Posted tagged ‘Obama’

Take Me Out to the Raul Game

March 23, 2016

Take Me Out to the Raul Game, Hope n’ Change, March 23, 2016

Take Me Out to the Raul GameHe really did this. Also, he did “the wave” with Raul Castro.

Yesterday was the sort of horrible news day in which all of the seemingly unrelated jigsaw pieces end up belonging to one big depressing picture.

In Belgium, a number of terrorist bombs killed dozens of innocents and wounded hundreds more, including Americans. To the surprise of absolutely no one who isn’t in the Obama administration, Isis is taking credit for the explosive deaths, giving further proof that Islam is overdue to either clean house or change their slogan to “The Religion of Pieces.”

Of course, with American casualties (including a U.S. serviceman and his family) did Barack Hussein Obama turn his laser-like focus to strong anti-terrorist rhetoric and actions? He did not. He simply threw a few seconds of “thoughts and prayers, blah, blah, blah, we’ll stand with Belgium, blah, blah, blah” into his previously scripted speech to the desperately poor people of Cuba. Seriously, it’s a miracle he didn’t actually say the words “insert city name here” into his generic Hallmark sentiments.

And his actual speech in Cuba was one that Isis would have found hugely agreeable. Confirming their every assertion of American evil and imperialism, the “New Camelot” president took a long, splashy leak on the grave of the “Old Camelot” president by bringing up the Bay of Pigs invasion.  He also declared “the blue waters beneath Air Force One once carried American battleships to this island — to liberate, but also to exert control over Cuba.” Hey, are we rotten bastards or what?!

Obama also gave Cuba and the United States moral equivalency of the lowest kind by sneering that both were colonized by Europeans (those despicable infidels) and “Cuba, like the United States, was built in part by slaves brought here from Africa. Like the United States, the Cuban people can trace their heritage to both slaves and slave-owners.” A simplistic, inaccurate, and belittling view of our people, history, and culture which explains his clear distaste for white Americans.

But despite the degree to which we suck, Obama said that at least our nation can take credit for accepting a seemingly unending flood of immigrants.

Because that’s worked out so frigging well for Belgium.

Cuban Submissive CrisisOh, come one – you KNEW we were going to do something with this pathetic picture.

 

Op-Ed: After Brussels, is it time to deport Merkel?

March 23, 2016

Op-Ed: After Brussels, is it time to deport Merkel? Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, March 23, 2016

Authorities need look no further than Angela Merkel as the prime suspect for the latest carnage in Brussels.

More than anyone, it was Merkel who opened the floodgates to the migrants — armies of men without women posing as refugees from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan found trampling throughout Europe. When they are caught misbehaving, they smirk and say, “I am here as a guest of Angela Merkel,” and they are correct and nearly untouchable.

Merkel stands by her open borders policy, the safety of her people be damned.

Over the past 12 months, more then a million of them have already crossed into Germany alone; 300,000 have been given asylum.

Of Brussels at this hour, all Western Europe leadership is guilty with Merkel sharing the largest part of the blame. These are her pets.

“Don’t go out unless you have to” is the hot new message circulating throughout Europe now that the “refugees” have arrived. You could get raped.

You could also get killed, and that’s what happened when the citizens of Brussels dared to go out Tuesday morning during rush hour. Scores were slain and wounded from yet another Islamic terror attack and people all over want to know how to make this stop.

Stop the influx. How’s that for an idea that needs no Einstein? Deport them instead. Maybe starting with Merkel, who invited the stampede.

The Saudis and the princes from the other Gulf States have it neatly figured out.

(So does Trump who wants to stop it and saw it coming as did this must-read thriller.)

Those titled Arabs don’t want that crowd within 100 miles even though they are fellow Muslims. But they do not want that type entering their borders, bringing with them their license to rape, their rivalries and tribal feuds, hell no, so why not Europe, and Europe says, sure, why not? Bring them on!

How clueless!

This is how. Only a few days ago, there they sat around a big table in Brussels, the smooth rulers of the EU, congratulating themselves on the capture of the final “mastermind” behind the November attack in Paris that killed 130. The French president was there, the Belgium prime minister was there and all the rest together expressed joy to the world that Salah Abdeslam had been caught.

Merkel sent in her gratitude for the superb police work.

At the moment they were hi-fiving the one success, 10,000 more “refugees” streamed in, plenty of them likewise “masterminds.”

Can no one do the math?

We pass the point of absurdity when “open borders” imperils us all throughout the world. There is no stopping the mad dash across continents.

Nor can we stop the madness that afflicts the world’s leaders.

Merkel and the rest of you clueless rulers of Europe, your misguided liberal sympathies and migrant leniencies are killing us.

Hence, Obama has chimed in his condolences for the pain in Brussels. “The entire world must unite,” he said. Yeah, sure, thanks. Will do.

Now back to the game, Mr. President.

Employing European wisdom, he wants to bring more of them into the United States. Thanks again.

Likewise Hillary and Trudeau. First the condolences followed by “we must resist Islamophobia” and keep the influx coming.

Hillary demands that we bring in 65,000 of them. Trudeau is ahead of her. He’s already got them in Canada.

It takes no prophet to know what’s coming for Canada and what’s next for the United States.

Don’t blame the terrorists, only. They are murderers but they know what they are doing.

