Over the past several weeks, there’s been a plethora of discussion over Obama’s “strategy” vis-à-vis ISIS (aka ISIL), whether he actually had a strategy and, if so, what it might be.
Well, he certainly had a strategy for the speech he gave last night. Like an entertainer who opens his act with his biggest number, Obama’s strategy was to open his speech with the most blatant, brazen, bald-faced lie imaginable.
It had me livid within the first few minutes of his speech, when he had the colossal gall to state, “First of all, ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.”
“Really?” I found myself yelling at the radio. “What other planet are you on? What other universe or dimension do you inhabit? Have you ever read the ‘most holy Koran’?”
Please! Enough of this “religion of peace” malarkey already!
(This is a drastically cleaned-up version of what I found myself yelling at the radio; I found myself using a great number of intensifying gerunds as my blood pressure soared sky-high.)
It is precisely the fact that the Koran not only condones the killing of innocents but encourages it, Nay, demands it, that distinguishes Islam from all the other religions of the world, and reveals it as something other than a religion; it exposes Islam as a socio-political construct masquerading as a religion.
Surah 9:29 of the Koran, for instance:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
As the Investigative Project on Terrorism points out, ISIS is devoutly following this Koranic injunction:
Christians have become subject to the jizyah, or poll tax, since IS seized Raqqa in Syria earlier this year and Mosul in Iraq earlier this summer. Those subject to the jizyah face death if they refuse to pay or convert to Islam. IS similarly cited the Islamic law book known as “Reliance of the Traveler” to justify killing Yazidis and requiring them to convert to its brand of Islam to be spared.
Even the phrase “the killing of innocents” doesn’t adequately reflect the mindset of Islam’s “holy book”. Islam’s quest for world domination by force is driven by the wholesale slaughter of innocents. It informs its adherents that Allah smiles on the wholesale slaughter of innocents, and that the more innocents sent to their doom, the more favor Muslims will curry with their “god”.
Of course, by Islamic “logic”, there are no “innocents”; they are all guilty, guilty of being “infidels”, and they are worthy only of conversion, enslavement, dhimmitude or death, with death being the preferred outcome (and usually delivered in the most violent, barbaric, bloodthirsty, gory, inhuman and diabolical means imaginable).
The fact that fellow Muslims are enslaved, mutilated and slain with the very same demonic glee proves nothing; even those slain (presumably for not being “Muslim enough”) held in their heart of hearts the same view of “the infidel”.
This is the very core of Islam; not “radical Islam”, not “fundamentalist Islam”, but Islam per se. It’s not a “perversion” of Islam; it’s not Islam that has been “hijacked”; it is intrinsic to Islam, and always has been.
Anyone who says otherwise is simply not paying attention, is willfully turning a blind eye to the obvious, or is complicit in furthering Islam’s murderous agenda. It certainly indicates a total ignorance of Islam’s history, which chronicles Islam’s mission of world domination by force that has been an integral part of this so-called “religion” since its very inception.
It really didn’t matter to me what other lies Obama perpetrated in the remainder of his speech (I’ll leave it to others to deconstruct and expose his other falsehoods, like his doubletalk about Syria); I might have even said to myself, “At this point, what difference does it make?”
Obama must have figured (and perhaps rightly so, given the already dumbed-down state of so much of the American populace, thanks in part to a half-century of relentless propaganda and undermining of the educational system) that if the people would swallow that first shameless, unabashed lie, they’d swallow anything. Sadly, and tragically for our once-great nation, I fear that he was right.
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to condemn President Obama for violating federal law after Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was exchanged for five Taliban leaders held at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“Condemning the Obama administration’s failure to comply with the lawful statutory requirement to notify Congress before releasing individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expressing national security concerns over the release of five Taliban leaders and the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists.”
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel testified before the House Armed Services Committee in June that negotiations to transfer five Taliban detainees had been ongoing for months.
In August, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report detailing how the Department of Defense violated the Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Appropriations Act by not reporting to Congress the Bergdahl/Taliban plan.
The resolution was introduced by Republicans Scott Rigell of Virginia and Reid Ribble of Wisconsin, and Democrats John Barrow of Georgia and Nick Rahall of West Virginia. Both Democrats are in competitive re-election campaigns.
