I have 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). 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 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, a 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 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.
It is high time that those in government who have any desire whatsoever to preserve this nation as an ongoing concern take stock of the abundance of evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is responsible for the resurgence of Islamic militancy in the Middle East, and ISIS in particular.
As uncomfortable for them as it may be, they must come to grips with the fact that Obama is a well-placed saboteur representing malignant interests, enemies both foreign and domestic, that have been strategizing the downfall of the United States for decades.
In May of this year, Obama named the Desert Peaks National Monument in New Mexico a federally designated monument. Setting aside this land with an executive order under the Antiquities Act of 1906, the nearly half million acres bordering the Mexican state of Chihuahua is now off-limits to all but foot traffic. Potential for the incursion of malefactors in that area is enormous; not just an efficient and effective route for small bands of drug smugglers or gangs, it now amounts to a protected access for potentially large sorties onto the U.S. soil.
In the context of what I have postulated here, why might Obama do this?
Let’s forget for a moment the possibility of a terror cell executing a Nairobi mall-style attack or detonating a dirty bomb somewhere in Middle America. Picture 100 malls or elementary schools across the U.S. laid siege simultaneously, two or more full-fledged thermonuclear devices detonated in American cities, or a few high-sensitivity military bases taken over by terrorists. Consider that these forces would have the training and weaponry to suit the job, as well as the intelligence necessary to give them a far better than even chance of success – all provided by our own government.
Bear in mind that the Desert Peaks phenomenon is but one instance in which Obama has left America vulnerable; there are others we’ve been made aware of, and probably still others we don’t yet know about.
If this sounds preposterous, just remember that those of us who warned against the rise of an Islamist caliphate were mocked only a year ago, and now one exists, courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama.
Whether Obama intends to seize absolute power via martial law after a comprehensive White House-orchestrated terrorist strike or use his jihadi army to aid in pacifying an unsuspecting American populace matters little. The bottom line is that the decisive measures needed to defeat ISIS and to protect American citizens from them will never be taken by this president, and it should be obvious as to why. This nation now faces extreme and unprecedented crises, and apart from an Act of God, they will only be resolved through extreme and unprecedented measures.
The removal of the Obama regime, extrication of Islamists from our government, the closure of our southern border, drastically heightened security procedures and the summary expulsion or prosecution of anyone who even remotely resembles an Islamist or who supports that worldview are now absolute imperatives.