ISIS

Hail the Truth-Tellers, Whoever They Are

Hail the Truth-Tellers, Whoever They Are

“ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS, okay? He is the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the cofounder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.”

– Donald Trump, Aug. 10, 2016

I readily admit to the petty indulgence of having been amused by the outrage on the part of the political left regarding Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s August 10 claim that Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama established the terrorist group-cum-caliphate-founder, ISIS.

Perhaps most prominent among those was MSNBC commentator and resident angina patient Chris Matthews who, appearing on a panel with fellow hacks Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and others, expressed emotions ranging from mock hilarity to genuine apoplexy over Trump’s assertion. Matthews also sputtered vague, convoluted accusations against former Vice President Dick Cheney, naming him as the real founder of ISIS.

While those on the left (like the MSNBC crew) treated the contention that Clinton and Obama created ISIS like a desperate, specious ploy or unthinking sandbox invective on Trump’s part, the fact is that Trump’s charge could not be more true. Even recent fact-checking amongst some liberal news outlets has lent credence to the notion that the policies of the Obama White House when Clinton served as Secretary of State led to the rise of ISIS.

Regular readers of this column will be sufficiently acquainted with the machinations of the White House from 2011 on to add specificity to Trump’s charge: This being that the genesis of the ISIS group was a deliberate move on the part of the Obama administration, as was its overall facilitation of Islamist ascendency in the Middle East. It could take days to exhaustively catalog the articles on WND alone which reference the numerous smoking guns pertaining to the administration’s nurturing of the nascent ISIS and its previous incarnations. These and other media, including international press, unequivocally damn the White House and powerful members of Congress in this area.

If we had a true Fourth Estate in our establishment press (mainstream media) that held government institutions objectively accountable instead of somnambulistically abetting the advent of international socialism, its members would have been asking and subsequently answering such questions as how and why ISIS came about, as did many of us. It would have become clear among these hypothetical journalists that the Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton heading up the State Department, created ISIS quite intentionally to serve as the shock troops for Islamist headway in the region. The funded them, armed them, trained them, and cultivated an environment wherein they could thrive.

Circumstantially, it is apparent to all but the dimmest individuals that the White House has been singularly dedicated to supplanting stable secular governments in majority Muslim nations with militant Muslim regimes. It is also evident that Islamists in Egypt, Syria, Libya and other nations in the Middle East and Africa did not spontaneously mobilize and realize the gains they have made in recent years by their own devices, or they would have done so prior to the installation of Obama as the American president.

Indeed, Obama not only founded ISIS, but is the common denominator with regard to the surge in Muslim militancy worldwide. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton played a major role in implementing policy.

So, there are some among us who are gratified to hear the unvarnished truth vis-à-vis ISIS, Islamic militancy, and the roles Obama and Clinton played, no matter who happens to be uttering that truth. Regardless of one’s opinion of Donald Trump as a human being, candidate, celebrity, or potential president, his conveyance of this truth is significant.

“This is in some ways is the most important foreign policy speech since Ronald Reagan in that it really does set the stage for a debate about what’s threatening us and what we should do about it…”

– Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Aug. 15, 2016

In addition to his frank assessment of how ISIS came to be, Trump’s Youngstown, Ohio speech of August 15 presented former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with the opportunity to opine on the likely foreign policy of a President Trump as it would relate to ISIS and militant Islam. Monday on Fox News, Gingrich invoked Ronald Reagan as he lionized Trump and lauded his prospective game plan for dispatching ISIS.

Regardless of one’s opinion of Gingrich as a human being, establishment Republican, or potential Trump cabinet member, his words carry great weight simply due to his status. Given this election cycle, which is setting precedents for surrealism, deceit, and sundry potential perils, the former Speaker’s decision to carry a truthful message is reason to be thankful, and perhaps even optimistic.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Americans ‘the Last to Know’ of Obama Treason

Americans ‘the Last to Know’ of Obama Treason

To someone born in New York City, the place where I now live is a small college town. It’s hard to view a place where the population just breaks 150, 000 when school is in session as anything else. As the crow flies, it’s about two hours north of Colorado Springs, where 57-year-old whack job Robert Lewis Dear decided to go on a shooting spree last week.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010, the median income for a family here was $89,332. Along with Pueblo, Colorado, ours was one of the fastest cities to “snap back,” as it were, from the 2008 economic implosion.

