Visit Counter

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Why Hillary will never be prosecuted



The short sweet answer is it all but assures the next POTUS is a Republican. Nine out of ten don’t even know who O’Malley is and Sanders is a Socialist. This is the reason whatever FBI Director Comey discovers about Hillary's emails the DOJ will dismiss it for the reason cited above. Comey can say or do what he likes except prosecute the case. That job is reserved for the DOJ (Loretta Lynch a "Stedman" clone). The MSM except for FOX will bury, or spin it, by purporting...the FBI director is just another Republican out to get Hillary.

My bet is Lynch will issue a statement along these lines:

“After an exhaustive investigation involving both the DOJ and the FBI we found Hillary Clinton guilty of mismanaging her private email account of which she has expressed deep regret. Furthermore, although her personal email account was mishandled we found no evidence of deliberate criminal intent and at no time was the country’s security in jeopardy.” 

Case closed.
And I hope I'm wrong.



Case in point to justify what I just said.


Remember how they went after Carson on West Point? 


Yet the MSM glossed over the "Lolita Express".


Even though Clinton was in the FAA log book for over a dozen flights!!! 




(If this didn’t stick do you really expect Hillary is going down for her emails? A fine maybe... jail forgetaboutit.)


Should a former U.S. president (or anyone for that matter) be this close to a sex grooming ring of the One Percent? 



Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet
Bill Clinton took repeated trips on the “ Lolita Express"—the private passenger jet owned by billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein—with an actress in software porn movies whose name appears in Epstein's address book under an entry for "massages," according to flight logbooks obtained by Gawker and published today (1-22-15) for the first time. The logs also show that Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually service Epstein and his friends and acted as a “ potential co-conspirator" in his crimes.

One woman abused on the island by Epstein told the UK Daily Mail Clinton was provided with two women “no older than 17” when he visited Epstein’s island.

Do you consider this a stretch? Remember we're talking about Bill Clinton.

I could see it now if this case ever comes to fruition. 


Wonder if they could get a hold of a dress to give to Ken Starr?




PS: Roger Stone wrote a piece for the DC 1-13-15. This is the last paragraph. 

Telling

"All stories like this have a butler. In this case Epstein’s Butler Alfredo Rodriguez, who was arrested and did time for his role of paymaster to Epstein, marked up a copy of Epstein’s little black book for Palm Beach Police showing who Epstein had pandered pre-teen girls to. The list, which I have seen, is mind blowing. It includes a former governor, a billionaire Republican donor, a Prime Minister, a former Senate Majority Leader, a well known lawyer, royalty, socialites and scientists. Kingpin sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s take on all this?: “I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an ‘offender.’ It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.”


According to Stone the biggest mystery is why the George W Bush DOJ gave Epstein a free pass.



 If Bill could get away with this Killary's emails are a piece of cake.




More than a dozen flights on Epstein's private jet. With Clinton's track record think how his utter disregard and reckless stupidity just put himself in yet another dicey situation. Why would an ex-president be associated with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein unless they shared a common interest? Are we to conclude he was on board for sex or trying to talk Epstein into some Whitewater property?


You decide.












Share/Bookmark

"I'm not a fashion Icon"




Finally one absolute true statement from a Clinton.





She looks like the backdrop muriel in a Chinese restaurant 



Right after golf they went to the sock hop 



A gown or she got tangled up in the draperies?



Simply Orange + added fat instead of calcium



I think I'm starting to like pantsuits



The day Scarlett O'Hillary  learned Chelsea's farther-in-law is an ex-con and stated:
"Frankly Chelsea, I don't give a damn."













Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

The taking of Ramadi... what a joke!



ISIS unfortunately will capitalize on the incompetent Iraqi army. If 300 could achieve this what could 3,000 accomplish? It reminds me of the 300 Spartans. 


With a 33 to 1 advantage, and air support, it took the Iraqi army 6 days to retake the city. And their jumping up and down celebrating in the streets? 

video
Video 188



How is it we always align ourselves with incompetents? South Vietnam anyone?