The same cannot be said for the men and women who run our world.

Obama: US can Learn About Human Rights from Cuba

March 22, 2016

Obama: US can Learn About Human Rights from Cuba, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, March 21, 2016

Obama Cuba

Does Cuba have something to teach us about human rights? Considering Obama and Castro’s attitude toward the rights protected by our Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press and the Right to Bear Arms, not to mention the Right to Compulsory Insurance, you can see why Obama would find the Communist dictatorship inspiring.

“President Castro, I think, has pointed out that it, in his view making sure that everybody is getting a decent education or health care, has basic security in old age, that those things are human rights as well.”

“The goal of the human rights dialogue is not for the United States to dictate to Cuba how to govern themselves,” Obama continued. “Hopefully, we can learn from each other.”

Cuban health care is quite impressive. And by “impressive”, I mean that it’s a good way to die. It also depends on a population of plantation doctors who are leased as slave labor to other countries.

Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market.

A nurse spoke to Isabel Vincent of Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.”

The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry.

And doctors are not necessarily privileged citizens in Cuba. A doctor in exile told the Miami Herald that, in 2003, he earned what most doctors did: 575 pesos a month, or about 25 dollars. He had to sell pork out of his home to get by. And the chief of medical services for the whole of the Cuban military had to rent out his car as a taxi on weekends. “Everyone tries to survive,” he explained.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. As long as he’s willing to sell pork out of his home to make ends meet.

And of course there are Castro’s progressive education policies.

“I say it is one of the achievements of the revolution that even our prostitutes are university educated,” Fidel Castro said.

And that’s true. Their university education however is worthless.

With food rations being cut to malnutrition levels, the average family can live only if it somehow obtains dollars. This makes prostitution all the more appealing for women who are trying to support themselves or their families. Though prostitution does not appear to be an option for men, they are also abandoning their professional positions and choosing to work in the tourism industry as bar tenders, parking valets, bellhops and waiters in hopes of making dollars. Dollars are the means of survival in Cuba, where one in eleven people holds a university degree and there are more doctors and teachers per capita than almost any where else in the world.

We’re headed this way too with the education bubble. Some are already there.

But Obama is pushing the leftist FDR line of positive entitlements as rights over negative rights that are freedoms. Give up your freedom, get free stuff. Look how well it worked out in Cuba.

Cuba and Obama’s ‘Axis of Evil’

March 21, 2016

Cuba and Obama’s ‘Axis of Evil’ Gatestone InstituteA.J. Caschetta, March 21, 2016

♦ Just as the Soviet Union did not subsidize Castro’s tyranny for the good cigars, so too Iran and North Korea are less interested in old weapons and luxury goods than in the one thing Cuba has always offered to America’s enemies — physical proximity. The USSR used Cuba as a forward operating base in the Cold War. Why would Iran and North Korea not do the same?

♦ Iranian and North Korean scientists have been openly cooperating on so many projects that Iran, if it is not already doing so, will likely evade IAEA inspections by testing its weapons in North Korea.

♦ A medium range missile fired from Cuba could reach most of the US. Cuba would also be a good launch point for an EMP attack on the US.

♦ Obama’s diplomatic engagement with Cuba’s octogenarian dictators will ensure that the island prison stays in business. Like Iran, Cuba has been flaunting its tyranny since Obama’s outreach, with 8,616 political arrests in 2015.

When George W. Bush used the term “axis of evil” to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea in his 2002 State of the Union speech he was derided from all sides. Post-modernists and others among whom ideas of good and evil are quaint but obsolete, sneered that Bush was a simplistic thinker. Others, who agreed that threats to their existence might be evil, seemed less troubled by the ethics than by the accuracy of the term “axis.”

Bush, by linking these three nations, was accused of misunderstanding that members of an axis work together. As Iraq and Iran were mortal enemies, so went the argument, there was no evidence of cooperation.

In 2002 it may have been impossible to prove Iranian-North Korean cooperation, but that has changed. Since at least 2012 when the two countries signed a technological cooperation pact, Iranian and North Korean scientists have been openly cooperating on so many projects that Iran, if it is not already doing so, will likely evade IAEA inspections by testing its weapons in North Korea.

Whether through prescience or luck, Bush was correct about the Iran-North Korea connection. With Saddam out of the picture the “Axis of Evil” has become the “Duo of Evil” — not nearly the same ring. There also is evidence that the Duo is seeking to recruit a new third member to complete the axis.

Putin’s Russia, for instance, could easily be taken for a new member of the axis. Its fingerprints have been showing up in many places: the murder of Russian dissidents, the downing of passenger jets, the invasion of its neighbors. Putin’s decisions to cancel the transfer of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran and withdrawal of troops from Syria suggest a Russia making a strategic retreat for its own best interests at the moment, whatever they may be.

China might also part of the axis. Constructing military bases on artificial islands indicates a budding expansionism. China’s reportedly growing dismay over North Korea’s antics, however, suggest a nation too concerned with its own interests to join any axis seeking to destroy the chief marketplace for its goods.

The less obvious, but more probable, recruit to the axis is Cuba, which shares with Iran and North Korea an institutional hatred for the USA and a history of autocratic rule. Robin Wright has called Cuba and Iran “melancholy twins.”

Most bitterly of all, all three countries might today be far less threatening had U.S. aid not saved them at crucial moments when their tottering regimes might have been toppled.