Yet, there are homeless people everywhere. Their visibility occurred gradually but markedly within the last year. Many are middle-age people, and many are veterans.

Over the same period, the average time for processing a new application for public assistance benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) jumped from under a week to 40 business days. They’ve also cut back access to case workers drastically, which probably stretches out the overall process even more.

The length of time it takes for Medicaid recipients to schedule an appointment with a primary care physician has increased from a day or two to several weeks. To get in to see some specialists, the wait is now one of months. This is due to the millions who got dumped into Medicaid during the course of Obamacare’s implementation.

Yet, our small college town, and another one about 40 miles east of here, are slated to receive an undisclosed number of Syrian refugees – and according to Barack Hussein Obama, the counties concerned damn well better not balk at putting them on the food stamp rolls. The refugees are part of Obama’s nationwide Syrian refugee drop, which is now being hotly debated.

This week, our treasonous war-criminal president flitted off to France to discuss climate change – an issue that homeless, jobless and dispossessed Americans care so much about – with a bunch of other world leaders. As if it weren’t bad enough that climate change is a counterfeit issue that exists only so Western governments might more effectively enslave taxpayers and business economically.

Perhaps to defray any discussion of his failure to dispatch ISIS (which of course he has no intention of doing), Obama said that the meeting in Paris to discuss climate change was some sort of brave and audacious “act of defiance” in the face of ISIS, given its recent attack on that city.

It isn’t the first time the administration has proffered the notion that there’s some mysterious interplay between terrorism and completely unrelated factors. One may recall the inane blatherings of State Department spokesidiots Jen Psaki and Marie Harf, who have floated ideas such as poverty causing terrorism, and that if the climate wasn’t so screwy, the world’s Muslims might not go feral en masse and kill people.

All this is leaving aside the fact that the treasonous war-criminal president in question created, armed, trained and funded ISIS – or ISIL, Islamic State, Daesh, the Keystone Kamels, or whatever appellation they’re using this month to reference the barbarians. Now, strategically displaced Muslims and strategically placed terrorists are forming a chaotic, angry wave from east to west – a wave that is cresting in Europe and, if Obama gets his way, will break upon America.

The world knows all of this, by the way; here, I am referencing the incontrovertible body of evidence that Barack Obama is effectively the commander in chief of ISIS, and arguably a better one than he is of the U.S. Armed Forces.

At this point, it is only in the West that this is not widely understood.

So, given Obama’s designs and the world’s knowledge of them, all of the public debate over the White House’s anti-terrorism policies is nothing but theater. It’s for us. The boobs. The great unwashed, moronic masses.

We are the proverbial “last to know.”

Our treasonous war-criminal president’s policies have set America up quite nicely for a major terrorist attack, perhaps of a much wider scope than the recent attacks in Paris. These include everything from a refusal to even rhetorically associate Islamic terrorism with Muslims, to the nationwide Syrian refugee drop, to the clandestine importation of Muslims from destabilized nations in the Middle East and Africa, to an absolute refusal to effectively monitor who comes and goes in this country.

Americans will die, and despite his feigned outrage after the fact, it will have been due to the deliberate intention of Barack Hussein Obama.

In October of 2013, the White House took down its online visitor logs, blaming a partial government shutdown that had temporarily idled 17 percent of the federal workforce. The fact is that astute individuals in the alternative press and other patriotic Americans had begun widely discussing the Rogue’s Gallery of America-hating scum that paid visits to the White House on a regular basis, some with dizzying frequency.

Obama simply wanted to stop that flow of information.