If they go against 10,000 ISIS fighters the Iraqi's will lose since they 'only' have 250,000 troops! We've been pouring money/training into Iraq for years, and this is the best they could show for it? God forbid another 20 or so came out of the woodwork.

What a convoluted mess. If the Iraqi army were a football team they'd be donned in Cleveland Brown uniforms.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------



The first photos from Ramadi, which was seized from ISIS's barbaric clutches today, reveal how the Iraqi city has been laid to waste by seven months of intense fighting. 






After a fresh operation  to retake the city was launched six days ago, Ramadi was finally 'liberated' by 10,000 Iraqi troops who wrestled it from 300 ISIS fighters.

For the first time since ISIS seized the town in May, troops were free to drive through its dusty streets, scattered with burned out vehicles and flanked on either side by decimated buildings.

Ramadi is ghost town, and yet the victory is said to be a huge boost to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and his army, who were ridiculed after losing large parts of the country to ISIS last June.





Share/Bookmark

Chicago mayor cuts Cuba vacation short to address weekend police shooting




Doesn't everyone go to Cuba or is it only available to the privileged few?



This article could be summed up in 5 words...We want a black mayor!

And of course in that eventuality, any black on black killing or cops shooting blacks will come to a screeching halt.

This is what happened over the Christmas holiday and we haven't made it to New Years yet.



This is the year to date figure:

This coming from a city having some of the most strict gun control laws on the books.



YEARLY TOTALS

JAN. 1, 2015 - DEC. 28, 2015

2,937

And the only ones that matter are the handful the cops shot.






FILE - In this Dec. 7, 2015 file photo, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, accompanied by Interim Chicago Police Superintendent John Escalante, speaks during a news conference in Chicago. (AP)



Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced Monday he plans to cut his family vacation in Cuba short and return to the city to work on reforming the Chicago Police Department in wake of another deadly police shooting in which one person was killed by accident when police responded to a domestic disturbance call.

Kelly Quinn, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said in a statement to the Chicago Tribune Emanuel left for Cuba on Dec. 18 and wasn’t’ expected to return until Saturday but decided to return on Tuesday after officers responding to a domestic disturbance shot and killed Quintonio LeGrier, 19, and Bettie Jones, 55. Police said Jones was “accidentally” shot.

While Mayor Emanuel has been in constant contact with his staff and Interim Superintendent (John) Escalante, he is cutting his family trip short so that he can continue the ongoing work of restoring accountability and trust in the Chicago Police Department," Quinn said in a statement.

The shooting deaths take place days after the Justice Department opened a civil-rights investigation into Chicago police practices. It was the first deadly police shooting since the release of the video footage showing Officer Jason Van Dyke shooting and killing 19-year-old Laquan McDonald in 2014.

The pressure has increased on Emanuel ever since the release of the McDonald video. Protests calling for his resignation have occurred daily since November, with critics alleging that Emanuel didn’t release the video over political reasons. Emanuel was reelected as the city’s mayor in April.

The mayor has responded with a flurry of activity to stem the outcry, mixing short-term changes and long-term promises, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“The changes we have made in recent weeks are just a beginning—not an end,” Emanuel has said.

One of the most vocal critics of Emanuel has been Rev. Al Sharpton who said it was “unbelievable” that Emanuel didn’t return immediately to Chicago after the most recent shooting this past weekend.

“I think he’s gone beyond the point where he can even govern with the trust of the people,” Sharpton said on MSNBC’s “The Morning Joe.” Sharpton also called for Emanuel’s resignation, echoing almost daily protests around the city.

Had the mayor been DeMarcus Jones Sharpton's response would have been, "The mayor cannot be held responsible  for the reckless actions taken by the Chicago PD."

BTW...Al owes the IRS $4.5 million. If he was a member of the TeaParty he would be behind bars by now. Why was Wesley Snipes jailed for tax invasion and Al is not?

In the last month, Emanuel has fired his police chief and the head of the group that investigates police shootings in Chicago and formed a group to look at how to reform the department.

Emanuel, in all likelihood, will have three more years to get things right in Chicago, despite the outpour of anger in the city. The Wall Street Journal reported the city doesn’t have a process to recall him.