1519President Barack Obama shakes hands with Cuban dictator Raúl Castro during the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, on April 11, 2015. (Image source: White House/Pete Souza)

Had Jimmy Carter not pulled the regime out from under the Shah, the Iranian Revolution might never have caught on. Carter’s shameful treatment of an imperfect ally is a blight on his presidency. But when the so-called Green Revolution broke out in 2009, a newly-inaugurated President Obama did nothing to help the revolutionaries. Worse, he reached out his open hand, eventually placing billions of dollars at the mullah’s disposal just when sanctions were crippling Iran’s economy.

In 1994, North Korea was not yet a nuclear power. Its economy was almost non-existent, and an ailing Kim Il-Sung was losing the battle of world opinion after the IAEA declared it in violation of non-proliferation safeguards. Just when international opprobrium might have been leveraged against the regime, a semi-retired Jimmy Carter saved the Kims with the worst diplomatic deal the U.S. had ever made. The subsequent Clinton-Carter Agreed Framework provided Kim Jong Il (whose father died during negotiations) regular shipments of heavy fuel oil and, of all things, two light water nuclear plants. In return, Kim promised not to do what he immediately set about doing.

The now-infamous photograph of Kim Jong-Il and Madeleine Albright toasting the deal is an iconic tableau to diplomatic folly on par with Neville Chamberlain triumphantly waving a piece of paper with Hitler’s promise to behave himself, or more recently, John Kerry and Zarif shaking hands over the JCPOA.

Now Cuba is being saved just when its repressive dictatorship was finally vulnerable and fading on the vine, bereft of the welfare it enjoyed first from its Soviet patrons and then from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Obama’s diplomatic engagement with Cuba’s octogenarian dictators will ensure that the island prison stays in business. Like Iran, Cuba has been flaunting its tyranny since Obama’s outreach, with 8,616 political arrests in 2015.

Historical similarities aside, Cuba has cooperated with both Iran and North Korea. Under the Shah, Iran had no diplomatic ties with Cuba; but after 1979, Castro was one of the first nations to recognize Khomeini’s regime as the legitimate government of Iran. Since then, ties between the two have been increasing steadily. In May of 2001, Fidel Castro visited Iran, where he said “Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring American to its knees.” Visiting Cuba at a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 2006, then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thanked the Castros for their support of his country’s nuclear program; he visitedCuba again in 2012; by 2014 the relationship had grown even closer.

Cuban relations with North Korea are not as old nor as easily documented as those with Iran. Aside from Castro’s visit to Pyongyang in 1986 and some weapons transfers in the 1980s, there had been little to report, until recently. The Economist offers 2008 as the year that cooperation between Cuba and North Korea began increasing. In 2013, the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang was interdicted in Panama after leaving Cuba laden with Soviet weaponry hidden under mountains of sugar. There were MiG jets, spare MiG engines, missile parts, radar components, and other weaponry. There were reports that the ship had visited Cuba several times before being caught with the weapons. What else might have been smuggled out of Cuba is far less worrisome than what might have been smuggled into Cuba.

A Cuban role in the axis would be more than ideological. Just as the USSR did not subsidize Castro’s tyranny for the good cigars, so too Iran and North Korea are less interested in old weapons and luxury goods than in the one thing Cuba has always offered to America’s enemies — physical proximity. The USSR used Cuba as a forward operating base in the Cold War. Why would Iran and North Korea not do the same?

Most analysts are focused on North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), but a medium-range missile fired from Cuba could reach most of the US. Cuba would also be a good launch point for an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the US.

Just days before North Korea’s purported hydrogen bomb test, the State Department reached out to Kim Jong Un with another lifeline offer. And on March 17, the US removed Cuba from the list of countries deemed to have insufficient port security.

In spite of repeated Iranian violations of the JCPOA, there is no sign that the so-called “snapback sanctions” are even a topic of discussion at the White House. Last week, Russia used its veto at the UN Security Council to prevent any sanctions on Iran.

The biggest difference between the Bush and Obama approach to the “axis of evil” is that Bush was opposed to it; Obama appears infatuated.

Satire | Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic!

March 18, 2016

Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic! Dan Miller’s Blog, March 18, 2016

(The views expressed in this article (aside from those espoused by my imaginary guest author, with whom no rational person agrees) are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

trump-assault

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) guest author, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He is a founding member of Climate Change Causes Everything Bad, a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own observations. 

As any fool knows, saying things that upset folks is destructive to our peace and tranquility. No patriot would do that. As the Boston Globe observed on March 17th, true patriots can not and should not permit it.

Donald Trump slams protesters at his rallies as “thugs” but, as usual, the unhinged GOP presidential front-runner is dead wrong:

They’re patriots.

. . . .

With Trump nearly sweeping this week’s primaries, those rallies will become more hostile toward anyone pushing against his hideous rhetoric. Yet those patriots will still come, not just because they oppose Trump but for the love of their country which is being shoved toward the abyss. As poet Adrienne Rich wrote in “An Atlas of the Difficult World”:

A patriot is one who wrestles/ for the soul of her country/ as she wrestles for her own being.

Trump has been endorsed by Will Quigg, 48, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. So has Hillary Clinton, but that’s as different as night is from day; we all know that she is not a racist. The KKK endorsement of Trump shows, beyond dispute, that he is a vile racist. That’s why he despises our President and everything for which we stand.