Rigell condemned the Obama administration in a press release shortly after the vote, saying “The President ignored the law by failing to notify Congress of this serious decision.”
The thirty day notification requirement is not a perfunctory administrative action; it is not like breaking a lease with your landlord. The law exists to provide Congress time to consider serious national security decisions such as releasing terrorists like the Taliban five.
Barrow added in a press release of his own, “This transfer poses a major national security risk, and it complicates our efforts to combat terrorism worldwide. The President cannot treat congress as an afterthought or adversary, particularly with decisions impacting our national security and especially since, in this case, Congress could have helped the President get this decision right.”
As a resolution, it does not have the force of law and will not be considered in the Senate.
Yesterday on Meet the Press, Obama told Chuck Todd that he was not specifically referring to ISIL in his infamous JV quote from the New Yorker in January:
TODD: “Long way, long way from when you described them as a JV team. Was that bad intelligence or your misjudgment?”
OBAMA: “Keep in mind I wasn’t specifically referring to ISIL. I’ve said that, regionally, there were a whole series of organizations that were focused primarily locally, weren’t focused on homeland, because I think a lot of us, when we think about terrorism, the model is Osama bin Laden and 9/11.”
But Politifact disagreed and gave the above statement by Obama a big fat LIE after contacting the author of the New Yorker piece in which the quote was originally published:
Critics have maligned Obama’s “JV” remark in recent weeks as the Islamic State continues to wreak havoc throughout Syria and Iraq. The origin of the comment is a New Yorker profile of Obama by editor David Remnick. The New Yorker published Remnick’s profile on Jan. 27, 2014. In it, he wrote, “In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been ‘decimated.’ I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Fallujah, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.”
Obama responded: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” (For the nonsports fan, JV stands for junior varsity, and it usually means a high school or college’s secondary team.)
Remnick confirmed to PolitiFact that the interview took place on Jan. 7 and he was referencing a specific event that had happened just days before: the overtaking of the Iraq city of Fallujah on Jan. 3.
Al Jazeera America reported on Jan. 4: “On Friday, ISIL gunmen sought to win over the population in Fallujah, one of the cities they swept into on Wednesday. A commander appeared among worshippers holding Friday prayers in the main city street, proclaiming that his fighters were there to defend Sunnis from the government, one resident said.
Officials within the Iraqi government told the “Agence France-Presse that ISIL, the al Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, remained in control of parts of the two cities on Thursday,” according to NBC.
So when Remnick referenced an al Qaeda group taking over Fallujah, it’s clear whom he was talking about.
Obama said his JV comment “wasn’t specifically referring to ISIL.” He was not specifically asked about Islamic State, but it’s pretty clear this is the group that was being referenced in the conversation. The transcript backs this up, as do news events from the time of the discussion.
We rate the statement False.
And there it is. A big fat lie.
So first he blames bad intelligence and when that doesn’t work, he claims he was talking about something else.
Two Russian strategic bombers conducted practice cruise missile attacks on the United States during a training mission last week that defense officials say appeared timed to the NATO summit in Wales.
The Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers were tracked flying a route across the northern Atlantic near Iceland, Greenland, and Canada’s northeast.
Analysis of the flight indicated the aircraft were conducting practice runs to a pre-determined “launch box” – an optimum point for firing nuclear-armed cruise missiles at U.S. targets, said defense officials familiar with intelligence reports.
Disclosure of the nuclear bombing practice comes as a Russian general last week called for Moscow to change its doctrine to include preemptive nuclear strikes on the United States and NATO.
Gen. Yuri Yakubov, a senior Defense Ministry official, was quoted by the state-run Interfax news agency as saying that Russia’s 2010 military doctrine should be revised to identify the United States and the NATO alliance as enemies, and clearly outline the conditions for a preemptive nuclear strike against them.
Yakubov said among other needed doctrinal changes, “it is necessary to hash out the conditions under which Russia could carry out a preemptive strike with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces” – Moscow’s nuclear forces.
The practice bombing runs are the latest in a series of incidents involving threatening Russian bomber flights near the United States. Analysts say the bomber flights are nuclear saber-rattling by Moscow as a result of heightened tensions over the crisis in Ukraine.