The mayor’s former political director, Thomas Bowen, told the Journal Emanuel is responding to the growing concerns of residents and people see him taking action.

“They see their political figures responding to the problem,” Bowen added.



Share/Bookmark

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Can't Vote But Campaigning Hard For Presidential Candidates







This is total bullshit.

Let me see now Killary is currently under investigation for her emails and Sanders was taking a lot of heat recently after his campaign staff accessed Clinton campaign voter data. And now a new low... they have freaking illegals working for them in their campaign!  How is this even permissible? 

Does anyone expect these two Democratic "Muchacho's" running for POTUS are really going to "protect and defend our border"?

This article want's you to buy into the sob story.

I bought into the last sentence. You better too.

"And whether Sisa's other dreams come true — of ultimately becoming a citizen and one day voting herself — could be determined by who wins the White House in 2016."

--------------------------------------------------------







Lorella Praeli speaking to reporters at the White House in Dec. 2014. Praeli, who arrived in the U.S. as an undocumented immigrant aka illegal, is now a top official in Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Praeli was hired in May while still illegal. She has since married an American and became a US citizen.






College student Belen Sisa loves Bernie Sanders. 

Sisa, a 21-year-old who attends Chandler-Gilbert Community College, is so passionate about the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential hopeful, she was rooting for him to run for president long before he announced his candidacy. 

On a recent Friday evening in downtown Phoenix, Sisa and other volunteers set up a Sanders table at the city's monthly art walk. They propped up a life-size cardboard cutout of the candidate, chanted "Feel the Bern!" and registered fellow Sanders supporters to vote in the primary. 

But even though Sisa is happy to volunteer for Sanders on a Friday night, she herself won't be voting for him. 

She can't. 

Sisa is not a citizen, and there is no path for her to become one. She's a so-called DREAMer — she grew up undocumented in Arizona after her family came here from Argentina. 

"The way that I see it is, I am one person and I can't vote, but if I get 10 people to vote that means a lot more than my vote alone, whenever I can vote," Sisa said.' 

One reason Sisa likes Sanders so much is his immigration platform. It includes proposals to keep immigrant families together and allow certain immigrants who were deported "unjustly" to return. 

Sisa first became interested in politics in June 2012 when President Barack Obama used executive power to create the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which gave DREAMers like her protection from deportation and temporary work permits. 

Paving The Way 

Sisa, who was finishing high school at the time, realized other undocumented young people a few years older than her had helped pave the way for that victory. 

For years, young undocumented immigrants lobbied Congress to pass the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act, a bill that would give them an eventual path to citizenship. The term "DREAMers" was coined as a way to describe the immigrant youth who would have benefited from the bill. DREAMers came out of the shadows, told their stories, traveled to Washington, D.C, and engaged in acts of civil disobedience. 

After Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act, undocumented youth activists called on Obama to act using executive authority. 

"President Obama didn't take action because he felt bad, or because he just woke up one day and said he wanted to pass DACA," Sisa said. "It was because there were brave people who came before me, got arrested, they got to the White House, they pushed." 

Work permits have allowed these young immigrants to get involved in politics in new ways. This election cycle, prominent activists from the DREAMer movement are taking on key roles in Democratic presidential campaigns. 

DREAMer activists Erika Andiola, 28, and Cesar Vargas, 32, head Latino strategic outreach for Bernie Sanders. They are co-founders of the Dream Action Coalition and have been at the forefront of DREAMer issues in their respective home states of Arizona and New York. They joined the campaign this fall and helped craft Sanders' position on immigration. 

Last May, Hillary Clinton tapped Lorella Praeli to head Latino outreach for her campaign. The 27-year-old DREAMer is the former director of advocacy and policy for the immigrant youth rights network, United We Dream. 

"Five years ago, you would never see someone undocumented be hired by such a high profile campaign," Sisa said. "And now to win the campaign, they need them." 

Praeli's family came to the U.S. from Peru when she was a child. At first they came on visits so Praeli could get medical treatments at American hospitals. When Praeli was just 2 years old, she was in a car accident and had her right leg amputated. The family overstayed their visa and became undocumented. 