Trump reminds me of the hateful Britainophobes who mocked Native Americans by wearing their quaint native garb to throw precious tea, violently, into Boston Harbor. For shame!

Trump hatefully complains that Islam is not the religion of peace and that since it is a violent religion Muslims should not be permitted even to visit the United States until it can be determined which are peaceful and which are not. Hogwash! Muslims are just as peaceful as Methodists. They love little children more than Methodists, particularly little girls, and marry them at what Trump probably thinks is too early an age — often at the age of ten. It’s their culture, so there’s nothing wrong with it and we should respect it. Isn’t this a pretty little bride? She looks so happy!

668 (1)

Muslims don’t occupy a country that isn’t theirs like filthy Jews do in Palestine. They don’t try to take over mosques sacred to Islam.

 

 

Palestine, unlike Israel, does not practice apartheid. Although Israel has nukes, Iran recently promised not to develop nuclear weapons. Trump, despite his claims to be a master negotiator, would never have got that deal; Obama, a very modest person, did despite obstructions put in his path by Israel and some Republicans.

Not all Jews are bad, of course: a major Jewish group warned that Trump is dangerous. As noted in the immediately linked article, the warning

came amid an impassioned debate in the American Jewish community around Trump’s plans to address an audience of over 18,000 next Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.

Who knows what might happen if Trump were to address that group. Might he claim, as he often does, that the peaceful Palestinians, not Jews, are to blame for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine? Perhaps some of his antisemitic bullies might assault members of the audience. They might bring not only knives but guns as well! Remember, President Obama warned against bringing even knives to a gun fight!

Trump complains that our borders are not “secure.” He is stupid, ignorant and just plays on the fear of other racists. Hillary Clinton knows that the borders are secure.

PHOENIX — The United States has done a “really good job” of securing the border between Arizona and Mexico, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said in an exclusive interview Thursday.

“I think we’ve done a really good job securing the border,” she said. “I think that those who say we haven’t are not paying attention to what was done the last 15 years under President (George W.) Bush and President (Barack) Obama.”

Clinton said the federal government has added both border officers and obstructions, while the number of people attempting to cross the border has dropped.

“Immigration from Mexico has dropped considerably,” she said. ”It’s just not happening anymore.”

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, was speaking just days before a campaign event in Phoenix.

Lies, lies, lies. It’s lies all the way down for Trump

The protestors at Trump rallies do not want to silence him, as some far-right nuts have complained. They only want to make him stop saying things that offend them; there’s a big difference, as any fool knows. Like everyone else with two brain cells, we need our safe spaces and he violates our constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by refusing to let us have them. Even the music played at Trump rallies is authoritarian and disgusting. That’s why we attend and protest at Trump rallies.

Trump is Hitler. All Republican candidates for president have been Hitlers for many, many years. Hitlerism is the foul soup in which they are conceived, born and raised. It’s high time to throw out the soup and Republicans along with it. Hillary will do that, and more.

*****************

Editor’s comments

 

 

 

As a courtesy to Senator Librul, I inserted all of the links in his article. The presence of supporting links is about the only difference between his screed and those of Democrats and the Republican elite (but I repeat myself) disparaging Trump for stuff he has not done and does not do; for what they claim he is and not for what he is.

It’s high time for us to take America back from those who have been trying to destroy her. She belongs to We the People, not to the Democrat or Publican party bosses. Never forget.

 

 

Obama did not build our nation. Our ancestors did and it’s our inheritance.

 

 

For whom would the pioneers in the video vote were they alive now? Our “leaders” who sit in Washington, D.C., break their promises and take our money to finance their reelection campaigns so they can continue the process? Those who have weakened our nation and made her a second class world power? Those who elevate political correctness and multiculturalism above reality? Those who rewrite our history so that they can condemn it? I don’t think so. Which candidates do you think they would support?

crazed

 

Obama Admin Stalling Investigation Into Iran ‘Ransom Payment’

March 18, 2016

Obama Admin Stalling Investigation Into U.S. ‘Ransom Payment’ to Iran Congress in dark as admin ignores questions about taxpayer money for Tehran

BY:
March 17, 2016 11:00 am

Source: Obama Admin Stalling Investigation Into Iran ‘Ransom Payment’

The Obama administration is being accused of stalling a congressional investigation into a purported $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded “ransom payment” to Iran in exchange for the release of several U.S. prisoners, according to documents and information provided to the Washington Free Beacon by sources familiar with the matter.

The administration initially came under fire from congressional critics in January, when it was announced that the United States had settled a longstanding legal dispute with Iran over the breakdown in a decades-old arms sale.

Under the terms of the settlement, Iran was to be paid a $400 million balance and an additional $1.3 billion in interest from a taxpayer fund maintained by the Treasury Department, a State Department official confirmed to the Free Beacon in January.

The settlement was reached outside of the recently implemented nuclear deal and is separate from the $150 billion in unfrozen cash assets the United States is obligated to give to Iran under that agreement, the official said.

The $1.7 billion payment was announced just prior to the release of five U.S. prisoners who had been held in Iran, leading to accusations that the deal is tantamount to a ransom payment. Iranian officials, at the time, independently described the transaction as a form of ransom.

