Lying About Gitmo

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

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.

Lying About Gitmo

Iran Says New U.S. Visa Rule Violates Nuclear Pact

You can't make this stuff up. This comes on the heels of two missiles launched by Iran in direct violation of the UN resolution. 

Iran missile launch violated UN resolution

Meanwhile Iran hasn't even signed the deal yet!

http://www.newsmax.com/DeroyMurdock/Barack-Obama-Iran-Middle-East/2015/12/17/id/706199/

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

Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif of Iran in September. In a letter, Mr. Kerry said new visa restrictions would not affect the nuclear agreement. Craig Ruttle/Associated Press 

TEHRAN — A new United States visa restriction that applies to Europeans and others who have visited so-called high-risk countries has led to angry reactions in Iran, where some leaders say the decision is a violation of the nuclear agreement reached in July.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, told state media on Monday that the visa restriction was an “obstacle, placed by some individuals,” that he hoped would soon be resolved. Mr. Zarif referred to a letter sent by Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday, asserting that the restriction would not affect the nuclear agreement.

The letter, obtained and leaked by the National Iranian American Council, an advocacy group based in Washington, hinted that President Obama would use his executive authority to exempt Iran from the visa restriction, which was passed almost unanimously in Congress. Mr. Obama signed it into law on Friday.

The restriction, a security step arising from the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., prohibits visa-free travel to the United States for anyone who has visited or holds citizenship in Syria, Iraq, Sudan and Iran.

Precisely why Iran was included on the list is unclear, since it is a foe of the Islamic State, the militant extremist group accused of organizing or fomenting the attacks.

Iranian politicians, especially hard-liners who harbor great antipathy toward the United States, are saying the measure will be an obstacle to trade after the implementation of the nuclear agreement and the lifting of the first sanctions against Iran, scheduled in late January.

Mr. Kerry is now promising that this will not be an outcome of the visa restrictions. “We will implement them so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran,” he wrote in the letter.

The restrictions are part of an amendment to the current visa-free arrangement among 38 countries, including members of the European Union and the United States. It will mean that tourists, businesspeople and others from friendly countries in Europe as well as Australia, Japan and South Korea, who have visited Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Iran will soon be forced to apply for a United States visa, instead of traveling freely.

Many of these countries are expected to take countermeasures because the visa-free arrangement is based on reciprocity.

Iranian state radio on Saturday called the amendment the first “American, anti-Iranian measure” since the signing of the nuclear agreement. An influential member of Parliament, Allaedin Boroujerdi, said the move violated the nuclear agreement, which was supposed to ease or end many sanctions.

“The U.S. Congress’s bill is in contradiction to the deal, because they promised us not to impose any restrictions on Iranian nationals,” Mr. Boroujerdi was quoted as saying by the Tasnim news agency in Iran on Sunday.

Iranians have reacted with shock to the amendment, pointing out that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not on the list of high-risk countries, though 15 out of 19 participants in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were from Saudi Arabia. The San Bernardino couple who killed 14 people on Dec. 2 had ties to both nations. Others said the Islamic State, which claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks in November, is an ideological enemy of Iran, and Shiites, the predominant strain of Muslim faith in Iran.

On Monday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hossein Jaberi-Ansari, blamed Israeli groups for having pushed to include Iran in the visa measure.

“There is a large opposition to the nuclear deal with Zionist lobbyists spearheading the efforts that have been made for the deal not to come to fruition,” he was quoted as saying by Press TV, an English-language news agency backed by the government. “What was done in the U.S. was on the back of the Zionist lobby pressure that was opposed to the agreement with Iran.”

Some Iranians sought to play down the problem, pointing to Iran’s recent missile tests that angered the United States government but did not appear to endanger the nuclear agreement.

“The United States complains, but that’s it, everybody wants to move forward,” said one analyst who preferred not to be identified because he did not want to jeopardize his job. “This is just an obstacle, that’s it.”

Iran Says New U.S. Visa Rule Violates Nuclear Pact

Here's a story you don't see everyday

Muslims shield Christians when Al-Shabaab attacks bus

Their M.O. is a tried and terrifying one: Launch a raid, single out Christians, and then spray them with bullets. 

But when Al-Shabaab militants ambushed a bus Monday, things didn't go according to plan. 

A group of Kenyan Muslims shielded the Christian passengers and told the attackers they were prepared to die together. 

The Muslim passengers who were mostly women told the Islamic militants to kill them all or leave them alone, witnesses said. 

Police escort breaks down

The bus was headed to the city of Mandera, near the border with Somalia and Ethiopia.