After fighting for in-state tuition for undocumented students at Connecticut's public colleges and universities, Praeli moved to Washington, D.C., to work for United We Dream, where she was a leading voice pushing the president to use executive authority to defer deportations. 

When Obama announced last year that he would expand upon the 2012 DACA program to also shield the undocumented parents of American citizens from deportation, Praeli was in the audience. But her excitement turned to frustration when Republican governors blocked the program in the court. 

That was the point at which Praeli decided she wanted to use the organizing tactics she had learned as an activist to get Clinton elected as the next president. 

"I thought, there is so much at stake in this election, I want to work for a candidate that is going to fight for my family, that is going to fight for me and for my family," Praeli said. 

Praeli herself just became a citizen. She was able to adjust her status after she married her husband, an American. She'll vote for the first time in the New York primary for her boss. 

Praeli said there is "nothing more beautiful or powerful" than finally being recognized by the country she calls home. 

"It is my deepest desire for every undocumented person in this country to get to experience what I've been going through," Praeli said. 

Martin O'Malley's campaign does not have a DREAMer on staff, according to a spokesman. But the campaign picked Kenia Alejandra Calderon, a DREAMer who is a junior at Drake University in Iowa, to serve as a surrogate and promote the candidate. 

Democrats "Lean In" On Immigration Policies 

The three leading Democratic presidential candidates vary in their immigration platforms but all support a path to citizenship for the undocumented. They have each pledged to expand upon Obama's executive actions for undocumented immigrants if Congress fails to pass immigration legislation. 

In this primary, the Democrats have moved away from "enforcement first" language on immigration, said Ben Johnson of the Washington-based American Immigration Council, an advocacy group that says it's for "sensible and humane" immigration policies. 

"The Democratic party is not having same existential crisis that the Republican party is having when it comes to immigration," Johnson said. "And in fact they have leaned into the issue in some very, very powerful ways." 

Johnson said DREAMers helped shift the immigration debate, and it makes perfect sense that presidential campaigns are hiring them. 

"What the DREAMer movement has done, the way they have organized themselves proves them to be enormously effective political organizers," Johnson said. "They are good at what they do." 

As for Bernie Sanders volunteer Belen Sisa, she just got hired to work for the campaign in Las Vegas. 

"To able to finally have a job with the campaign is like a dream come true for me," Sisa said. 

And whether Sisa's other dreams come true — of ultimately becoming a citizen and one day voting herself — could be determined by who wins the White House in 2016.





Share/Bookmark

Graham not Lindsey jumping ship





Will Franklin Graham Lead an Evangelical Exodus From the GOP?



Can't blame him.



ENOUGH



Since Republicans took over Congress I can't name one notable accomplishmentIn fact you would think the Democrats were in charge! 



In this last spending bill their only retort was...where do we sign. 

Remember the uproar, the videos, regarding PP? It just went up in smoke. I mean Christ...you got to stand for something.

---------------------------------------



Franklin Graham announced this week he was leaving the Republican Party as a result of the inclusion of Planned Parenthood funding in the spending bill that sailed through Congress last week. While he's the first to formally bail, he might not be the last.

Billy Graham's son is over the GOP.

(click)



WOW...Barry's got them trained better than a procession of elephants at Barnum and Bailey's.  


Franklin Graham, who heads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, posted on Facebook yesterday that he plans to leave the Republican Party. His growing frustration highlights growing (and sometimes paradoxical) anger that pro-life and evangelical Christian leaders have for Republican Party leadership.

Graham took to Facebook to rip Republicans in the wake of a spending bill the House passed last week that maintains federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

"Seeing and hearing Planned Parenthood talk nonchalantly about selling baby parts from aborted fetuses with utter disregard for human life is reminiscent of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi concentration camps!" Graham wrote, referring to videos that showed Planned Parenthood officials discussing their fetal tissue donation program. "That should've been all that was needed to turn off the faucet for their funding.

"This is an example of why I have resigned from the Republican Party and declared myself Independent," he continued. "I have no hope in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or Tea Party to do what is best for America."