While the Obama administration immediately denied that the two issues were linked, lawmakers remained skeptical and pushed for more answers.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) reached out to Secretary of State John Kerry on Jan. 21 to outline his concerns and request further disclosures about what he called a “ransom payment” to Iran, according to a letter sent by the lawmaker and obtained by the Free Beacon.

The State Department has not responded and is said to have ignored multiple follow-up requests from Pompeo’s office, according to sources familiar with the situation.

When asked Thursday whether a response is in the works, a State Department official told the Free Beacon, “We take seriously all correspondence from Congress and respond accordingly.”

The administration’s delay is causing frustration on Capitol Hill and prompting accusations that the State Department is stalling congressional efforts to investigate how the settlement with Iran was reached.

“The State Department likes to drag its feet on responding to Congress, particularly on issues related to the Iran nuclear deal,” one source familiar with the situation said. “This stonewalling is reminiscent of recent testimony by a senior Department of Homeland Security official who would not answer members’ questions on refugees and visas.”

“Congress is only trying to do its job of holding President Obama accountable and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely,” the source added. “The Obama administration’s refusal to answer legitimate questions leaves the American people to wonder what they are hiding.”

In Pompeo’s case, the State Department initially confirmed its receipt of the letter in January but did not provide information as to when officials might respond. The administration subsequently failed to respond to further requests for a response issued over the following months, sources said.

Pompeo’s investigation surrounds “the timing and details” of the cash transfer to Iran of $1.7 billion, according to his letter.

The administration’s behavior “indicates it might be a ransom payment and it is likely interpreted as such by our adversaries,” he wrote. “We may be seeing a dangerous precedent in action as three Americans, reportedly kidnapped by Iranian-backed Shia militias in Baghdad, remain missing.”

“Many find this timing suspicious,” he said. “I fear this payment is the latest incident that is establishing a dangerous precedent that will lead to more Americans being captured abroad.”

The lawmaker sought further information on “the relationship” between the $1.7 billion settlement and the release of the five American prisoners. He also wants to determine whether the lawsuit was ever discussed in “conversations with the Iranians about the release of American hostages.”

“Did you secure an assurance from the Iranians that they will not use this $1.7 billion to fund terrorism?” he asked.

Pompeo goes on to request details about additional legal claims by Iran, asking: “How much money does Iran assert we still owe them? How many more billions can we expect the Obama administration to hand to the Ayatollah?”

Other sources familiar with the matter also chastised the administration for dragging its feet.

“This is one of the main ways the Obama administration hides its Iran foreign policy,” said one foreign policy consultant who works intimately with Congress on the Iran portfolio. “Sometimes they over-classify information to keep it secret, sometimes they mislead lawmakers about their intentions, but a lot of the time they engage in this kind of sandbagging.”

“By the time anyone gets any answers, whatever catastrophic policy they were hiding has become the new normal,” the source said.

President Obama Is a Political Narcissist

March 18, 2016

President Obama Is a Political Narcissist, Washington Free Beacon, Matthew Continetti, March 18, 2016

(Shocking! I had thought his name was Barack Humble Obama. — DM)

President Barack Obama smiles as he listens to Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny speak during their meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 15, 2016. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

President Barack Obama smiles as he listens to Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny speak during their meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 15, 2016. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Confidence is one thing. But Obama is more than confident. He’s narcissistic. He looks at the world and sees nothing but his reflection: rational, cool, unmoved, and always right. When reality surprises him, it’s not because he’s in error. It’s because Putin or Assad or the mullahs have failed to live up to the standards he’s set for them. Forget about them being true to themselves. They’re not being true to Barack Obama. And Barack Obama, lest we forget, is all that matters.

***********************

Russia announces the withdrawal of its forces from Syria. The decision is a surprise—President Obama is shocked. This is a feeling he experiences often.

He was astonished when Vladimir Putin intervened in the Syrian conflict in 2015. He was startled when ISIS conquered a fair portion of Mesopotamia in 2014. He was jarred when Putin invaded Crimea, and launched a proxy war in eastern Ukraine that same year. Rogue states pursue policies contrary to what Obama the Wise sees as their self-interest, and the presidential response never varies. He is stunned. He is saddened. He is sanguine.

Bewilderment happens when reality dispels illusions. I used to think President Obama’s illusions were simply the product of his ideology, of his faith in the universality of human reason, in the idea of historical progress, of his ambivalence toward American power. But after reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s epic, absorbing, revealing interview with the president in The Atlantic, I have come to a different conclusion. It’s not just ideology that drives Obama’s cluelessness. It’s narcissism.

If there is a theme to Goldberg’s article, it is this: Barack Obama knows better. He knows better than the “foreign policy establishment” that his team snidely dismisses as controlled by Jewish and Arab money. He knows better than the elected leaders of Great Britain, France, and Israel, and the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, of whom he is so contemptuous. (Angela Merkel of Germany, Goldberg reports, is “one of the few foreign leaders Obama respects.”) And he knows better than his critics, whose arguments he pores over in obsessive detail, coming up with explanations, rebuttals, and straw men to dismiss them.

Why does Obama know better? Not out of any intense study of or reflection on diplomatic and world history and international relations theory. Not because he served in the military or in the diplomatic corps or held senior posts in government prior to election as president. What graces Obama with superior insight and prudence is the simple fact of his own existence. He is his own proof of his superiority.

