

More than half the nation's governors say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, although the final say on this contentious immigration issue will fall to the federal government. 

Since they can't fight it out of the 10,000 ship 5,000 to Washington DC, deposit 3,000 in Pelosi's neighborhood and ship the other 2,000 to Reid's.

States protesting the admission of refugees range from Alabama and Georgia, to Texas and Arizona, to Michigan and Illinois, to Maine and New Hampshire. Among these 31 states, all but one have Republican governors. 

The announcements came after authorities revealed that at least one of the suspects believed to be involved in the Paris terrorist attacks entered Europe among the current wave of Syrian refugees. He had falsely identified himself as a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad and was allowed to enter Greece in early October.

Some leaders say they either oppose taking in any Syrian refugees being relocated as part of a national program or asked that they be particularly scrutinized as potential security threats. 

Only 1,500 Syrian refugees have been accepted into the United States since 2011, but the Obama administration announced in September that 10,000 Syrians will be allowed entry next year.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Monday, "Defeating ISIS involves projecting American ideals to the world. Governors who reject those fleeing war and persecution abandon our ideals and instead project our fears to the world." 

Authority over admitting refugees to the country, though, rests with the federal government -- not with the states -- though individual states can make the acceptance process much more difficult, experts said.

American University law professor Stephen I. Vladeck put it this way: "Legally, states have no authority to do anything because the question of who should be allowed in this country is one that the Constitution commits to the federal government." But Vladeck noted that without the state's participation, the federal government would have a much more arduous task. 

"So a state can't say it is legally objecting, but it can refuse to cooperate, which makes thing much more difficult."

Kevin Appleby, director of migration policy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said one tactic states could use would be to cut their own funding in areas such as resettling refugees. The conference is the largest refugee resettlement organization in the country.

But "when push comes to shove, the federal government has both the plenary power and the power of the 1980 Refugee Act to place refugees anywhere in the country," Appleby said.

More than 250,000 people have died since the violence broke out in Syria in 2011, and at least 11 million people in the country of 22 million have fled their homes. Syrians are now the world's largest refugee population, according to the United Nations. Most are struggling to find safe haven in Europe.

In announcing that his state would not accept any Syrian refugees, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted Monday on his personal account, "I demand the U.S. act similarly," he said. "Security comes first."

In a letter to President Barack Obama, Abbott said "American humanitarian compassion could be exploited to expose Americans to similar deadly danger," referring to Friday's deadly attacks in Paris. 

In a statement from Georgia's governor, Republican Nathan Deal, he said Georgia will not accept Syrian refugees "until the federal government and Congress conducts a thorough review of current screening procedures and background checks."

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley also rejected the possibility of allowing Syrian refugees into his state and connected refugees with potential terror threats.

"After full consideration of this weekend's attacks of terror on innocent citizens in Paris, I will oppose any attempt to relocate Syrian refugees to Alabama through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program," Bentley said Sunday in a statement.

"As your governor, I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm's way."

There is currently no credible threat against the state, the governor's office said, and no Syrian refugees have been relocated to Alabama so far. 

As the list of states blocking refugees grows, at least one state, Delaware, announced that it plans to accept refugees.

"It is unfortunate that anyone would use the tragic events in Paris to send a message that we do not understand the plight of these refugees, ignoring the fact that the people we are talking about are fleeing the perpetrators of terror," Gov. Jack Markell said in a statement.

States cannot refuse refugees, but they can make it difficult

States whose governors oppose Syrian refugees coming in:

-- Alabama 

-- Arizona 

-- Arkansas 

-- Florida 

-- Georgia

-- Idaho

-- Illinois 

-- Indiana 

-- Iowa

-- Kansas

-- Louisiana 

-- Maine

-- Maryland

-- Massachusetts 

-- Michigan 

-- Mississippi

-- Nebraska

-- Nevada

-- New Hampshire

-- New Jersey 

-- New Mexico

-- North Carolina

-- North Dakota

-- Ohio 

-- Oklahoma

-- South Carolina

-- South Dakota

-- Tennessee

-- Texas

-- Wisconsin

-- Wyoming

States whose governors say they will accept refugees:

-- Colorado 

-- Connecticut

-- Delaware

-- Hawaii

-- Pennsylvania

-- Vermont

-- Washington

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder said the state would "put on hold our efforts to accept new refugees."

"Michigan is a welcoming state and we are proud of our rich history of immigration. But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents," he said in a statement. 