On one hand, comments like this aren't particularly out-of-character for Graham. On Nov. 6, he told CNN that he wasn't particularly enamored of the GOP.


"I don't have any faith in any of the political parties," he said. "The only hope that we have is for God to intervene and I want the church to stand up and to vote."

And he made a similar, politically agnostic comment in May, as The Christian Post reported.

That said, yesterday's comment raised eyebrows because it's a commitment to officially break with the Republican Party. And evangelical leaders say he's channeling a sentiment that's increasingly widespread in their community.


After the House voted to pass the omnibus spending bill that kept federal dollars in place for Planned Parenthood, many conservative Christians—evangelical and Catholic—were furious.

Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, said the uproar isn't surprising.

"This Planned Parenthood sponsorship in this bill further confirms what many evangelical Christians believe about the Republican Party establishment, and that is, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment," he said.


"This is an example of why I have resigned from the Republican Party and declared myself Independent," said Graham.

"And I believe that disenchantment that many evangelical Christians have explains the rise of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump," he added.

Jeffress said this disenchantment has been growing for more than a decade, especially since George W. Bush's 2004 presidential campaign. During that race, Bush pushed for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as part of a strategy to get evangelical Christians to the polls. It worked, and he got re-elected thanks to their strong showing. But in his second term, the president and his team abandoned their promise to try to write a gay-marriage ban into the Constitution. And that left many evangelicals feeling used and betrayed.

Brent Bozell, a prominent conservative activist who founded the Media Research Center, said Graham's split from the Republican Party is especially devastating because of his role as a faith leader, rather than a political one. Graham isn't known for his politicking; rather, evangelicals know and respect him for his disaster relief work—in particular, for the Operation Christmas Child shoebox-donation program that figures prominently in how hundreds of churches celebrate Christmas. 

"He's not taking a political position," said Bozell. "He's taking a moral position, which is far more serious in the evangelical world."

That means Graham's excoriation of party leaders carries special significance.

"When they're funding the murder of children, this is where the evangelicals say, enough is enough," Bozell said.

Ed Martin, the president of Eagle Forum—a conservative activism organization that Phyllis Schlafly started—called the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the spending bill "an extraordinary betrayal."

"When Franklin Graham and others say, 'Hey, don't put all your hope in a party because that's not the ultimate hope and should not be the focus of this earthly realm,' we recognize that," he said. "So there's a tension that you want to further the values informing your heart and life through politics, through policy. But you also want to say, don't make a political party a false god. Any false god will fail you. There's only one true God."

But there's an irony in this conservative frustration with the Republican Party over abortion: That's because 2015 brought tons of wins for the pro-life movement. Republican state legislatures passed dozens of restrictions on the procedure, and Mother Jones reported that abortion clinics "are closing down at a rate of 1.5 every single week." And the Centers for Disease Control also found that the country's abortion rate reached a record low this year.

Despite that, the loss in Congress has many conservative Christians reeling. And Graham's comments will fuel that anger.







Share/Bookmark

Thursday, December 24, 2015

To my loyal readers...






all three of you




Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 







Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

BREAKING: Al Sharpton Gets Some BAD News




On a tip from Ed Kilbane




Speaking of Al and the IRS what do you think the odds are the IRS even has a wage garnishment on Al’s Politics Nation paycheck? 

----------------------------------------
 



Earlier this month, President Barack Obama signed into law a highway bill, H.R. 22, that incidentally wound up barring race-baiter Al Sharpton from stepping foot outside of America.

Specifically, the bill contained within it a tiny little provision that authorized the State Department to revoke the passports of tax-delinquent Americans who owe the IRS more than $50,000.

“If this bill becomes law, it will be imperative for Americans traveling abroad or living abroad to pay attention to IRS notices — assuming they receive them,” David Kautter, a partner at Washington-based accounting firm RSM, explained to The Wall Street Journal a few weeks before the bill’s passage.

Since the bill passed and will officially go into law on Jan. 1, 2016, this means that our good buddy Al Sharpton, who reportedly owes million in taxes to both the federal government and the state of New York, must as of 2016 remain inside the United States at all times (at least until he pays up, which he appears to have no intention of doing).

