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:

bush-dancing-africa-2008

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 CNSNews.com at an event at the Washington-based Family Research Council, focused on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and in Africa.

CNSNews.com 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
x

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

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


ISIS: Is Barack Obama merely “incompetent,” or malevolently so?

June 10, 2015
Leadership

Leadership

I was wondering what that sound was I heard the other day. Turns out it was jaws dropping at the Pentagon when they heard their commander in chief say this:

The US does not yet have a “complete strategy” for helping Iraq regain territory from Islamic State (IS), President Barack Obama has said.

He said the Pentagon was reviewing ways to help Iraq train and equip its forces.

But Mr Obama said a full commitment to the process was needed by the Iraqis themselves.

How long has ISIS/Daesh/The Islamic State been in the news as they rampage across what used to be Syria and Iraq butchering thousands? Over a year? And yet the president says his military still hasn’t presented him with a “complete strategy?” (Which begs the question of why he wasn’t pounding his desk demanding one, being the commander in chief, after all.)

Reacting to the news that they’ve just been thrown under a bus, a Pentagon official had this to say:

One military official reacted angrily to Obama’s blamesmanship:

“What the f— was that,” the official told Fox News. “We have given him lots of options, he just hasn’t acted on them.”

I guess this is how community organizers smooth over civil-military relations: take no responsibility for what’s in your job description and then find a scapegoat to take the fall for you, hoping enough of your toadies in the press will run with that to at least confuse the issue of your own failings. Deflect and distract, it’s the Obama way.

Of course, we’ve known for years that he just isn’t really that interested in his job, especially foreign affairs, which is one of his three major constitutional responsibilities. Hence his failure to really act on the options the military chiefs have given him and his need to blame someone else for his own failings.

As the Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, sometimes says, if Obama really were trying to destroy America’s foreign relations, what, exactly, would he do differently?


Bookshelf update: Sharyl Attkisson’s “Stonewalled”

June 4, 2015

Renaissance scholar astrologer

I’ve updated the “What I’m reading” widget to the right to reflect the latest item on the Public Secrets lectern, Sharyl Attkisson’s “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”

book cover attkisson stonewalled

 

Attkisson is an award-winning investigative journalist who spent roughly 20 years with CBS before leaving in 2014. For her determined pursuit of the truth and information government and corporate officials would rather keep hidden, she’s been called a “bulldog,” a term she regards as a compliment. While Stonewalled deals with the scandals and evasions of the Obama administration and its allies, Attkisson has a reputation as a bipartisan bulldog — a pain in the tuchus to Democrats and Republicans, alike. This is what a good journalist should be.

I’m about half-way through Stonewalled and, so far, it’s been equal parts enjoyable, infuriating, and even frightening. Before discussing scandals such as Fast and Furious and the Obamacare rollout, as well as the almost equally scandalous supine attitude of mainstream journalism toward the administration, Attkisson opens with the story of her discovery that her work and personal computers, and her phone, had been hacked by a government agency during her investigation into the Benghazi massacre. Though she hasn’t yet identified in the book who she believes is responsible, I’ll note that she has filed suit against  the Department of Justice and the US Postal Service. Discovery, as they say should be interesting.

I’m reading her book in Kindle format; it’s also in soft (forthcoming) and hardcover. Regarding the Kindle edition, I’ve spotted just one lone typo and no formatting problems, which is very good for an e-book. Her writing style is straightforward, almost Hemingway-esque in its directness. If Ms. Attkisson reveals any ax to grind, it’s her firm belief that information paid for with taxpayer dollars belongs to the public, not the government.

I’ll post a review when I’ve finished.

PS: Why, yes. This is a shameless bit of shilling on my part. I like getting the occasional gift certificate that comes from people buying stuff via my link. Wouldn’t you?


Sleep easy: If Iran gets the Bomb, so will Saudi Arabia

May 18, 2015
x

Some deal, Barack.

Of the many fatuous reasons President Obama has offered in support of his nuclear giveaway deal, one of the big ones has been an exercise in scaremongering that runs something like this: “Congress has to approve this deal because, if we don’t, it will set off a nuclear arms race in the region.”

As with almost everything else our president says, he gets it all backwards:

Saudi Arabia telegraphed further opposition to the Obama administration’s ongoing push for the nuclear deal with Iran this week. This took place only days after the nation’s leader “snubbed” the president’s Persian Gulf Summit at Camp David.

The nation’s former head of intelligence argued the Sauds would match Iran’s nuclear capabilities as a matter of national security: “We can’t sit back … as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability…” Further, Prince Turki bin Faisal has said they will not fall behind: “Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” he declared at a recent conference in South Korea.

Emphasis added. Keep something in mind: Saudi Arabia may be famously corrupt; the Saudis may hypocritically enforce a particularly retrograde interpretation of Islamic law; they may tolerate slavery and treat their women like cattle; and they certainly export that same aggressive Islam and jihadism and have played a key role in the rise of the modern jihadist movement. They are all that. But they are also something else.

They are damn scared of Iran and they have all the wealth required to buy whatever weapons technology they feel they need to protect themselves against their hated Shiite foes.

Prince Turki is a very serious man and he sees the United States abandoning its traditional patronage of Saudi Arabia to appease the Saudis’ mortal enemies. If he says the Kingdom will have whatever the Iranians have (1), bank on it.

Barack Obama and John Kerry are creating the very thing they wanted to avoid in the Middle East: a nuclear arms race.

Footnote:
(1) And so will the Gulf states and Egypt, at a minimum.


Like clockwork: in revenge for US raid, ISIS vows to kill Obama

May 16, 2015
"Still the JV?"

“Coming for payback?”

Following up on this story, it looks like we really did get someone important; the jihadis are doing their usual, tiresome chest-thumping about revenge:

“If they took Abu Sayyaf, we will take Obama,” one ISIS supporter posted in the hours after the raid, which took place near the eastern Syrian city of al-Amr.

(…)

Vocativ analyzed social media across Syria in the wake of the strike and discovered some ISIS supporters claiming the news was U.S. propaganda intended to counter the momentum ISIS gained after it took most of the Iraqi city of Ramadi this week. Others tweeted from outside the Syrian city of Raqqa vowing revenge for the strike, saying they heard explosions and helicopters.

Here’s one of them on Twitter this morning:

(“If your goal is killing Abu Sayyaf then our goal is killing Obama and the worshipers of the cross. We have attacks coming against you.” Translation courtesy of Vocativ)

“Worshipers of the cross” is an Islamic insult aimed at Christians. Attacking and killing Christians is something ISIS (and other jihadi groups) have been doing a lot of in Syria, and this message threatens to bring it here to the US.

While we rightly mock the savages of ISIS, this is not a threat to be taken lightly. The conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch has repeatedly claimed that ISIS has a presence on the other side of the border in Mexico, though these claims have been disputed and denied by the government. Yet we do know other jihad terror groups have a presence in Mexico, and it is a fact our southern border is about as secure as a tissue-paper fence. We’ve already experienced several jihadi attacks here in the US, so we discount the threat from a group as determined as ISIS at our own peril.

Revenge is important in a honor-and-shame culture such as the Arabs’, and we can expect them to try to take it.

via Jihad Watch


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,961 other followers