A spokesman for the U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command declined to comment on the bomber flights in the North Atlantic.
No U.S. or Canadian fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the Bear-H bombers since the aircraft stayed outside the North American Air Defense Identification Zone.
Additional details of the incident that took place over the Labrador Sea, the stretch of the Atlantic between Greenland and Canada’s Labrador Peninsula, could not be learned.
However, officials said it took place during the NATO summit in Wales that was held Thursday and Friday.
The summit statement criticized “Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine [which] have fundamentally challenged our vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.”
In response to Russia’s actions, the alliance agreed to create a new Very High Readiness Joint Task Force in Eastern Europe that can deploy military forces in days.
“If required, they will also facilitate reinforcement of allies located at NATO’s periphery for deterrence and collective defense,” the NATO statement said.
U.S. Army troops will lead an international military exercise inside western Ukraine later this month. The exercises, known as “Rapid Trident 2014,” will begin Sept. 15 and include troops from several NATO and NATO-partner states, including Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Georgia, Germany, Britain, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the United States.
Russian nuclear forces will conduct a large-scale exercise in mid-September, state news agencies reported.
The Tu-95 is a nuclear-capable bomber that is outfitted with six AS-15 nuclear-armed cruise missiles. The missiles have a range of over 1,800 miles.
Google Earth analysis reveals that a Tu-95 launch box located in the Labrador Sea and firing AS-15 missiles would be in range of Ottawa, New York, Washington, and Chicago, and could reach as far south as the Norfolk Naval base.
However, air-launched cruise missiles fired from that location and outside the air defense identification zone would be unable to reach Kings Bay, Georgia – the homeport for U.S. ballistic missile submarines and a key strategic nuclear target.
Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon strategic policymaker and currently senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, said Russian leaders frequently issue public nuclear threats because they regard their nuclear arsenal as the main element of their great power status.
“Putin began what he called bomber ‘combat patrols’ in 2007 and they continue,” Schneider said. “They are designed to intimidate as well as practice nuclear bomber attacks.”
Schneider said that since the Ukraine crisis triggered by Moscow’s military annexation of Crimea, “there have been substantial numbers of all types of standard Russian nuclear threats.”
He said the threats have included nuclear exercises, bomber flights, and public statements, including Putin’s suggestion that NATO ‘not mess with us’ because Moscow remains a nuclear power.
Northern Command has confirmed that Russian strategic bomber flights increased sharply over the past six months.
Last month, at least 16 bomber incursions by the Russians took place within the northwestern U.S. and Canadian air defense zones over a period 10 days. It was the largest number of incursions since the end of the Cold War. U.S. fighter jets intercepted the Russian aircraft and followed them until they excited the defense zone.
In June, Russian bombers flew over the arctic prompting intercepts by Canadian fighters on two occasions. The Canadian government called the stepped up bomber flights a “strategic message” from Moscow amid heightened tensions.
And on June 20, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the test launch of six AS-15 missiles from a Bear bomber during military exercises.
That same month, on June 9, two Russian Bear bombers flew within 50 miles of the California coast in the closest strategic bomber flights near a U.S. coast since the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Admiral Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, which is in charge of nuclear forces, said last month that he is concerned both by large-scale Russian nuclear exercises and by increased bomber flights near the United States.
“Clearly, we at the U.S. Strategic Command do monitor the strategic environment,” Haney said noting large-scale nuclear exercises during the Ukraine crisis.
“Any nation state has the right to train,” he added. “It’s just interesting how that information [on nuclear forces exercises] is readily available on YouTube. Clearly, the actions associated with Ukraine are problematic.”
On long-range strategic aircraft flights, Haney said: “I will say that the business of them coming close to the United States of America, we take very seriously.”
Two weeks ago, President Obama took time out from his vacation to speak to the American people. Oddly, he didn’t talk about ISIS, Ukraine, the Islamist takeover of Tripoli or even border security here at home.
No, what lured the president from the links of Martha’s Vineyard to a radio microphone was the opportunity to publicly urge American businesses to lobby Congress to keep funding the U.S. Export-Import Bank.