In fact, while speaking before the National Action Network earlier this year, Sharpton went so far as to try and excuse his bad behavior by citing the most insane of reasons.

“We’re talking about old taxes,” he said. “I think it’s political.”

Right. Because the rest of us can just ignore our back taxes, once a few years have gone by. The IRS probably doesn’t even care after about 18 months.

Regardless, the latest news regarding Sharpton’s future travel plans (or the lack thereof) bodes very badly for him, though one could also argue it bodes badly for all of America, since many of us wish he would fly away somewhere. Anywhere, really.

On the other hand, it’s good news for most of the rest of the world, because the last thing any civilized society needs is Al Sharpton hanging around.






Share/Bookmark

Lying About Gitmo





On a tip from Ed Kilbane



video
Video 187

To top this off he’s suddenly concerned amount the cost of keeping Gitmo open. Wasn’t he the one who gave them all computers and a $750,000 soccer field? This coming from the guy who will double the national debt by the time he leaves office.

---------------------------------------------------



DEC 28, 2015 | By STEPHEN F. HAYES






Credit: Newsroom




Let's begin with the conclusion: Barack Obama is releasing dangerous terrorists against the recommendations of military and intelligence professionals, he's doing so at a time when the threat level from radical Islamists is elevated, and he is lying about it. He is lying about how many jihadists he has released and lying about their backgrounds, all part of his effort to empty the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.

We write this knowing the accusation is a strong one and that the word lying will offend the sensibilities of the establishment media. There is an unwritten rule that requires euphemizing lies with gentler descriptions, especially when talking about the president of the United States. There is a veritable thesaurus of verbal politeness one can deploy: deceiving, dissembling, misleading, prevaricating, being duplicitous, evasive, fallacious, mendacious, dishonest, disingenuous, specious, spurious, untruthful.

Not this time. The president is lying.

The facts: Ibrahim al Qosi was a senior al Qaeda operative and a close associate of Osama bin Laden. An 11-page classified assessment of Qosi from U.S. military and intelligence professionals on Joint Task Force Guantánamo was made public by WikiLeaks. From that assessment: "Detainee is an admitted al Qaeda operative and one of Usama bin Laden's (UBL) most trusted associates and veteran bodyguard." And: "Following a 1994 assassination attempt against UBL, UBL chose detainee to be one of approximately ten individuals assigned to his protection detail." And: "Detainee has been very forthright regarding his commitment to UBL and al Qaeda. He explains his commitment to UBL as a religious duty to defend Islam and fulfill his obligation to jihad." The assessment concluded: "Detainee is assessed to be a HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies."

Barack Obama approved Qosi's transfer to Sudan in July 2012.

Earlier this month, Qosi resurfaced as a leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, appearing in a propaganda video for the group, which administration and intelligence officials have consistently identified as a direct threat to the United States. He joins a growing list of terrorists once held in American detention facilities and now leading the global jihadist movement and plotting attacks against the United States—a list that includes Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.

In an interview broadcast December 14, Olivier Knox, chief Washington correspondent for Yahoo News, asked Obama about Qosi and Guantánamo.

Obama reiterated his call to close Guantánamo and repeated his disputed claim that jihadists use Guantánamo as a major recruiting tool.

Then he lied:

"Keep in mind that between myself and the Bush administration hundreds of people have been released and the recidivism rate—we anticipate," Obama said. "We assume that there are going to be—out of four, five, six hundred people that get released—a handful of them are going to be embittered and still engaging in anti-U.S. activities and trying to link up potentially with their old organizations."

A total of 653 detainees have been released. Of those, 196 are confirmed (117) or suspected (79) of returning to jihadist activity. That's not a "handful." It's almost a third. The president knows this. The numbers come from the man he chose as the nation's top intelligence official, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. Military and intelligence officials who study the global jihadist movement tell The Weekly Standard that Clapper's assessment undoubtedly understates the recidivism rate, given the uneven commitment to tracking former jihadists by host countries and the lag times between release and reintegration.