Snyder demanded that the Department of Homeland Security review its security procedures for vetting refugees but avoided blanket suspicion of people from any region.

"It's also important to remember that these attacks are the efforts of extremists and do not reflect the peaceful ways of people of Middle Eastern descent here and around the world," Snyder said.

And Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson posted on his official Twitter account that he would "oppose Syrian refugees being relocated to Arkansas."

As Governor I will oppose Syrian refugees being relocated to Arkansas.— Gov. Asa Hutchinson (@AsaHutchinson) November 16, 2015

Mississippi, Ohio bristle at taking refugees

The governors of Ohio and Mississippi announced their states would not allow Syrian refugees. 

Jim Lynch, a spokesman for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, issued this statement: 

"The governor doesn't believe the U.S. should accept additional Syrian refugees because security and safety issues cannot be adequately addressed. The governor is writing to the President to ask him to stop, and to ask him to stop resettling them in Ohio. We are also looking at what additional steps Ohio can take to stop resettlement of these refugees."

Kasich is a Republican presidential candidate. 

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant wrote on Facebook that he was working with the state's homeland security department to "determine the current status of any Syrian refugees that may be brought to our state in the near future.

"I will do everything humanly possible to stop any plans from the Obama administration to put Syrian refugees in Mississippi. The policy of bringing these individuals into the country is not only misguided, it is extremely dangerous. I'll be notifying President Obama of my decision today to resist this potential action."

Louisiana: 'Kept in the dark'

Louisiana governor and GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal complained bitterly in an open letter to Obama that the federal government had not informed his government about refugees being relocated to his state last week.

Iraqi official: ISIS leader ordered attacks 

"It is irresponsible and severely disconcerting to place individuals, who may have ties to ISIS, in a state without the state's knowledge or involvement," Jindal said in his letter Saturday.

He demanded to know more about the people being placed in Louisiana to avoid a repeat of the Paris attacks and wanted to know whether screening would be intensified for refugees holding Syrian passports. 

And he suggested Obama hold off on taking in more refugees.

"It would be prudent to pause the process of refugees coming to the United States. Authorities need to investigate what happened in Europe before this problem comes to the United States," Jindal said.

Republican candidate Donald Trump called accepting Syrian refugees "insane."

"We all have heart and we all want people taken care of, but with the problems our country has, to take in 250,000 -- some of whom are going to have problems, big problems -- is just insane. We have to be insane. Terrible," Donald Trump said at a rally in Beaumont, Texas. 

It's not clear why Trump used the 250,000 figure. 

The Obama administration has previously announced plans to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. 

While addressing reporters on Monday, Obama called out Republican candidates who have objected to admitting refugees to the United States. 

"When I hear a political leader suggesting that there should be a religious test for which a person who is fleeing from a war torn country is admitted... when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that is shameful," the President said. "We don't have religious tests to our compassion."

New York: 'Virtually no vetting'

A senior White House security official attempted to allay concerns about the vetting of Syrian refugees.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said, "We have very extensive screening procedures for all Syrian refugees who have come to the United States. There is a very careful vetting process that includes our intelligence community, our National Counter Terrorism Center, the Department of Homeland Security, so we can make sure that we are carefully screening anybody that comes to the United States." 

New York Rep. Peter King, speaking on Fox News, cast doubt on Rhodes' comments.

"What he said about the vetting of the refugees is untrue. There is virtually no vetting cause there are no databases in Syria, there are no government records. We don't know who these people are." 

On Sunday, investigators said that one of the Paris bombers carried Syrian identification papers -- possibly forged -- and the fear of Syrian refugees grew worse.

"It's not that we don't want to -- it's that we can't," Florida Sen. and Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "Because there's no way to background check someone that's coming from Syria." 

---------------------------------

Update:

Paris terror attack mastermind killed in raid

Good job France

Now all they have to do is shit down his throat wrap him in pig's blood stick a pound of bacon up his ass before dumping him the local landfill.

More than half the nation's governors say Syrian refugees not welcome

It's all about them: Mizzou, Black Lives protesters say Paris attacks took spotlight off them

Talk about desperate for attention.

 Must have went by me. Tell me again. How many people were killed and at the University of Missouri? 

BTW...Black football players at Missouri threatened to quit playing unless the president of the university resigns. With a conference record of 1 and 5 it seems they already did.

----------------------------------------------

The deadly terror attacks in Paris killed at least 129, but to some protesters in the Black Lives Matter movement and at the University of Missouri, it's all about them.