A nation like ours does not go from respecting personal liberties and the rule of law to “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone” overnight. Are there really so many ethically compromised individuals in our government that there is no hope for any among them finally deciding to exercise the rule of law and remove this tyrant? Are they just cowards, willing to let Obama touch off World War III rather than risk the Black Lives Matter crowd setting America ablaze for “taking down” our precious first black president on account of his proclivity for treason and crimes against humanity?

Or are they, as some suspect, party to a much broader agenda, perhaps one rooted in the belief that our planet’s human population cut by three-fourths – even overnight – would be much better for everyone going forward?

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
The Left’s Motive for Importing Terrorists

The Left’s Motive for Importing Terrorists

Since the Nov. 13 terror attacks in Paris, we have seen a distinct spike in the vociferous defense of Islam on the part of the left. Along with patent denials that Islam and Muslims have anything to do with terrorism, those on the left have been shilling for the Obama administration’s desire to admit thousands of potential jihadis from war-torn areas of the Middle East into the United States.

Despite the reticence of the American press to report on the chaos being wrought by Muslim refugees entering Europe, world press reports are replete with the evidence of same. Additionally, such trifles as the recent Paris terror attacks and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing having been executed by Muslim “refugees” give clear indication that it is impossible to discern whom among any population of Muslim refugees to America will become chain store franchisees versus becoming terrorists.

Barack Hussein Obama and his co-conspirators continue to advance the narrative of benign Muslim refugees and the existence of sound vetting processes for their admission. Obama ridicules those in America who urge caution, labeling them as ninnies who are afraid of “widows and orphans” despite women and children being a clear minority among the European refugees.

Through all of this, the leftist press and politicos alike parrot Obama’s talking points verbatim.

On an average day, leftist media operative and activist Sally Kohn (against whom I’ve faced off publicly once or twice) engages in some of the most odious subversive activity against the American people, the rule of law, and Liberty itself. Recently, her social media has exhibited an incomprehensibly craven defense of Islam and its adherents.

Here, Kohn employs the most decrepit illogic imaginable in opposing American prudence in considering Muslim refugees for admission into the United States.

This feeble emotional blackmail extrapolates Americans’ characteristic generosity to suicidal proportions, and is the same raison d’être liberals have used to keep us awash in illegal aliens from Latin America. That aside, the premeditation of people who slithered into Europe expressly to abuse Europeans’ generosity (not to mention maiming and killing them) apparently doesn’t raise a red flag for Kohn. Nor apparently does she take into account the 1400-year history of Muslims celebrating their patron demon Allah having “clouded the minds” of enemies who showed compassion toward Muslim populations, only to be cruelly subjugated by the same Muslim populations later on.

CNN’s Elise Labott was recently suspended for two weeks by her network after tweeting her low opinion of the House of Representatives’ vote to tighten the screening process for Syrian refugees. The measure’s intent was not to refuse admission to any, nor to admit only ten per year – it was simply to reinforce the vetting process, which Obama’s own FBI director says is a futile pursuit anyway.


Again, we have someone who apparently advocates pretty much nothing in the way of requirements for admitting these refugees.

The correlation between the rise in Muslim violence and liberals rushing to their defense is undeniable: The more that Muslims themselves affirm our need for vigilance against Islam, the more their advocates on the left engage in damage control through disinformation calculated to placate native populations whilst Islamists advance their agenda.

The liberal narrative concerning these refugees has been beyond Orwellian, and to the rational mind, it all appears quite surreal. This widespread, toadying defense of Muslim brutality by liberals is an exquisite example of mind control via all of the methods of propaganda brought to bear against a population.

Take Hillary Clinton’s Nov. 19 tweet, for example…

To give an idea of how deeply narcissistic leftists are, consider this: The Clinton campaign was so proud of Hillary’s remark that they concocted a hard-hitting graphic for their social media which actually showcased the treasonous tweet.


It is widely known among those who do not get their news from the alphabet TV networks that Obama has been clandestinely importing Muslims from Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and other destabilized Muslim nations for several years. Now, on the pretext of humanitarianism, he intends to prey upon Americans’ sympathy in order to import tens of thousands more.