It’s a profoundly offbeat topic for the president’s weekly radio address. After all, most Americans know nothing about the bank. Heck, most American business executives know nothing about the bank.
In fact, one of the president’s most disingenuous claims was that the bank is all about small business. According to Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy, the bank provides export financing for just 0.04 percent of America’s small businesses.
Main Street business owners could care less about the Ex-Im Bank. The people who do care about it are the kind of folks who hang out with the president at Martha’s Vineyard. Mr. Obama’s statement had everything to do with making them happy – and nothing to do with asking Congress to do something for everyday Americans.
Congress chartered the Export-Import Bank in 1934 as a government credit agency. Basically, it provides loans and loan guarantees to foreign companies interested in buying U.S.-made products. There may have been an argument for such services at the height of the Depression, when banks were down and out and money was scarce. But eighty years later, it’s far from clear why American taxpayers need to finance a government-owned enterprise to do the work that the private sector could handle quite easily. After all, 98 percent of U.S. exports get along fine without the bank. It makes no sense to saddle taxpayers with $140 billion in exposure to promote a thin slice of America’s foreign sales.
More than three-quarters of the bank’s total lending goes to just a handful of big companies, and all of them are well established in the international markets. These favored few have ready access to capital through normal channels. It’s hard to justify putting taxpayer dollars at risk for them – especially in light of the many problems that have surfaced at the bank. For example, the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform recently had a hearing exploring allegations of fraud and corruption related to the bank. The Inspector General concluded that the bank lacks sufficient policies to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.
Further, the bank is no free lunch. Channeling billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to facilitate purchases from some American companies puts other American firms at a competitive disadvantage. Ex-Im financing of coal mining in Colombia or copper excavation in Mexico, for example, contributes to job losses among domestic producers.
The bank is a small example of a much bigger problem. There is too much government in our economy, and that undermines efforts to promote economic freedom at home and abroad.
According to the “Index of Economic Freedom,” co-published by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, economic freedom in the United States has declined for seven consecutive years – to the point that we have dropped out of the list of the world’s ten freest economies.
Indeed, our economy today is no longer classified as “free”; it is merely “mostly free.” Much of the decline can be traced to too much government and too much government intervention in the free market.
Yes, other governments may cook the books to prop up some of their exports. But that’s no excuse for the United States to do the same. Instead of copying bad economic policies from socialist countries, the United States should embrace policies that promote economic freedom for all.
Less than 48 hours after President Obama vowed to “defend Estonia,” Russian goons kidnapped an Estonian cop to demonstrate just what U.S. red lines are worth. Any questions as to the nature of the threat?
The abduction of Internal Security Service officer Eston Kohver from Estonia was no ordinary criminal act.
The Russians who took him jammed police radios, tossed a smoke grenade, seized Kohver and marched him into Russia at gunpoint. They then falsely claimed that he was caught spying on Russian soil.
It was nonsense. Estonia’s leaders have said it was clearly a targeted attack and very serious, coming as it did two days after Obama made his strongest-worded speech ever on U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance.
“The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London,” Obama said. “Article Five is crystal clear. An attack on one is an attack on all.
“So if, in such a moment, you ever ask again, who will come to help, you’ll know the answer: the NATO alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America, right here, present, now.”
Well, it’s into the “right here, present, now” that Vladimir Putin has stuck his face.
His swift effort to nullify Obama’s words is no different from his immediate neutralization of Obama’s red line in Syria, a chess move that left Putin the dominant player in that country.
With this latest provocation, on the heels of his invasion of Ukraine, as well as new airspace incursions over the Baltics and even Finland, Putin has again made the promises of the leader of the Free World sound hollow.
The message here is that Russia can do whatever it likes in the region that it considers its near abroad, and no NATO alliance is going to be effective in stopping it.
The Kohver abduction will have a terrible effect on Eastern Europe, which has just seen a bullied Ukraine sign a “peace” treaty with Russia. Ukraine had no choice, since the U.S. and EU failed to do much to help it defend itself.
Putin picked on Estonia because it had the gall to host an American president and to forge an alliance with NATO. No doubt, he wants to see if NATO is a real mutual defense alliance – or a paper tiger.