The journey is such a security risk that most buses travel with a police escort. 

In this case, however, the police car broke down and the bus continued on its journey, Joseph Nkaissery, Kenya's interior cabinet secretary, said.

A few hours later, the militants attacked. 

Brutal acts

Al-Shabaab, a Somali group the United States has designated as a foreign terrorist organization, wants to turn Somalia into a fundamentalist Islamic state. It has launched a series of attacks in Kenya, since Kenyan forces went into Somalia to battle the extremists in 2011.

Its goal: sow division in the border regions of Kenya and Somalia, where many of the people are ethnically Somali, analysts say.

Among Al-Shabaab's most brutal acts was the raid on Garissa University College in April that left nearly 150 people dead. Witnesses described how gunmen asked students to recite verses from the Quran. If they couldn't, they were killed. 

The group regularly storms buses, particularly this time of the year -- one of the busiest travel seasons in the nation. Throngs make their way to relatives' homes for the holidays, with buses and other public transportation packed.

In one such attack last year, they raided a bus and shot dead 28 people who failed to recite Quran verses. 

'We are not separated by religion'

In the Monday attack, the gunmen ordered Muslim passengers to come out of the bus and separate themselves from the Christians. 

There were more than 100 passengers on board. 

The Muslim passengers refused. 

They gave the Christian women their hijabs and helped others hide behind bags in the bus, passenger Abdiqafar Teno told CNN. 

"They told them, 'If you want to kill us, then kill us. There are no Christians here," he said. 

A Christian man who tried to run away was captured and shot dead, Teno said. The driver of a truck, which was trailing the bus, was also killed. 

The gunmen left, but warned they would return. 

Nkaissery, the interior cabinet secretary, told reporters security forces were in "hot pursuit of the criminals."

Then he commended the actions of the Muslim passengers. 

"We are all Kenyans, we are not separated by religion," he said. "We are one people as a nation. And this is a very good message from my brothers and sisters from the Muslim community." 

Here's a story you don't see everyday

COIL OF RAGE

Think this isn't true? 

Contrast the Charleston shooting vs San Bernardino. Which one got all his attention? 

There are dozens of examples...these are just two.

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

By

Ed Kilbane

Everything you need to know about absolute zero is contained in his two books (coauthored by Bill Ayers). There was plenty of ammo in them that the MSM could have used 8 years ago to expose him for what he really is. But they turned a blind eye just as they have done with every other shady and mysterious aspect of his past. 

Subject: COIL OF RAGE 

All I can add is "DOES ANYONE HEAR " DOES ANYONE CARE?"

When you've read to the end, come back and read this first paragraph again.

A Coil of Rage

The character of any man is defined by how he treats his mother as the

years pass… need I say more about this person below other than there

is no character, no integrity but there is a ton of attitude and

arrogance that defines his shallow past and hollow future... 

I rest my case.

I bought and read Obama's book, Audacity of Hope. It was difficult to

read considering his attitude toward us and everything American. Let me

add a phrase he used to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors

a "COIL OF RAGE." His words, not mine.

Everyone of voting age should read these two books by him: Don't buy

them, just get them from the library. 

from Dreams From My Father: (taken directly from his book)

"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I

began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites." 

from Dreams From My Father: (taken directly from his book)

"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and

animosity against my mother's race."

from Dreams From My Father: (taken directly from his book)

"There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of

herself, maybe and white." 

from Dreams From My Father: (taken directly from his book)

"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your

loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." 

from Dreams From My Father: (taken directly from his book)

"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my

own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa ,

that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes

of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela." 

And FINALLY...........and most scary: 

from Audacity of Hope: (taken directly from his book)

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an

ugly direction." 

If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!! We

have someone with this mentality running our GREAT nation! Keep your

eye on him and don't blink. 

I don't care whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative

or a liberal, be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting

President. 

THIS IS YOUR PRESIDENT -- Is anyone out there awake? 

Vote for me I'm black like you.

Barry Announces the 2012 Launch of African Americans for Obama

COIL OF RAGE

Ben Stein on Climate Change 12/14/15

Ben Stein is being interviewed by Neil Cavuto. Ben discusses his thoughts on man made climate change and how the U.S. economy would suffer if the Paris climate change agreement was fully implemented. Really worth a watch especially what he says about China and India.

Video 186

Beijing issues first ever red alert on pollution

The smog of the last red alert cleared dramatically on 10 December

Take a guess where most of it went.

Hint:

They love sanctuary cities.

Ben Stein on Climate Change 12/14/15