Student protests and outrage over the school's handling of racial issues has brought national attention to the school -- which some students have come to define as a hotbed of racism. Recent racist incidents led to protests including one student's hunger strike and a threatened boycott by the football team. The university system president and the campus chancellor resigned.

After at least 129 people were killed by ISIS in coordinated attacks on Friday, several student protesters at Missouri took to Twitter to express anger at "losing the spotlight" in the media.

"Racist white people kill me, you want everyone to have sympathy for YOUR tragedy, but you have none for ours," wrote user Melanin Monroe under the Twitter handle @NeonElectricity in a post that has since been removed.

Interesting how the news reports are covering the Paris terrorist attacks but said nothing about the terrorist attack at #Mizzou ��☕️��

— Kyra (@_kyrahardy) November 14, 2015

(Believe me baby...when your this stupid going to college ain't gonna help)

Others, like user "dog enthusiast," under the handle @bmahimaaa, equated the slaughter in Paris with the racial tensions in Missouri -- calling both "terrorism."

"Paris attacks were terrorism," the user wrote. "black students getting death threats on their college campuses (A SUPPOSED SAFE SPACE!!) is also TERRORISM."

The tweet -- which is now under a protected account -- had 204 retweets and 237 "likes" as of Tuesday afternoon.

It's all about them: Mizzou, Black Lives protesters say Paris attacks took spotlight off them

At Democratic Debate, Bernie Sanders Says Climate Change Helps Terrorism Spread

When I was just a kid and had to take a bus there was an old man who regularly sat in the back. He habitually wore the same rumpled, grungy, sweater buttoned to the top, even when it was blistering hot. I remember his disheveled hair, that wild eyed look, and episodes of periodic outbursts of lunacy.

Well...he's back.

-----------------------------------

One day after the Islamic State group killed or injured about 500 people in a series of attacks in Paris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., linked climate change to the spread of terrorist groups overseas. At the second Democratic presidential debate, held Saturday in Des Moines, Iowa, Sanders was asked whether he stood by his previous claims that climate change was the No. 1 threat to national security. He said he did.

"Climate change is directly related to the rise of global terrorism," Sanders said, adding that it would cause nations to start "struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you're going to see all kinds of international conflict," ABC News reported. Sanders backed up his statement by mentioning what "the CIA says," a likely reference to a July 2015 report from the U.S. Department of Defense that found "global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries," according to a news release.

Going into Saturday's debate, Sanders was trailing front-runner Hillary Clinton in the polls -- the former Secretary of State had 56 percent of the vote, and he had about 32. The duo had left former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley far behind, however, with the support of only about 3 percent of likely Democratic primary voters, according to the survey aggregator HuffPost Pollster.

In preparing for the debate, pundits told Politico the candidates were thinking ahead to the February Iowa caucus. With Saturday's event in Des Moines, the debate was seen as a chance to score points with important voters. Sanders planned to be aggressive but respectful, while Clinton was likely to stay cool and collected.

"I wouldn't launch negative attacks. I don't think there's any big reason to do it right now," adviser Bob Shrum told Politico. "Going into the first debate, they were very worried about Sanders' surge. And I don't think he's still surging."

O'Malley, who gained valuable exposure during the first debate, on Oct. 13, was expected to continue attacking his opponents. It was risky but possibly necessary to keep him in the race. "I think he has to hit Clinton. Go after the queen, so to speak," political journalist Douglas Burns told the Des Moines Register.



Meanwhile in Bill's world...

(click)

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

At Democratic Debate, Bernie Sanders Says Climate Change Helps Terrorism Spread

It’s time for Obama to make a choice: Lead or resign | New York Post

God forbid there came an all out war and our fate rested in the hands of this incompetent imbecile. That's right... he's either a Muslim (which would account for his actions) or an incompetent imbecile. Take you choice. Either way he's got to go. 

Anyone remember Reagan "leading from behind"? 

----------------------------------------

In any time and place, war is fiendishly simple. It is the ultimate zero-sum contest — you win or you lose. 

That eternal truth is so obvious that it should not need to be said. Yet even after the horrific slaughter in Paris, there remains a distressing doubt about whether America's commander in chief gets it.

President Obama has spent the last seven years trying to avoid the world as it is. He has put his intellect and rhetorical skills into the dishonorable service of assigning blame and fudging failure. If nuances were bombs, the Islamic State would have been destroyed years ago.

He refuses to say "Islamic terrorism," as if that would offend the peaceful Muslims who make up the vast bulk of victims. He rejects the word "war," even as jihadists carry out bloodthirsty attacks against Americans and innocent peoples around the world.