Why do leftists advocate for a policy that will domestically destabilize America? As with so many harmful policies they’ve supported, they do so that they may later offer a statist, liberty-killing remedy. In this case, the cure will be a more well-developed surveillance and police state, which they surmise Americans will welcome when we’re being hacked to death on our streets by Muslims.

The bipartisan legislation upon which the House voted last week to augment screening procedures for Syrian refugees passed 289-137. Although Obama said he would veto this measure if it got to his desk, the upside is that we now have a list of 137 members of Congress who should be stripped of their citizenship and exiled to Syria.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 4 comments
The Brazenness of Beltway Corruption

The Brazenness of Beltway Corruption

On Sept. 23, 2012, CBS News was giving President Barack Hussein Obama the premier opportunity to perform some damage control ahead of the upcoming election by allowing him time on their “60 Minutes” program. This was necessary because there had been a dramatic upswell in anti-U.S. violence in the Middle East. Most notably, an attack on the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, had left four Americans dead, including Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

In his appearance, Obama told CBS’ Steve Kroft that with regard to this concern, he had been “pretty certain” that there would be “bumps in the road” due to the political dynamic of the nations in the region.

At that time, very little was known about the Benghazi attack, but considering what had occurred, some observers went ballistic at Obama’s use of the term “bumps in the road” to reference Americans who had perished rather gruesomely at the hands of desert death-cult monkeys.

With the Islamic State’s capture of the Iraqi city of Ramadi in recent days, America was again treated to the White House’s mischaracterizing understatement. “No denying it is a setback,” said spokesman Eric Schultz. Obama throws away 10 years’ worth of U.S. military gains – and one of the rather predictable outcomes is a mere “setback.”

The back story that’s never told is the fact that such mischaracterizations were perpetrated deliberately, in order to advance the Islamist agenda in the region.

The outright criminality of those at the highest levels of government, whether materially or politically motivated, has become positively brazen; it is so ingrained and its practitioners so smugly self-assured that they scarcely bother to guard their actions against scrutiny anymore – at least not with regard to the American people.

The scandal in which Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is currently embroiled is a great example. Ms. Clinton set up a private email server for her email when she was secretary of state. This was most likely to shield her communications from the White House, rather than Republicans, the press, or the public.

Then, the existence of the server was revealed. Clinton obfuscated, evaded, eventually releasing some emails, while describing others as horribly mundane. Then she abruptly scrubbed the server of 50,000 some-odd remaining emails, irradiated the hard drive, boiled it in ammonia and sunk it in the Marianas Trench.

This week, we learned that Hillary is really mad, and really wants those emails released. Unfortunately, the State Department – which, if I am not mistaken, is still run by her old boss – has such an arduous task ahead in determining which of the innumerable emails are fit for public consumption that they decided they couldn’t get it done before, say – what’s good for you, Hill – January 2016?

You see, while Obama’s White House is only going to provide so much cover for Hillary, they’re not eager to have her emails, or the nuts and bolts of the Bill and Hill Selling America Out Foundation, to come to light, either.

Speaking of: I was reading a rather silly Howard Kurtz analysis of the furor attendant to ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and his donations to the Clinton Foundation. George apparently “didn’t realize” that there was a monumental conflict of interest and ethics issues involved with his being ABC News’ chief anchor and donating to the foundation of his former employer while reporting on the pandemonium over its sketchy finances, and while the former employer’s wife is running for president.

Stephanopoulos didn’t realize this would be problematic?

Far more important here is that Stephanopoulos’ actions over the last 15 years are emblematic of what has occurred across the establishment press, with political operatives moving into press jobs. The issue is not so much that Stephanopoulos “neglected” to disclose his large donations to the Clinton Foundation, but that he has essentially been working as an operative for a criminal enterprise (possibly prosecutable under RICO statutes) while posing as a journalist.