Goldberg tells us about one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s visits to the states. “The Israeli prime minister launched into something of a lecture about the dangers of the brutal region in which he lives, and Obama felt that Netanyahu was behaving in a condescending fashion, and was also avoiding the subject at hand: peace negotiations.” So Obama interrupted him.

“Bibi, you have to understand something,” Obama said. “I’m the African-American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”

Now, Barack Obama is a tremendously accomplished man. He is clearly very intelligent and well read, he graduated from Columbia and Harvard, he is the author of two highly praised books and will no doubt write many more in the years to come, he went from nothing to president of the United States in less than a decade, he has outfoxed his Republican opponents at nearly every turn. But his reply to Netanyahu is a colossal non sequitur, a category error of enormous proportions. It makes absolutely no sense.

In what mental universe other than the president’s does being raised in Hawaii and Indonesia and spending adulthood rising through the academy and U.S. political institutions grant someone a deep (or even superficial!) understanding of Zionism, of the Holocaust, of four wars for survival over 25 years, of unending terrorist violence directed toward civilians, of hijackings and kidnappings and bombings and stabbings, of SCUD attacks from Iraq, rockets from Lebanon and Gaza, incitement and de-legitimization campaigns from Tehran? Conversely, what in President Obama’s life story leads him to comprehend the Palestinians, addicted to enmity and resentment and violence, victims of institutional collapse and official corruption, awash and adrift in the worst movements of the last 100 years from nationalism to socialism to pan-Arabism to Islamic fundamentalism?

Note the reverse snobbery when Obama tells Netanyahu, “You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.” (My emphasis.) Maybe the elected leader of an American ally was doing nothing more than trying to explain his view of his region and the source of his reluctance to comply with the president’s demands. Or does Obama actually believe that buried in every disagreement with him is an assumption of his inferiority, disrespect for his heritage and upbringing? If that were the case, then it would be next to impossible to challenge his authority. One would be acting always in bad faith. Which is exactly what he so often accuses his opponents of doing.

This idea of Barack Obama’s existential power, this notion that his very being is what gives him empathy with and moral authority over the world, has gripped the president and his supporters from the beginning. “What does he offer?” asked Andrew Sullivan in December 2007. “First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential rebranding of the United States since Reagan.” His international background, son of a Kenyan and a Kansan, who spent time in Indonesia and Pakistan, is why Obama declared himself a “citizen of the world” in his 2008 Berlin speech. And his personal familiarity with Islam inspired him to deliver the Cairo speech in 2009, when as Goldberg puts it, “he spoke about Muslims in his own family, and his childhood years in Indonesia, and confessed America’s sins even as he criticized those in the Muslim world who demonized the U.S.”

Seven years later, the Greater Middle East that Obama sought to reshape by his mere appearance and oratory is a dumpster fire. State collapse, sectarian war, slavery, crucifixion, beheadings, chemical warfare, genocide characterize the region. The foreign leader who has most consistently outwitted him, Vladimir Putin, enjoys free rein in Eastern Europe and Syria. And the region of the world to which Obama hoped to “pivot”—here too for partly biographical reasons—is engulfed in a deepening territorial dispute between China and the nations it bullies.

Confidence is one thing. But Obama is more than confident. He’s narcissistic. He looks at the world and sees nothing but his reflection: rational, cool, unmoved, and always right. When reality surprises him, it’s not because he’s in error. It’s because Putin or Assad or the mullahs have failed to live up to the standards he’s set for them. Forget about them being true to themselves. They’re not being true to Barack Obama. And Barack Obama, lest we forget, is all that matters.

 Kerry Pirouettes Halfway Out on a Limb About ISIS and Genocide

March 17, 2016

Kerry is willing to list the ways in which ISIS is horrific and to say HE THINKS it is committing genocide, but unwilling to definitively say it is.

By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus Published: March 17th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » Kerry Pirouettes Halfway Out on a Limb About ISIS and Genocide

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. March 17, 2016.
Photo Credit: screen capture http://www.state.gov

In a statement on Wednesday, March 17, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry went halfway out on a limb and announced that ‘in his judgment,’ ISIS is committing genocide against Yezidis and Christians and Shia Muslims and other living things.

But –fair minded man that he is — Kerry refused to say definitively that ISIS actually is committing genocide.  Such a definitive statement, Kerry insisted, could only be made by an international court.

Once upon a time, our world had people — they were called “leaders” — who were not afraid to name evil, and condemn evil when they saw it.  Can you imagine Churchill or Roosevelt issuing a statement that, in their opinion, the Nazis were evil, but that any definitive conclusion on the subject would have to be issued by someone else?

So if you see other reports about Kerry’s statement today, you may find headlines saying the U.S. has announced that ISIS is committing genocide. Sadly, though, Kerry did not quite say that. He said ISIS (he now calls it Daesh, its Arabic acronym) is doing lots of terrible things that the U.S. and its coalition partners detest and want to stop.

Kerry mentioned, at the outset, the taking over of major cities and seizing of territory in Syria and Iraq, committed by ISIS over the past two years. He mentioned that ISIS has overrun major cities, seized territory in Syria and Iraq.

Those are not the first things most humanitarians would list, when listing the atrocities which ISIS has committed.