He shuns the mantle of global leadership that comes with the Oval Office, with an aide advancing the preposterous concept that Obama is "leading from behind." He snubs important partners like Egypt, showers concessions on the apocalyptic mullahs of Iran, and called the Islamic State the "jayvee team" even as it was beginning to create a caliphate.

Having long ago identified American power as a problem, he continues to slash the military as the enemy expands its reach. In a globalized era, the Obama doctrine smacks of cowardly retreat and fanciful isolation.

In an accident of timing that captures his cluelessness, the president actually declared on Friday morning that the Islamic State had been "contained," practically boasting in a TV interview that "They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria."

What gall. What folly.

Paris is the final straw. Obama's exemption from reality has expired. He must either commit to leading the free world to victory, or step aside so someone else can.

There is no more time to avoid the truth of war. America must organize the combined forces of the civilized world before the Islamic State makes good on its vow to "taste" more American blood.

If Obama cannot rise to the challenge of leadership in this historic crisis, then, for the good of humanity, he should resign.

As a top intelligence adviser told me yesterday, "What they did in Paris means they are coming here."

In fact, they already are here. Law enforcement officials say the FBI has as many as 1,000 investigations open into Islamic State sympathizers inside the US.

Is America ready to stop multiple assault teams of suicide bombers? Is New York ready? Or Chicago, Los Angeles or Washington, DC?

Because Paris was a grand success to the terrorists, the propaganda value acts as an incentive for attacks on other Western cities. While sparing no effort to stop them here, we must simultaneously destroy them in their foreign bases.

World War III began when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States, though we did not grasp the significance until 9/11. The collapse of the Twin Towers, a smoking hole in the Pentagon and a downed jetliner in Pennsylvania revealed the price of our inaction.

The single greatest attack ever against America galvanized the nation and defined a new generation of policymakers and warriors.

Yet Obama always remained curiously cool about the whole endeavor, denouncing the invasion of Iraq as dumb while holding up Afghanistan as a necessary war. Once he got to the White House, though, he showed no conviction about Afghanistan either, surging troops only to demand that they return home quickly.

The pattern has never changed, and his relationship with a rotating cast of military leaders remains rocky. Robert Gates, secretary of defense under both President Bush and Obama, said in his memoir that Obama's distrust of the military was destructive of the very mission he had given the troops.

People in France light candles at a memorial for the victims of the Paris terror attacks. Photo: AP

After a heated 2011 meeting on Afghanistan, Gates concluded that Obama "doesn't believe in his own strategy, and doesn't consider the war to be his. For him, it's all about getting out."

Another former military leader, Gen. Jack Keane, notes that Obama never once agreed to the full request of his commanders. If they ask for 10,000 troops, Obama agrees to 5,000, 3,000 or none.

The raid that got bin Laden marked the high point of Obama's commitment. He turned that achievement into political gold in 2012 and declared the "tide of war is receding" to justify his decision to withdraw from the field of battle.

It was a convenient figment of self-interest, as if his wish would make it true. Instead, the strategic dominos fell quickly as war metastasized. The hard-won gains in Iraq were reversed, Syria descended into hell and the Islamic State was born in the vacuum.

Its ruthlessness and success in capturing territory enabled it to supplant al Qaeda as the most dangerous terrorist network. It has become the proverbial "strong horse," with each terrifying attack bringing more recruits and more financing.

In the last two weeks, it shot down a commercial Russian airliner over Egypt and carried out bombings in Beirut. And then came Paris.

Its ability to inflict unprecedented casualties in such far-flung locations marks a growing strength and sophistication. The terrorists smell weakness and have increased the pace of their aggressive expansion. Their aim of global conquest must be taken seriously.

Photo: Getty ImagesFrench President François Hollande understands the meaning of Friday's slaughter. He called it an "act of war" and vowed that "France will not show any pity" against those who carried out the barbaric acts. World leaders quickly expressed their condolences and condemnation. 

Yet it remains doubtful if our side is truly committed to winning. The determination and unity the free world showed after 9/11 faded as casualties, mistakes and politics eroded the mission.

So we are back to square one again, facing a stronger and more emboldened enemy. The time has run out for half measures and kicking the can down the road. The enemy must be destroyed on the battlefield before there can be any hope of peace.

If Obama cannot rise to the challenge of leadership in this historic crisis, then, for the good of humanity, he should resign. Those are the only options and it is his duty to decide.

It’s time for Obama to make a choice: Lead or resign | New York Post