The president continued. And he lied again:

"The bottom line is that the strategic gains we make by closing Guantánamo will outweigh, you know, those low-level individuals who, you know, have been released so far."

There's scant evidence to support the president's assertion about "strategic gains" associated with the closure of Guantánamo. But it's a speculative claim, impossible to disprove. That's not true of his claim that those released from Guantánamo "so far" have been "low-level individuals."


That's demonstrably false.

President Obama himself approved the exchange of the so-called Taliban Five, all senior leaders, for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Not one member of the Taliban Five can be considered "low-level." Indeed, all five were senior Taliban commanders judged "high risks" to the United States and its allies by Joint Task Force Guantánamo. All five worked with al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks. U.S. intelligence officials suspect that one or more of them has already reconnected with jihadist brethren and may be assisting the Taliban's fight. When U.S. intelligence officials asked a foreign intelligence service, likely the Saudis, to rank more than 100 detainees by threat level, Youssef Mohammed al Shihri, transferred in 2007, ranked fourth. Other released detainees fought alongside Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, played senior roles in al Qaeda's financial front groups, and led al Qaeda affiliates. And, of course, the Guantánamo recidivist who prompted the question, Ibrahim al Qosi, was "one of Usama bin Laden's closest associates."

Obama has also downplayed the threats from Guantánamo releasees in other ways. He describes the detainees as "embittered," as if the hatred that inspires them grows from their time in Guantánamo rather than their devotion to a murderous cause. Instead of rejoining the war, the recidivists are merely "trying to link up with their old organizations." Perhaps most bizarre is his description of the process he's using to determine which detainees can be transferred or set free. "The judgment that we're continually making is: Are there individuals who are significantly more dangerous than the people who are already out there who are fighting? What do they add? Do they have special skills? Do they have special knowledge that ends up making a significant threat to the United States?"

Those are the criteria? Detainees can be released if the White House determines that they are no more dangerous than, say, the leaders of ISIS, AQAP, Boko Haram, Jabhat al Nusra, the Haqqani network, the Khorasan group? If this is actually the way the administration evaluates potential releases, it would explain why so many veteran jihadists have been freed. It's a process that prioritizes emptying the facility over the security of the country.

Obama's comments on Guantánamo come in the middle of a concerted White House public relations campaign to convince the American people that the president is redoubling efforts to abate the threat from radical Islam (which the administration persists in calling "violent extremism"). In the space of two weeks, Obama delivered an Oval Office address on ISIS, traveled to the Pentagon for a meeting and photo-op on the military campaign in Iraq and Syria, and paid a visit to the National Counterterrorism Center for a briefing and remarks to reporters. The president didn't announce any significant changes to his strategy. But with his approval on handling terrorism at just 34 percent, the lowest level of his presidency, Obama has been eager to demonstrate he's paying attention to the issue.


It's a political solution to a national security problem. And the entire exercise has been revealed as a fraud by the president's dishonesty on Guantánamo, which conceals a policy that will increase the very threats he'd have us believe he's now taking seriously.

We would think all of this might be newsworthy: The president of the United States is releasing dangerous terrorists, and he's lying about it. And yet none of the country's leading newspapers or broadcast networks has reported Obama's comments. If you get your news exclusively from the New York Times and the Washington Post, or from ABC, CBS, and NBC, you have no idea what the president said about Guantánamo. And you certainly don't know what he said was untrue.

Not a peep from the legion of self-styled fact-checkers, either. PolitiFact scrutinizes seemingly every guttural noise that emanates from Donald Trump but cannot find the time to assess specious claims from the president on the most pressing issue of the day.

So the president believes, not unreasonably, that he can stack lie upon lie with impunity. Workplace violence. Isolated extremist. One-off attack. Decimated. On the run. Jayvee. Contained. And on it goes.

Three days after Obama's interview with Yahoo, the New York Times published an article on Guantánamo. The top of the article broke news: The administration is planning to accelerate the pace of detainee transfers, with as many as 17 coming before the end of January. The rest of the piece amounted to a long complaint about the lack of media access to the facility and those who run it. And what about Obama's lies?

Not a single word.







Share/Bookmark