FBI shreds credibility with Hillary Clinton document dump before holiday weekend; NYTs wonders why Americans love WikiLeaks

Hillary Clinton CNN

It was only one month ago that FBI Director James Comey stepped in front of television cameras and raked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the coals for her “extremely careless” handling of the nation’s most sensitive documents — before stating the bizarre conclusion that no prosecution was warranted. In short, Mr. Comey confirmed that the rule of law in the U.S. is a joke — Washington “elites” really are above the law.

Friday’s document dump by the FBIa political move right before Labor Day weekend to minimize the fallout to a presidential candidate — demolishes whatever credibility the agency had left and demonstrates why millions of Americans do not care where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gets his information from.

CNN reported Friday:

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she couldn’t recall key details and events related to classified information procedures, according to notes the bureau released Friday of its July interview with the Democratic presidential nominee, along with a report on its investigation into her private email server.

Clinton told the FBI she “could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information,” according to the bureau’s notes of their interview with Clinton. The documents indicate Clinton told investigators she either does not “recall” or “remember” at least 39 times — often in response to questions about process, potential training or the content of specific emails.

What the network chose not to mention is that Mrs. Clinton literally linked her inability to recall operational security training to a concussion she suffered during a fall in 2012. The entire 58 pages are worth reading because they make clear — especially when coupled with Mr. Comey’s public statements — that Mrs. Clinton would be sitting in a jail cell if she had a different last name.

When the highest reaches of the FBI are no longer independent and it blatantly behaves as as political pawn, then America is in dire straits. I warned readers in April 2011 that Donald Trump was a canary in the mineshaft, and now he is the 2016 Republican presidential nominee. That is important because it is only when one understands how bad of a predicament we are in that he or she can put the acceptance of WikiLeaks into proper perspective.

Wikileaks Julian Assange

The New York Times wants Americans to shun Julian Assange because they see him as a tool of Russian President Vladimir Putin:

The newspaper wrote Aug. 31:

From the outset of WikiLeaks, Mr. Assange said he was motivated by a desire to use “cryptography to protect human rights,” and would focus on authoritarian governments like Russia’s.

But a New York Times examination of WikiLeaks’ activities during Mr. Assange’s years in exile found a different pattern: Whether by conviction, convenience or coincidence, WikiLeaks’ document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West.

Among United States officials, the emerging consensus is that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services. But they say that, at least in the case of the Democrats’ emails, Moscow knew it had a sympathetic outlet in WikiLeaks, where intermediaries could drop pilfered documents in the group’s anonymized digital inbox.

In an interview on Wednesday with The Times, Mr. Assange said Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats were “whipping up a neo-McCarthyist hysteria about Russia.” There is “no concrete evidence” that what WikiLeaks publishes comes from intelligence agencies, he said, even as he indicated that he would happily accept such material.

Let us ask the following question about Mr. Assange by ironically quoting Hillary Clinton: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The Obama administration as a whole, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the FBI have obliterated the rule of law to protect Mrs. Clinton. Countless media outlets downplay or ignore the story, and other cultural institutions (e.g., academia, the entertainment industry), look the other way as corruption consumes us.

Does it really matter if WikiLeaks gets its information from Russia if it is one of the few organizations willing to expose corruption?

Vladimir Putin made this very same point in an interview with Bloomberg News on Friday — again, on the same day the FBI did whatever it could to protect Hillary Clinton.

Putin

The Russian president said September 2:

“Listen, does it even matter who hacked this data?” Putin said. “The important thing is the content that was given to the public. There should be discussion about this, and there is no reason to distract the public’s attention from the essence of the problem by raising some side issues with the search for who did it.”

It is with great sorrow that I find myself in agreement with Vladimir Putin on this issue. We used to rightfully lash out at Russia for spreading outright lies for its propaganda purposes; we now complain that Mr. Putin is responsible for truthfully exposing our own corruptionIf this does not convey just how far we have fallen, then nothing will.

Related:

James Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton: Welcome to Animal Farm!