It is no different than if a member of an organized crime family did likewise in order to disseminate disinformation pertaining to his superiors’ activities.

While Stephanopoulos’ detractors are demanding that he and his family be barred from television journalism for seven generations, chances are he’ll take a little vacation, and his indiscretion will get swept under the carpet with the IRS nonprofit targeting probe and Charlie Rangel’s ethics violations.

“Why do the Clintons think there’s a different set of rules for them than there is for the rest of us?”

– Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, May 19, 2015

These things transcend political party of course; there are Republican politicians over the last few decades who fall along every point of the scumminess continuum. Quite a few are running around Washington calling themselves “conservatives” right now. It’s just that the radical leftists are more inherently disreputable and repellent. The idea that there’s “a different set of rules for us” is quite prevalent throughout the Beltway; in fact, varying degrees of it permeate the federal government, from the shiftless, belligerent, union-protected clerk, to the heads of federal agencies – and there is no accountability.

Yes, the revelations surrounding Hillary Clinton’s email server and foundation donations are controversial. Yet it is unlikely that the ongoing and potentially catastrophic security risks posed by her having used a private email server or that some Clinton Foundation foreign donors are essentially enemies of this nation will ever be discussed, let alone investigated.

Only the institutional propriety of Hillary Clinton’s actions will be bandied about in the press and by Congress; perhaps another smoke-and-mirrors inquiry featuring duly indignant GOP committee members will take place. Then, when this all comes up again during the 2016 campaign, she will be fully within her rights to remind us all that “those issues were addressed back in 2015.”

Or better yet: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

 

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments

Obama’s Dangerous Pretexts for Endangering Americans

bsl4Erik Rush asserts BHO is not ‘a Steve Urkel with a pen and a phone’

Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, insulted the intelligence and common sense of those Americans still possessed of intelligence and common sense this past weekend with the fundamentally absurd argument that controlling the spread of the Ebola virus ought not include limiting entry to the United States from areas in which Ebola is raging.

In fact, not only did he minimize the danger posed by the disease, but Frieden actually made the argument that imposing a travel ban between the U.S. and West African countries dealing with the Ebola virus could worsen the outbreak, citing even more enfeebled logic.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, echoed Frieden on “Fox News Sunday” and downplayed the idea that Ebola could be brought across the southern U.S. border (which illegal immigrants routinely cross, including individuals from West African nations) or that the virus could be used as a biological weapon by terrorists.

In the face of history, epidemiological protocol and, of course, common sense, it is evident that both of these learned men have compromised their medical ethics in advancing this dangerous, paternalistic narrative.

I’m sure that the reader can deduce who might have compelled them to do that as well as I can.

In the meantime, equally learned experts in the scientific community have gone on record in stating that Ebola may be more communicable than originally believed, that our screening protocols stink and that more cases in the U.S. are highly likely. Some have even said that we are being deliberately lied to by the government.

We should be quite used to these institutional deceptions on the part of the Obama administration and its surrogates by now – that is, those of us who are able to recognize them.

For example, each day since the escalated bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria ensued, we have been treated to daily press updates by Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby, whom I have affectionately dubbed “the beady-eyed liar.” While ISIS makes impressive daily gains in Syria and Iraq, and military experts contend that the campaign is ineffectual, Kirby delivers progress reports right out of George Orwell’s “1984.”

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Could Awakened Media Help Remove Obama?

media_suckersOver the last several days, we have seen unprecedented news coverage from the establishment press (“mainstream media”) of stories that evidence not only the detrimental effects of White House policy, but those addressing that which the MSM wouldn’t have touched mere weeks ago – and which could open the door to a discussion of the Obama administration’s criminality.

On Sept. 20, The New York Times published a piece entitled “Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That CIA and the Islamic State Are United,” which detailed the belief of government and intelligence sources in Iraq that the Obama administration created ISIS employing the CIA. While this has been reported elsewhere and confirmed via the Jordanian government, Middle Eastern and European press, until now, coverage of this (which amounts to treason on the part of the president and members of his Cabinet, past and present) is very new territory for a mainstream press outlet.