Kerry then boasted about the U.S. efforts, that it “responded quickly by denouncing these horrific acts and – more importantly – taking coordinated actions to counter them.” He mentioned the international coalition which is working “to halt and reverse Daesh’s momentum.” And ticks off the coalition’s successes and actions.

Kerry boasts that the international coalition has “attacked their revenue sources, and disrupted their supply lines,” and is currently working on a diplomatic initiative to end the civil war in Syria.

Then the U.S. Secretary of State gets to the heart of his statement: how to characterize what ISIS is doing. Is it genocide? Is it simply extreme aggressiveness? Is it random killing, albeit on a large and gruesome scale?

And here it is that Kerry disappoints. He cannot bring himself to actually state: ISIS is committing genocide.

In the administration’s world of moral relativism, in that world in which legal niceties trump reality, the Secretary of State of the greatest nation in global history can only come up with: “in my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims.”

And then he musters a lengthy legal and factual basis for his flaccid statement. Yes, “Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions – in what it says, what it believes, and what it does. Daesh is also responsible for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing directed at these same groups and in some cases also against Sunni Muslims, Kurds, and other minorities.”

Okay, then, but Kerry continues to hedge because heaven forbid he actually flat-out accuses ISIS of genocide. He cannot do that, you see, because there is not yet a complete record: it is “impossible to develop a fully detailed and comprehensive picture of all that Daesh is doing and all that it has done.”

Further down in his statement, Kerry lays out the the rather compelling – one would think – argument that ISIS is committing genocide, to wit, that ISIS “kills Christians because they are Christians; Yezidis because they are Yezidis; Shia because they are Shia. This is the message it conveys to children under its control. Its entire worldview is based on eliminating those who do not subscribe to its perverse ideology. There is no question in my mind that if Daesh succeeded in establishing its so-called caliphate, it would seek to destroy what remains of ethnic and religious mosaic once thriving in the region.”

Still, even after naming what it is that ISIS does, is doing and promises to continue doing, Kerry states that the opinion that he draws from all the evidence currently available does not amount to an actual and official position.

Why?

Because Team USA believes it is not worthy of making such a determination. Nope. They want a legal determination to be made by a judge or legal tribunal after all the facts are put forward, though an independent investigation.

Kerry wrote:

I want to be clear. I am neither judge, nor prosecutor, nor jury with respect to the allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing by specific persons. Ultimately, the full facts must be brought to light by an independent investigation and through formal legal determination made by a competent court or tribunal.

It isn’t as if Kerry or his staff are even vaguely unaware of all the horrors ISIS has committed and promises to continue to commit. Kerry ticks off many of them, near the end of his lengthy statement: faith-based sexual slavery, mass rape, starvation, forced dehydration, executions, forced conversions and destruction of cultural heritage treasures.

Kerry said he wanted his statement to assure the victims of ISIS that the U.S. “recognized and confirms the despicable nature of the crimes that have been committed against them.”

Recognize and confirm? Yes. Name it for what it is? Not yet.

And what is to be served by refusing to take that last final step? Nothing, except to make clear that the U.S. does not value, and therefore neither should anyone else, its ability to pass judgment.

ISIS Massacre of Christians Not “Genocide,” Obama Administration Insists

March 17, 2016

ISIS Massacre of Christians Not “Genocide,” Obama Administration Insists

by Raymond Ibrahim March 17, 2016 at 4:30 am

Source: ISIS Massacre of Christians Not “Genocide,” Obama Administration Insists

 

  • According to the Obama administration, the Islamic State is committing genocide against certain religious minority groups — excluding Christian minorities. But ISIS is on record saying that its eradication of Christians is due to their religious identity.
  • The Obama administration’s rejection of the word “genocide” fits a familiar pattern.
  • When asked about the plight of Christians under ISIS, Colonel Steve Warren said “We’ve seen no specific evidence of a specific targeting toward Christians.”
  • Although Christians number 10% of Syria’s population, only 2% of refugees accepted into the U.S. from there are Christian. (The majority — almost 98% — are Sunni Muslims, the same sect to which ISIS belongs and thus are not persecuted.)

According to the Obama administration, the Islamic State is committing genocide against certain religious minority groups — excluding Christian minorities. During a February 29 press briefing, White House spokesman Josh Earnest was asked: “Is the Islamic State carrying out a campaign of genocide against Syria’s Christians?” He replied:

Well, we have long expressed our concerns with the tendency of — well, not a tendency — a tactic employed by ISIL to slaughter religious minorities in Iraq and in Syria. You’ll recall at the very beginning of the military campaign against ISIL that some of the first actions that were ordered by President Obama, by the United States military, were to protect Yazidi religious minorities that were essentially cornered on Mt. Sinjar by ISIL fighters. We took those strikes to clear a path so that those religious minorities could be rescued.

Due to the obvious equivocation — it is unclear how Obama’s efforts “to protect Yazidi religious minorities” answers a question about persecuted Christians — the question was repeated: “But you’re not prepared to use the word ‘genocide’ yet in the situation [regarding Christians]?”

Earnest’s response:

My understanding is the use of that word involves a very specific legal determination that has at this point not been reached.