An open letter to James Comey and the FBI about Hillary Clinton’s missing server Snapchat joke

Hillary Clinton turns over server to FBI — after months — yet campaign still calls story ‘nonsense’

Hillary Clinton used personal email account for all State Dept. business: Laws are for little people

Advertisements

James Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton: Welcome to Animal Farm!

Hillary Clinton Snapchat email joke

Americans everywhere should do themselves a favor and buy George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” today because FBI Director James Comey made clear this afternoon that we are living in it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

There really is no way to describe the Twilight Zone-like press conference Mr. Comey gave today regarding Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The man personally and professionally destroyed the former secretary of state for nearly 15 minutes and then concluded with, “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek charges in this instance.

Consider just the following snippets from Mr. Comey’s address to the nation:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent. …

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. …

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. …

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Objective Americans know that if they were guilty of a fraction of the negligence shown by Mrs. Clinton during her time as secretary of state that they would be rotting in a jail cell this very moment. The fact that nothing — nothing — will be done to the woman is proof that our country has gone over a cliff. It’s over. The future of the United States is going to be a very dark place, even if there are countless citizens who do not realize they are living in a very real version of Animal Farm.

There are millions of Americans right now who are a.) so blindly partisan that they do not care how dangerous this moment in history is, or b.) so stupid and lazy that high-speed internet streams of NFL football, cat videos, and naked women keep them placated. It would take a miracle of epic proportions to save the country at this point, but at the same time it is right and just for America to reap what it has sown.

This afternoon I tried to discuss the FBI’s decision with a friend and instead of getting visibly angry my eyes just teared up and I thanked God I was behind a computer screen. My wife and I live comfortable lives and we know that we are fortunate to be the right kind of “animal” on this Orwellian estate. My tears are not for myself or the woman I love, but for the generations of Americans to come who will live in country where there are special rules for the elite and well-connected, and then there are rules for everyone else.

If you have a moment, then watch Mr. Comey’s press conference from earlier today. If it turns your stomach, then feel free to throw up your feelings in the comment section below.

 

Loretta Lynch echoes Richard Gere’s 9/11 advice: Combat Islamic terror with ‘love’

Loretta Lynch

Actor Richard Gere was booed by firefighters at The Concert for New York shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks when he said the best “medicine” for al Qaeda was “love.” The story always stuck with me for its herculean weirdness, which is why Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s very same advice for victims of the June 12, 2016, terrorist attack in Orlando immediately caught my ear on Tuesday.

“To the LGBT community — we stand with you,” Mrs. Lynch said while at a press conference in Florida. “The good in this world far outweighs the evil. Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love. We stand with you today because we grieve together, and long after the cameras are gone will continue to stand with you as we grow together in commitment and solidarity and in equality.”

Terrorist Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group as he killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in a gay nightclub. The organization he adored throws gay men off tall buildings and takes women as sex slaves.

Question: Could anything be more distasteful than essentially telling Christian sex slaves in Iraq, Syria, and North Africa: “You’re not loving them hard enough,“?

The response to Islamic terrorism on American shores — the battlefield has no borders in this war —by President Obama is to a.) go Orwellian by censoring any information that helps citizens define the enemy, and b.) pretend as though scary-looking rifles are to blame.

For those who weren’t paying attention to the news on Monday, the FBI tried to release transcripts of Omar Mateen’s 911 calls without any reference to ISIS, Allah, etc. National mockery forced the agency to backtrack.

USA Today reported Monday:

The FBI and Department of Justice released a full transcript of the Orlando gunman’s 911-call on Monday afternoon amid outrage that the original transcript omitted reference to the terror group ISIL.

In a joint statement, officials said they released the partial transcript and omitted any reference to ISIL so as not to provide the terror group with additional publicity, which could be used for “hateful propaganda” purposes.