“We know about who made Daesh [ISIS],” said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops. Mr. Sadr publicly blamed the CIA for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week, and interviews suggested that most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament, subscribed to the same theory.

The New York Times, Sept. 20, 2014

Last fall we were alerted to the growing annoyance of some press outlets regarding the lack of access to the president provided by the White House compared to previous administrations; one of these organizations was the Associated Press. Last week AP Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee had even more to say. At a joint meeting of the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press Media Editors and the Associated Press Photo Managers, Buzbee enumerated several profoundly sinister ways the Obama administration is stifling the release of news.

According to Buzbee, these include, but are not limited to:

  • Refusing to allow news organizations to shoot photos or video of bombers as they take off en route to supposed Middle East missions against ISIS, and discontinuing the embedding of reporters.
  • A blackout of information on Gitmo detainees, upcoming trials and court filings, even involving non-classified materials.
  • The intimidation of sources. AP’s transportation reporter’s sources have reported that if they are caught talking to her, they will be fired. Government press officials say their orders are to squelch anything controversial or that makes the administration look bad.
  • Lack of cooperation in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. [As an aside, the Obama administration corrupted this process as soon as Obama was inaugurated, and began to filter FOIA information, essentially rendering FOIA useless]. Many federal agencies simply don’t respond at all in a timely manner, forcing news organizations to sue each time to force action.
  • The administration is reportedly trying to control the information that state and local officials can give out. The FBI has directed local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology the police departments use to sweep up cell phone data, for example.

Police State, anyone?

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Obama the Pro Wrestler President

bho_wrestlerIn the 2006 comedy film “Idiocracy, ” two people who take part in a hibernation experiment wake up 500 years later to discover that Americans have been institutionally and quite profoundly dumbed-down. Very little functions any longer in terms of infrastructure, and society has become a squalid, inefficient joke.

The president of the United States (for whom the protagonist ultimately winds up working) is a characteristically flamboyant former professional wrestler. No smarter or dumber than anyone else, he was presumably elected on charisma only, by a citizenry so stupid they don’t know that spraying Gatorade on crops instead of water isn’t a particularly good idea.

I wouldn’t be the only individual to draw a parallel between this cult film and America under our current president, by the way, but the former pro wrestler chief executive in the movie got me to thinking about pro wrestling, and one thing led to another …

A funny thing about pro wrestling is, of course, the fact that the matches are choreographed; some prefer the term “fake.” An even funnier thing about pro wrestling is the fact that people are strongly discouraged from articulating that the matches are choreographed (or fake) even though it is common knowledge. There are those who are quite ready to come to blows over the authenticity of the sport’s competition, or at least to vehemently deny that the matches are choreographed (or fake). Years ago, a friend of mine was actually choked into unconsciousness by a pro wrestler for being so rash as to suggest that the matches were faked. I kid you not. It wasn’t a publicity issue, either; only the two men were present at the time.

Now, I realize – as many pro wrestling fans are quick to point out – that choreographed matches in no way detract from the athleticism of the participants, particularly these days, wherein the matches are far more physically dynamic than they were 40 years ago, when the sport was dominated by older, fat guys in Greco-Roman wrestling garb.

The parallel I recognized between “Idiocracy,” the pro wrestling culture and the Age of Obama was this curious phenomenon of our not being allowed to articulate the facts of this choreography (or fakery) that is so integral to the Obama administration and to his role in particular.

Like a pro wrestling match, Americans have been encouraged to interpret events and actions that speak for themselves as something wholly other – specifically, in ways that benefit the administration’s narrative and future intentions. The wrestler isn’t really angry; he’s acting. He wasn’t thrown across the ring; the choreography just made it appear that way. And he isn’t really injured.