What is this “very specific legal determination” that encompasses Yazidis but excludes Christians? The Islamic State’s treatment of Christians would seem to fit under the UN’s definition of “genocide“:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;…

ISIS is guilty of “killing members of the [Christian] group” and causing them “serious bodily or mental harm.” Although two separate videotaped mass executions (one of 21 Egyptian Christians and another of 30 Ethiopian Christians) were reported by the mainstream media, accounts of torture, rape, mutilation, crucifixion, and massacres of Christians are regularly reported on Arabic and alternate media.

The Islamic State has also been responsible for “deliberately inflicting on the group [Christians] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” ISIS has placed these “conditions of life” — more literally known in Islamic doctrine as the “Conditions of Omar” — on Christians. They included a number of humiliations and debilitations — from the suppression of Christian worship to the extortion of money (jizya) — a “protection” tax designed to “encourage” Christians to convert to Islam or flee.

ISIS seems further committed to expunging all physical traces of Christianity in the areas it conquers. It has demolished dozens of ancient churches; at least 400 churches in Syria have been destroyed since the war, as well as countless statues and crucifixes. ISIS has also desecrated Christian cemeteries and ordered the University of Mosul to burn all books written by Christians and decreed that all schools in Mosul and the Nineveh Plain that bore Christian names (some since the 1700s) be changed.

Then there are the numbers. In Iraq, Christians, who totaled 1.4 million in 2003, are now down to about 300,000. In Syria, Christians, who totaled 1.25 million in 2011, are now down to about 500,000.

The Syriac Orthodox Church of St. Ephrem in Mosul, Iraq, before it was captured by the Islamic State (left), and after.

Finally, ISIS is on record saying that its eradication of Christians is due to their religious identity.

Due to all these indicators, many groups and rights activists believe that ISIS’s treatment of Christians “fits the definition of ethnic cleansing,” in the words of the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial. A European Parliament resolution adopted in April 2015 stated that “Christians are the most persecuted religious group. … according to data the number of Christians killed every year is more than 150,000.”

Even so, the Obama administration’s rejection of the word “genocide” fits a familiar pattern:

  • When asked about the plight of Christians under ISIS, Colonel Steve Warren said “We’ve seen no specific evidence of a specific targeting toward Christians.”
  • Although Christians number 10% of Syria’s population, only 2% of refugees accepted into the U.S. from there are Christian. (The majority of refugees — almost 98% — are Sunni Muslims, the same sect to which ISIS belongs and thus are not persecuted.)
  • When inviting scores of Muslim representatives, the State Department has repeatedly denied visas to solitary Christian representatives.
  • When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the war zone.
  • When persecuted Coptic Christians planned on joining Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution of 2013, the Obama administration, in the person of Ambassador Anne Patterson, counseled them not to.
  • When persecuted Iraqi and Syrian Christians asked for arms to join the opposition fighting ISIS, D.C. refused.

Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War in Christians (a Gatestone Publication, published by Regnery, April 2013), is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

UK Officials Warn Obama: ‘Butt Out Of Britain’s EU Referendum’

March 17, 2016

UK Officials Warn Obama: ‘Butt Out Of Britain’s EU Referendum’

by Breitbart London

16 Mar 2016

Source: UK Officials Warn Obama: ‘Butt Out Of Britain’s EU Referendum’

Getty

Five Members of the British Parliament and a Member of the European Parliament have written to U.S. President Barack Obama urging him to stay out of Britain’s referendum on the country’s membership of the European Union (EU).

Peter Bone (Conservative), Kate Hoey (Labour), Kelvin Hopkins (Labour), Tom Pursglove (Conservative), Sammy Wilson (Democratic Unionist Party), and UKIP leader Nigel Farage have co-authored a letter to President Obama warning him that an intervention by a foreign leader could have the opposite effect than intended.

The letter states: “With so much at stake, it is imperative that the question of exiting the European Union is not one answered by foreign politicians or outside interests, but rather by the British people who must ultimately live with change or the status quo.

The British politicians declare: “issues of national sovereignty must be decided exclusively by the people of the United Kingdom”. They state: “even a passive diplomatic recommendation in the matter of our national decision will receive the opposite of the intended effect.”

“The referendum vote is an act of democracy in its most direct form, and the question of whether or not to leave the EU is a rare political topic that is not owned by any one political party. This is a chance for the British people to choose the path of their country. Interfering in our debate over national sovereignty would be an unfortunate milestone at the end of your term as President.”

The open letter is being circulated to U.S. politicians of all stripes, running in Politico magazine, the Weekly Standard and Roll Call – with hard copies delivered to all Members of Congress in the Senate and House of Representatives as well as to the White House itself and Cabinet Offices located within the administrative Beltway of Washington, D.C.

Kate Hoey MP said of the warning: “We felt it is important the President of the United States is aware that feelings will run high in the UK if he chooses to make an intervention. We have chosen to respectfully request he recognises matters of sovereignty are best left to the citizens directly affected. We would certainly never think of visiting the United States and telling the US public how to vote in an election or the amendment of their constitution.”

Peter Bone MP said: “Whatever the President perceives the interests of the US to be it would be better for the relationship between our countries and his reputation with the British people if he kept his counsel to himself.”

The warning comes as nearly 25,000 Britons have signed a petition looking to ban U.S. President Barack Obama from making an intervention in the referendum. If the petition receives over 100,000 signatures, it is likely to be debate in the House of Commons.