The White House is so determined to expunge the idea that Islam has something to do with Islamic terrorism that it now finds itself trying to go full 1984. Never go full 1984…

If you don’t believe your friendly neighborhood blogger, then perhaps you will believe the Department of Homeland Security.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council ordered officials just days before the Orlando massacre:

  1. Do not use the word “jihad.”
  2. Do not use the word “sharia.”
  3. Do not use the word “takfir.”
  4. “Reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”

If someone is trying to kill you and they say they are doing it to bring the world into accordance with Sharia law, then it is incumbent upon you to know what Sharia law means.

If officials refuse to familiarize civil society with the terminology used by enemies of the state, then they are putting countless lives at risk.

  • Imagine if officials refused to discuss Nazism during World War II.
  • Imagine if officials refused to discuss Communism during the Cold War.

It would be madness, wouldn’t it? That’s because intelligent people know that you cannot mobilize a population for a giant and prolonged undertaking without accurately defining the task at hand.

America has a commander in chief who would rather muddle and confuse the population to daunting security challenges than to inform them of uncomfortable truths. The president has greater fidelity to political correctness than to life-saving clarity, and for that the citizenry should be livid.

Christians are told to turn the other cheek, but one cannot do that when the head is separated from the neck.

It is right to pray for one’s enemies, but it is also just to defeat them on the field of battle.

The current administration is not up to the job of safeguarding liberty for future generations, and for that reason its allies deserve to be soundly defeated at the ballot box.

‘Islamophobia’ lecture follows Brussels terror attack

Brussels Belgium terror attack

Anyone who wants further evidence that Western Civilization is in its death throes should have been on Twitter Tuesday morning. The smoke had not yet cleared after attacks by the Islamic State group in Brussels, Belgium, when “Islamophobia” was trending on the social media platform.

Kiran Mazumdar Shaw Belgium terror

BHH Brussels tweet

Somewhere in a subway station in Brussels a man was trying to keep his entrails from spilling out into broken glass after an Islamic terror attack, and women like Kiran Mazumdar Shaw and “@localblacktivist” all over the world were literally worrying about “Islamophobia.”

CNN reported Tuesday:

Three explosions that ripped through the Belgian capital of Brussels on Tuesday killed at least 26 people and wounded 130 more, according to Belgian media, and raised the reality of terror once again in the heart of Europe.

“We were fearing terrorist attacks, and that has now happened,” Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel told reporters.

Belgian federal Prosecutor Frederic Van Leeuw said it was too soon to know exactly how many people died in the bombings. Yet the Brussels Metro Authority reported that 15 died and 55 were wounded in the subway station blast. And Belgian media report at least 11 more people were killed in the two blasts in the Brussels Airport departure hall.

People wonder why someone like Donald Trump is popular, but it only takes a few minutes of watching world leaders react to Islamic terror attacks to understand his support.

Take, for instance, President Obama’s reaction to the Islamic terror attack in San Bernardino, California, last year. In a diplomatic way, Mr. Obama accused the media of spreading “Islamophobia” for ratings.

The president told CNN on Dec. 22, 2015;

“If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” Obama said Monday, CNN reported. Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it’s up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things.”

The reason why news stories about Islamic terrorists “coming to get” westerners exist is because ISIS, al Qaida, and their ideological allies do precisely that. That isn’t a ratings grab — that is reality. We should never be paralyzed by fear, but we shouldn’t sacrifice honesty at the alter of political correctness, either.

Brussels Attack

Tuesday’s attack in Brussels comes less than six months after the Nov. 13, 2015, massacre in Paris, France, that killed 130 and wounded countless others. If this is what “contained” looks like — as Mr. Obama infamously said at the time — it is safe to say that world “leaders” are not doing their job.

Iran makes mockery of Obama, U.S. with seized sailors

Obama under stress

The Iranian government seized 10 U.S. sailors and two ships in the Persian Gulf shortly before President Obama’s final State of the Union address on Tuesday. GPS equipment was taken from the ship, the U.S. issued an apology, the sailors were eventually returned this morning, and now the White House is preparing to unfreeze $100 billion in Iranian assets as part of the summer’s nuclear deal. Iran’s actions were meant to send a message to the world: The United States is a joke. Sadly, it’s hard to argue.