Unfortunately, the narrative and future intentions I mentioned, unlike those of the pro wrestler, are quite diabolical.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Obama: The Head of the ISIS Snake

obamalabor_090114Last week, I detailed the conflicting signals and statements to which Americans were being exposed by the press and government officials relative to the threat posed by the so-called Islamic State (formerly the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS). This week, the news cycle has been dominated by the Obama administration’s unfathomable lack of resolve with respect to ISIS, particularly the president’s laconic admission last week that the White House did not have a strategy to combat the terror group.

One of the criticisms the administration has faced is the president having been highly dismissive of ISIS, at one point calling them the “JV team” among terrorist groups. Outrage on the part of Americans and world leaders came to a head on Aug. 19 when American journalist James Foley was beheaded by ISIS. Video footage of the murder was widely distributed by the group.

Then, on Sept. 2, new video was released by ISIS; Steven Sotloff, an American journalist being held by the terror group since last year, was shown being beheaded by a black-robed militant. As in response to nearly all of the disturbing advances, threats and atrocities concerning Islamic terrorists, once again, Obama’s response was as tepid as ever.

As worldwide concern over ISIS has grown, experts and world leaders have admonished one another as well as America that ISIS is currently the greatest threat to peace globally, and possibly one of the greatest threats to peace the world has ever seen. This week, the British government raised the country’s terror threat level to “Severe,” the second-highest of five potential levels. In a speech to the British House of Commons, Prime Minister David Cameron proposed sweeping new anti-terror legislation to mitigate the threat to Britain from ISIS.

Now we have learned (as reported Tuesday by Fox News) that President Obama was given “detailed and specific intelligence” about the rise of ISIS as part of his daily briefing for at least a year before the group seized vast swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq this summer.

According to the Fox News source, there was no mistaking the signals, or the fact that the threat posed by ISIS was building toward that which we are now witnessing.

To add insult to injury, after this latest atrocity, Americans were treated to Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s mealymouthed claims that ISIS is a group the administration had been “looking at for a long time” and State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki’s reluctance to “put any labels” on Steve Sotloff’s beheading.

This would be comical if not for the real human suffering involved.

Republican lawmakers and assorted conservative pundits continue to refer to President Obama as “disengaged,” “ineffectual,” or “in denial,” and California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently deemed him possibly “too cautious” regarding ISIS. These lukewarm estimations and face-saving maneuvers have become tedious.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Are GOP warnings over ISIS sincere?

mikerogers2If you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance over the mixed signals being conveyed by our government regarding the threat posed to the U.S. by the terror group known as ISIS, you’re definitely not alone.

As we know, the recent gruesome execution of American journalist James Foley and renewed threats from ISIS prompted worldwide shock and calls in America for decisive action on the part of the Obama administration in dealing with them. Foley’s execution topped off several weeks in which ISIS made significant inroads into Syria and Iraq, punctuated with atrocities so macabre that Pope Francis and other world religious leaders (including prominent Muslims) called for direct military intervention.

While the proclivity for jihadis and their surrogates toward outrageous bluster is well-known, given their track record for mayhem, one would be foolish to ignore ISIS members’ recent threats and intimations pertaining to strikes on American soil. When then-future ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi walked away from a U.S. detention camp in 2009, he had some choice – and chilling – words for his former captors: “I’ll see you guys in New York.”

Some U.S. officials continue to assert that despite all of this, there is no evidence of a credible plot against the U.S. at present. This would be laughable were it not for the potential loss of life.

As reported in several publications, including the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration (in its infinite capacity for rewriting our laws) unilaterally modified the qualifications for foreign nationals seeking asylum last year, allowing thousands of un-vetted Syrians to resettle in the U.S. as “refugees.” According to the testimony of numerous experts, the recent “humanitarian” border crisis allowed the entry of an inestimable number of possible Islamic terrorists into the U.S. via our southern border.

Yet this week, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey insisted ISIS does not pose a direct threat to America, and that he would not recommend U.S. airstrikes in Syria. The president and others continue to avoid the question, claiming that it is Muslims in the Middle East who are at greater risk from the terror group.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns