Most Transparent Administration Ever: No, you can’t see Obama’s emails to Hillary at her private address he didn’t know about

November 2, 2015

satire transparency

And no way was he looking at the address when he entered it or sent it, so he didn’t know, okay? Racist!

From Doug Powers writing at Michelle Malkin’s blog:

President Obama said previously he was unaware at the time Hillary Clinton was secretary of state that she used only a private email address. Now the White House is refusing to release emails between Obama and Hillary… the ones he sent to the email address he was unaware she used. It’s the kind of honesty and historic transparency we’ve come to expect.

Here’s one good, likely reason Obama doesn’t want those emails to come into the public eye:

Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.

We know Obama and Clinton talked by phone that night at around 10 PM, at about the same time she issued her infamous “It was that darned video’s fault!” statement, and 45 minutes before she told her daughter it was an Al Qaeda attack. Election Day was just a couple of months away, and Obama had staked a large portion of his claim to reelection on the assertion that “Al Qaeda was on the run.” In fact, for two full weeks after the night of the attack, he kept claiming falsely that the video was to blame — even in a speech to the UN General Assembly.

Now, do you think it possible any emails in that time period dealt with the events of that night and what public spin they should give? Coordinating stories, perhaps? Guess we’ll never know, since Hillary probably deleted them and Obama won’t give them up, and will likely delete them when he leaves office. (1)

Got to love that commitment to transparency.

(1) Oh, come on. We’re talking about a leftist who learned his political trade in Chicago! Of course he’ll delete them.

If the President Wants “Common Sense” Gun Laws, He Should Support Liberalization rather than Confiscation

October 9, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

Remember, folks: Gun-free zones *create* targets. They don’t protect people.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

I don’t necessarily blame President Obama for seeking to politicize tragic mass shootings. His actions may be a bit unseemly, but also understandable if he truly believes that disarming law-abiding people is the best way to reduce carnage.

That being said, this charitable interpretation only applies if the President sincerely pushes his preferred policies.

Yet Charles Krauthammer, writing for National Review, points out that there’s a remarkable disconnect. The President constantly talks about the need to enact “common-sense gun-safety laws,” but he never tells us what those laws would be.

Within hours, President Obama takes to the microphones to furiously denounce the NRA and its ilk for resisting “commonsense gun-safety laws.” His harangue is totally sincere, totally knee-jerk, and totally pointless. …Nor does Obama propose any legislation. He knows none would pass. But the deeper truth is that it would have made no difference. …notice, by the way, how…

View original 535 more words

White House Blames GOP For $500 million Syrian Rebel Training Fiasco

September 29, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

But of course. Having craftily plotted to destroy Obama’s genius-level Syria strategy, Speaker John Boehner could retire a happy man.

Originally posted on Nice Deb:

We’ve had seven years now of Obama screwing things up and not taking responsibility for it, so it should come as no surprise that he is blaming the GOP for his latest fiasco.

Obama’s $500 million program to train and arm the Syrian rebels has flopped in spectacular fashion,so naturally the craven Obama regime is pretending they had nothing to do with it – it was all the Republicans’ fault.  Obama never thought it would work. He just went along because John McCain and Lindsey Graham were just so goshdarn insistent he couldn’t say no. He didn’t want to hurt John McCain’s feelings, so he magnanimously let him try something big.

It’s offensive frankly, that anyone would point fingers at this president, when the fault so clearly lies with the Republicans in Congress. Obama’s fighting to make the world a better place for you and me, and other people…

View original 638 more words

Obama’s “war” against Isis falls apart

September 23, 2015

These guys would be an improvement.

Writing in the liberal New York Observer, national security analyst John Schindler paints a bleak picture of the Obama administration’s efforts against the Islamic State, which all but concede Syria to Russia:

For the Obama administration, the news from the Middle East keeps going from bad to worse. Vladimir Putin’s power play, moving significant military forces into Syria to support his ailing client, Bashar al-Assad, caught the White House flat footed and unsure how to respond.

Although the administration gave the Kremlin de facto control over American policy in Syria some two years ago when it walked away from its own “red line,” granting Russia a veto on Western action there, President Obama and his national security staff nevertheless seem befuddled by this latest Russian move.

The forces Mr. Putin has just deployed to Syria are impressive, veteran special operators backed by a wing of fighters and ground attack jets that are expected to commence air strikes on Assad’s foes soon. They are backed by air defense units, which is puzzling since the Islamic State has no air force, indicating that the Kremlin’s true intent in Syria has little to do with the stated aim of fighting terrorism and is really about propping up Russia’s longtime client in Damascus.

The White House is left planning “deconfliction” with Moscow—which is diplomatic language for entreating Russians, who now dominate Syrian airspace, not to shoot down American drones, which provide the lion’s share of our intelligence on the Islamic State. The recent meeting on Syrian developments between Mr. Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who clearly finds dealing with the Russian strongman preferable to parleying with President Obama, indicates where power is flowing in today’s Middle East.

Did you catch that last part? After seven years of being pimp-slapped by an at-best indifferent (1) American administration, our strongest enemy in the Middle East feels a need to protect its own interests by “reaching out” to the new power in the area, since we can no longer be counted on.

Team Obama’s foreign policy (and that includes former Secretary of State Clinton) has been an accelerating avalanche since the day it took office and, in the last couple of years, we’ve started seeing the bitter fruit of “smart power.” From the Russian reset and the backstabbing of Poland and the Czech Republic on missile defense, to the withdrawal from Iraq and the total misreading of the Arab Spring and the monumentally bad deal with Iran, I don’t believe our foreign policy has ever been lead by such a toxic mixture of leftist dogmatism and sheer incompetence. What we’re witnessing in the Middle East is the utter –and perhaps deliberate— destruction of an American position built up over 40 years by administrations of both parties.

Go ahead and read the whole thing. And have a stiff drink handy.

(1) And, arguably, anti-Israel or even antisemitic.

Roger L. Simon is oh-so-cynical, and I agree completely with him #IranDeal

August 11, 2015
Above the rules.

In a jam

In the latest entry in his “Diary of a Mad Voter,” Roger wonders why Hillary supports this obviously bad –pardon me, God awful— deal with Iran and, after considering a couple of minor possibilities, hits a three-pointer, nothing but net:

Nevertheless, Hillary has no choice but to support it for two reasons. One: Bernie Sanders is backing it and he is getting all the popular attention on the Democratic side. But that’s minor and perhaps transitory. The major reason is clear and deserves a separate paragraph.

Hillary Clinton is in such deep legal trouble over her emails that she needs the backing of Obama to survive. [itals. mine] He controls the attorney general’s office and therefore he controls Hillary (and her freedom) as long as he is president. Everything she says and does in the presidential campaign must be viewed against this reality. This is further enhanced by her need to hold together Obama’s electoral coalition. But that’s the least of it compared to having erased 32,000 emails, most of which were undoubtedly government property, and done who-knows-what to the server, something that not even Nixon would ever have dreamed of.

“Boom,” as they say. I’ll admit this hadn’t occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense, like the puzzle piece that makes everything else fall into place. Think Roger and I are being too cynical? Consider this story from today:

Hillary Clinton exchanged top secret intelligence, hands over server

Hillary Clinton’s attorneys have given the FBI her private server and thumb drives contains thousands of emails, her campaign told reporters Tuesday night.

Emails exchanged on Clinton’s private server contained “top secret” information, suggesting material housed on her personal email network were classified higher than previously known.

The State Department inspector general told lawmakers of the highly classified emails, which the watchdog uncovered as part of its continuing probe of the server and the top Clinton aides who used it, according to a report by McClatchy.

Among the four aides under investigation by the inspector general is Huma Abedin, Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff and present campaign aide.

Go read the whole thing.

Now you see what we mean? Far from planning her inaugural ball, Lady Macbeth is instead probably contemplating the possibility of spending a term or two at Club Fed. It’s looking increasingly likely that the only thing between her and an indictment is President Obama telling the Attorney General “not yet.” And if Hillary wants Obama to keep saying those magic words, then she knows what she has to do about the deal he sees as his great foreign policy legacy:

“I’m hoping that the agreement is finally approved and I’m telling you if it’s not, all bets are off,” Clinton told supporters during a campaign stop in New Hampshire.

Clinton said that rejecting the deal would be a “very bad signal to send in a quickly moving and oftentimes dangerous world.”

Careful, Hillary. We can almost see the chain being yanked.

Nigerian Human Rights Activist Blasts Obama; Says Bush Did More For Africa

August 4, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

Well, here’s a poke in the eye for our self-described “fourth greatest president.” But, it’s true, Mr. Bush did do a tremendous amount of good in Africa. Obama… no so much.

Originally posted on Nice Deb:


During an event Tuesday at the Washington-based Family Research Council, a Nigerian civil rights activist and attorney said that George W. Bush – not Barack Obama – will be remembered for his legacy of helping the African people.

“President Bush will really be remembered as the president who had the most impact on Africa of the last three presidents,” said Emmanuel Obege. “I think they’re no doubt about it.”

Via CNS News:

Obege was responding to a question by at an event at the Washington-based Family Research Council, focused on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and in Africa. had asked him to expand on his remarks about Bush having helped Africans by establishing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), while Obama has promoted homosexual rights, including same-sex marriage, on his African visits.

Obege said Bush’s visits to Africa made a difference to countless people…

View original 258 more words

Obama to Islamic terrorists: hostage-taking season is now open!

June 24, 2015

Not to put it *too* strongly…

One of the worst things one can do with people engaged in bad behavior is to give in to it in the hope that a concession will satisfy them. Instead, concessions just tell them that bad behavior works and gets rewards, encouraging them to do it again.

This is exactly what our president has done, putting in danger every American traveling overseas:

The White House is set to release the results of its hostage policy review, which will make clear the U.S. will not stop American families who are willing to negotiate with or pay ransoms to terror groups holding their loved ones hostage.

The administration will create a new office that will work with the American families of hostage victims, but will not change the law regarding the U.S. ransom policies, administration officials said today. A senior official said the hostage interagency fusion cell will be physically housed at FBI headquarters and initially will be run by a senior FBI official. Officials from other agencies and departments may rotate in to run the program in the future.

President Obama is set to meet on Wednesday with the families of hostages held overseas and make a statement on the review.

Though the excerpt doesn’t say so, the “terror groups” alluded to are ISIS and other Islamic jihadist organizations.

Look, I understand and sympathize with the families’ position here: having loved ones held hostage by maniacal, murderous terrorists must be a living Hell. If I were in that boat, I’d want the law to get out of my way, too, as I try to arrange their release.

I even get Obama’s position: he’s had a hostage rescue go bad in the past, resulting in the deaths of the hostages. The victims’ families are terribly sympathetic, and it’s a natural human urge to want to do something to help. So, if action on our part does no good –or even harm– then why not clear the way (1) by not enforcing the law against negotiating with terrorists?

Because the president, any president, has much more to worry about than the peril of one or a few individuals. His responsibility is to the nation as a whole, including the safety of Americans not yet taken hostage. By telling these families it’s okay to pay ransom, he has also told the jihad organizations that hostage-taking works. Kidnap an American, get some money, US won’t interfere… rinse and repeat. Robert Spencer explains why this will only encourage jihadists:

I would be very happy if this were true [that hostage-taking is against Islamic law. –PF], but I have to ask: if it is only an “extreme radical fundamentalist element” that believes this, why does it show up in Islamic legal manuals? Why does Al-Azhar University, the most respected institution in Sunni Islam, endorse ‘Umdat al-Salik, a manual of Islamic law that says this: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled” (o9.13)? If the capture of non-combatants is forbidden by Islam, are we to believe that these captured women and children were acting as soldiers? If the vast majority of Muslims reject this sort of thing, why does Al-Azhar say that ‘Umdat al-Salik “conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (ahl al-Sunna wa al-Juma’a)”?

If the killing of these hostages is likewise forbidden, why does the same manual stipulate that prisoners can be killed, exchanged for ransom (why exchanged for ransom, if they are not hostages?), enslaved, or released, depending on what is best for the Muslim community (o9.14)?

I have the Umdat al-Salik on my bookshelf and can attest the above quotes are accurate. Jihad-terror groups know this, too. It can reasonably be argued that their religion endorses hostage-taking.

It’s said the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; this is an on-ramp. By making this decision, I fear Obama has declared it open season on Americans all through the Middle East and across the globe.

And yes, I know Reagan negotiated for the release of hostages in Lebanon back in the 80s. We’ve done it since, too. It was a mistake then and a mistake ever after. Harsh as it may be to say “no ransom” knowing full well the possible consequences, it is still a decision that has to be made for the safety of others.

The proper course is to let hostage takers know two things: first, that they will never be paid ransom. Second, that if they harm our people, we will hunt them down and kill them, no matter how long it takes. Let them know there is no reward, but instead a terrible price to pay for kidnapping Americans.

They’ll learn.

via Biased Girl

(1) By unilaterally deciding to not enforce a law passed by the legislature, in defiance of his constitutional duties. Again.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,517 other followers