CNN’s Jake Tapper was flabbergasted when White House press secretary Josh Earnest shrugged off the actions of Obama’s diplomatic “partner” as no big deal.

“What do you say to people who say Iran fired upon, not hit, but fired a warning shot of sorts toward an American ship in the last couple of weeks … they test-fired a ballistic missile in the past couple of weeks, and yet, in a few days, they are scheduled to have the relief of all those sanctions?” Tapper said Tuesday night. “The basic question being: This does not seem like a country that is ready to be welcomed back to the community of nations.”

Earnest’s response: But…but…we got a nuclear deal with Iran! A deal, man. Cut us some slack.

“[This] is why the United States and this president made it a priority to organize the international community to reach an agreement with Iran that will prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” said Earnest.

“I hear you, but they have 10 American sailors in custody right now, Josh. I think there are probably a lot of Americans watching right now that are wondering why we are about to give them sanctions relief when they have 10 Americans – wherever they have them. In a boat, in a cell, whatever,” Tapper replied.

To add insult to injury, Iran scolded the U.S. upon the sailors’ return.

“This incident in the Persian Gulf, which probably will not be the American forces’ last mistake in the region, should be a lesson to troublemakers in the U.S. Congress,” Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, head of Iran’s armed forces, was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency, Reuters reported.

There were about 10,000 ways Iran could have responded to two U.S. vessels that drifted too close or into its territorial waters, and it chose one of the most aggressive ways possible. It literally took U.S. forces captive and confiscated their equipment.

Ask yourself this question: For all of George W. Bush’s faults, would Iran have pulled a stunt like that under his watch — on the night of the State of the Union, no less?

The answer is “no.”

The country is in a sad place when Iran can seize American sailors with impunity and then laugh as a U.S. president oversees the release of $100 billion in Iranian assets just days later.

Iran seizes sailors

Obama, delusional, blames media for ISIS fears

Obama on media CNN screenshot

President Obama gave an interview with National Public Radio before heading off for vacation that should send chills down the spine of anyone who cares about national security. The president blamed the media for Americans’ fears of the Islamic State group instead of a.) the Dec. 2 terror attack in California, the deadliest on U.S. soil since 9/11, b.) the resiliency of ISIS, and c.) an aimless “strategy” to defeat the terror group.

“If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” Obama said Monday, CNN reported. Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it’s up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things.”

How delusional does a man have to be to question media coverage of a terror group only weeks after 14 Americans were slaughtered in San Bernardino by its supporters?

How tone-deaf does a man have to be to question media  coverage of a terror group just weeks after it killed 130 during an attack inside Paris, France?

To add insult to injury,  Abdirizak Mohamed Warsame, 20, was arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Dec. 9 and charged with trying to join ISIS. He is the 10th Twin Cities resident facing such charges.

The president’s comments also come in the middle of a world-wide refugee crisis fueled by the U.S.-led coalition’s failure to destroy ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and parts of North Africa. Millions of people are scattered across the globe, ISIS explicitly says it wants to use the chaos to filter its members into western nations, and Mr. Obama wonders why networks are covering the story.

In short, Mr. Obama’s comments can be translated: “Can’t you guys just cover Steve Harvey screwing up the 2015 Miss Universe pageant? You’ll get ratings and protect my reputation at the same time! Come on, what do you say? You just need to cover for me one more year and I’ll be out of here.”

Steve Harvey ABC screenshot

The president did everything within his power to ignore the Middle East since 2008. He believed his own hype — that the world’s terrorism-related ills could primarily be traced by to George W. Bush — and in doing so he allowed al Qaeda’s mutation to thrive and grow.

The fear Americans have of ISIS is a rational response to a reality that Mr. Obama helped create. If the president is unhappy with news coverage now, then he should not have dismissed ISIS as a “JV” team on Jan. 27, 2014.

White House: Stripping constitutional rights for gun control ‘common sense’

Trey Gowdy

The San Bernardino terror attack on Dec. 2 has caused gun-control activists to go into hyperdrive. President Obama and his administration have now latched on to using terror watch lists — those same lists once derided by his supporters — to strip Americans of constitutionally-protected rights. Yours truly and others have already mentioned just how dangerous of an idea that is, but it was perfectly illuminated Thursday during a House Oversight Committee hearing.

In one corner we have Kelli Burriesci, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Screening Coordination, Office of Policy of the United States Department of Homeland Security. (Quite a mouthful of a title there, so one would hope she would know her stuff…)

In another corner we have South Carolina Rep. Try Gowdy.

Here is how it all unfolded:

Trey Gowdy: Let me ask you a question about the terrorism list. What process is afforded a U.S. citizen — not someone who overstayed a visa, not someone who crossed a border without permission — but an American citizen?  What process is currently afforded an American citizen before they go on that list?

DHS: I’m sorry, there is not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list. There is a process should someone feel they are and unduly placed on the list.

Gowdy: Yes there is. And when I say ‘process,’ I’m actually using half of the term due process, which is a phrase we find in the Constitution — that you cannot deprive people of certain things without due process.

So I understand Mister Goode’s idea, which is wait until you’re right has been taken from you and then you can petition the government to get it back. I understand that that’s his idea. My question is can you name another constitutional right that we have that is chilled until you find out it’s chilled, and then you have to petition the government to get it back? Is that true of the First Amendment?

DHS: Sir, there are strict criteria before any gets put on the list.

Trey Gowdy:That’s not my question ma’am. That is not my question. My question is what process is afforded a United States citizen before that person’s constitutional right is infringed? He’s fine when do it with the Second Amendment. My question is, ‘How about the First?’ How about we not let them set up a website or Google account? How about we not let him join a church until until they can petition the government to get off the list. How about not get a lawyer? How about the Sixth Amendment?

How about you can’t get a lawyer until you petition the government to get off the list? Or my favorite — how about the Eighth amendment? We’re going to subject you to cruel and unusual punishment until you petitioned the government to get off the list. Is there another constitutional right that we treat the same way for American citizens that we do the Second Amendment? Can you think of one? **pause** Can you think of one?

DHS:I don’t have an answer for you, sir.

She. Doesn’t. Have. An. Answer.

Burriesci

How is it possible for someone at the Department of Homeland Security, who is advocating on behalf of stripping American citizens of constitutionally-protected rights, to not have an answer to those questions?

As Rep. Gowdy points out, the Obama administration’s own logic dictates that if the Second Amendment can be stripped without due process, then there is no reason why any other rights can’t be taken as well.

Listen to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s comments on the issue Friday, and then ask yourself how comfortable you are with giving the federal government a blank check to do whatever it wants under the guise of national security.

Mr Earnest said:

“I think it’s common sense, the president believes it’s common sense and it is in our national security interest to prevent those who are deemed by the government ‘too dangerous to board an airplane’ that we should pass a law that prevents those people from purchasing a gun — until such time as they can resolve the concerns the government has about their  potential links to terrorism. There is a process administered by the Department of Homeland Security for those concerns to be considered and resolved. When it comes to gun safety, that seems like a pretty common sense step.

In response to Sen. Rubio, I guess I would simply say: Is he suggesting we should wait until someone who is on the no-fly list walks into a gun[store], purchases a firearm and kills a whole bunch of Americans before we pass a law preventing it? I don’t think that passes the common sense test either.”

To recap:

  • The Department of Homeland Security does not know how many of your constitutional rights can be stripped without due process.
  • President Obama wants to give women like Kelli “I don’t have an answer for you, sir” Burriesci the ability to deny you constitutionally-protected rights (The Second Amendment…for now.)
  • The Department of Homeland Security officials will “consider” not infringing upon your constitutionally-protected rights if you go through its petition process and it feels like changing its mind.

In the same press briefing where Josh Earnest created a giant Straw Man argument for Sen. Rubio, the White House Press Secretary admitted that none of the recent mass shooters were on the no-fly list. He also stammered and stuttered when a reporter pointed out that none of the current gun-control measures being talked about would have prevented the mass shootings in the first place.

Right now the federal government is asking for power that its own officials don’t know how to justify because they know that what they want to do is unconstitutional.

Whether you are a gun owner or not, it should terrify you that the same argument used in favor of stripping Americans of Second Amendment rights without due process can be applied to any right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. 

If you cannot see the danger this poses to future generations of Americans, then I weep for your children.

Obama’s delusional demand for Air Force a gift for ISIL

Obama hands AP image

President Obama has a demand for U.S. Air Force personnel that is so delusional that it is hard not to question his mental health. The Islamic State group hides among civilians. It holds large swathes of territory in Iraqi and Syrian cities. Mr. Obama, however, expects the U.S. Air Force to prosecute an air campaign with zero civilian casualties.

Rep. Ed Royce, R-California, told the Washington Free Beacon Nov. 18 that roughly 75 percent of the clear shots on ISIL targets are called off due to the president’s rules of engagement.

“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Rep. Royce, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”

Things got downright scary when retired four-star U.S. general Jack Keane detailed the president’s impossible demand:

He told the Free Beacon:

“When we agreed we were going to do air power and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties.’ And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’ [Obama’s response], ‘No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero.’ So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from desert storm to the present.”

If the president of the United States is not willing to seriously use ground troops — if he is reliant on air strikes for his anti-ISIL strategy to succeed — he cannot realistically ask the U.S. Air Force for zero civilian casualties.

Mr. Obama is either completely detached from reality, or militarily twiddling his thumbs until his time in office ends. Instead of showing real leadership against an enemy who quickly adapts to changing battlefield conditions, the president seems content to vote “present” on the world stage.

The safety and security of the American people has now been abdicated to men like Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mr. Obama asked for an then accepted a job he was ill-equipped to handle. His fantasy-land demands for the U.S. military will result in dead Americans (possibly on U.S. soil), and when that happens much of the blame will rest on his shoulders.

‘1980s are now calling’ mockery of Romney haunts Obama: Putin takes control in Syria

Obama Romney 80s joke

It was only a few short years ago that President Obama openly mocked Mitt Romney for saying Russia was the greatest geopolitical threat to the America. Certain segments of the media thought his “zinger” was downright hilarious. Fast forward three years and Vladimir Putin has annexed Crimea, is primed to do the same in eastern Ukraine, and put himself in the driver’s seat in Syria.

The Huffington Post reported Oct. 22, 2012:

During the presidential debate on Monday evening, President Barack Obama deployed a Seinfeldian zinger to mock former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee. Romney had said that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are “rushing in” as revolutions shake up the Muslim world.

“Gov. Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat,” Obama said, “because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia.”

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama said.

What Mr. Obama didn’t realize is that the Cold War never ended for Vladimir Putin, which is odd because the Russian’s public statements have always made that very clear.

Reuters reported Thursday, Oct 1, 2015:

Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria to join a major ground offensive on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad’s government, sources said on Thursday, a further sign of the rapid internationalization of a civil war in which every major country in the region has a stake.

Russian warplanes bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the CIA, the group’s commander said, putting Moscow and Washington on opposing sides in a Middle East conflict for the first time since the Cold War.

The U.S. and Russian militaries will hold talks at 11 a.m. EDT via video link to seek ways to keep their militaries apart as they wage parallel campaigns of air strikes in Syria, a U.S. defense official said.

Russian jets struck targets near the cities of Hama and Homs in western Syria on the second day of their surprise air campaign, which they launched on Wednesday.

Moscow said it had hit Islamic State positions, but the area where it struck is held by a rival insurgent alliance, which unlike Islamic State is supported by U.S. allies including Arab states and Turkey.

The problem with the Obama administration is that America’s adversaries around the globe telegraph exactly what their intentions are, and yet Mr. Obama and his hand-picked staff refuse to take them at their word.

Arizona Sen. John McCain pointed out this strange behavior out Wednesday on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell:

John Kerry and his spokesperson said it is not clear what Russia’s intentions are. It was perfectly clear what Russia’s intentions are!”

A flashback to July 21 shows Kerry was also confused by Iran’s vow to undermine U.S. policy, which was made immediately after agreeing to a nuclear “deal” with the Obama administration.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very troubling”.

I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Why is Mr. Kerry always confused? Perhaps it is because he mistakes U.S. fallibility (a trait of all nations) with the idea that threats exist because America is, for all intents and purposes, always at fault.

Mitt Romney knew what he was talking about in 2012, and the president sneered at him. The media laughed along with the “Seinfeldian zinger” – but the real joke was on the American people.

The only people who are laughing now are the Russians, the Iranians, the Assad regime and their allies all around the globe.

Taliban seize major city; Barack Can-we-leave-yet? Obama shrugs shoulders

Kunduz

The world is seeing what happens when a U.S. commander in chief decides the only thing he wants to be transparent about is his desire to leave fragile Middle Eastern countries alone with a rogues’ gallery of Islamic radical groups and nation states.

President Obama failed to renew a status of forces agreement with Iraq and pulled all U.S. troops out of the country in Dec. 2011, despite the risk of losing everything Americans fought and died for over the course of a decade. Al Qaeda in Iraq essentially mutated into the Islamic State group, and the country is a mess. (We won’t even talk about the president’s “red lines” in Syria, which turned into “red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.)

CNN reported Monday on a preview of what is to come if Mr. Obama exits too quickly in Afghanistan:

The loss of the major city of Kunduz to the Taliban is a stunning reversal for the Afghan government, deepening worries about the ability of its security forces to take the fight to the Islamic militants. …

It’s the biggest Taliban victory since 2001. …

The loss of Kunduz, even if the Afghan government manages to take it back soon, is an ominous sign. It’s Afghanistan’s fifth largest city and the capital of the province of the same name.

“This is the biggest town they’ve been able to take since 2001,” said Nic Robertson, CNN’s international diplomatic editor. “This is a significant target and prize for the Taliban.” …

The Taliban’s intent to try to take Kunduz was well flagged, and yet Afghan forces were unable to hold the city despite outnumbering the attackers. “Since about April this year, the Taliban increased their strength in the countryside to the north of Kunduz and have essentially had it in their sights since then,” Robertson said.

The militant group hasn’t had the easiest year. ISIS has been reported to be eating into its recruitment efforts in Afghanistan, and internal divisions in the Taliban were laid bare after the admission that longtime leader Mullah Omar had died more than two years ago.

But despite initial questions over whether the group would fall apart, new leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour appears to have overcome the bumpy start and can now point to big blow against the Afghan government in Kunduz.

Mr. Obama does not get animated about very much, but conversations on leaving Afghanistan as soon as possible always seemed to perk him up. The White House was forced to delay its plan to have roughly 5,500 troops in country by the end of 2015 at the behest of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, but he still insisted the U.S. basically reach “embassy center presence” by the end of his term in office. How convenient.

Do you notice a trend with the president when it comes to Iraq, Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and Afghanistan? He rushes to meet political objectives despite overwhelming evidence that keeping promises made on the campaign trail prior to his 2008 election will create national security nightmares in the long run.

A leader — a true leader — is willing to make decisions that will gut him politically if the alternative is a substantially more dangerous world. Look at Yemen, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan and then compare where they are today with where they were in 2008. There is no way to objectively look at those countries — and the millions of refugees fleeing the Middle East and northern Africa — and conclude the Obama administration’s foreign policy has been a success.

President Obama expresses frustration March 24, 2015 that his attempts to run from Afghanistan with a come-what-may attitude are being thwarted by harsh reality. (Image: CNN screenshot)
President Obama expresses frustration March 24, 2015 that his attempts to run from Afghanistan with a come-what-may attitude are being thwarted by harsh reality. (Image: CNN screenshot)