BHO is so bad that he makes George W. Bush look  ...well, not  "good,"
but not nearly as bad as he actually was
 
BR
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Christian Post
 
Islamic State Threatens to Behead Statue of Liberty,  Extend Its Territory 
to New York City
IS Twitter Accounts Share Image of Headless Lady Liberty Holding  Terror 
Group's Black Flag

 
 
By _Hermoine Macura_ (http://www.christianpost.com/author/hermoine-macura/) 
  , CP Contributor
July 29, 2015|3:40  pm
  

(Photo:  Screengrab/Twitter)  
The image depicts a beheaded Statue of Liberty  waving the Islamic State 
flag shared on IS' twitter accounts in July  2015.
The Islamic State is threatening to behead America's Statue of Liberty and  
even published a picture depicting a headless Lady Liberty holding their 
black  flag of terror on Twitter. 
Featuring the New York City skyline burning in the background, written  
beneath the Islamic State picture are the words "soon the state of the Islamic  
caliphate." The message also included a slogan in English, with some 
versions  saying, "coming soon." 
  


The image began circulating shortly after reports that Hafez Saeed, the top 
 Islamic State commander in Afghanistan, had been killed in a U.S. drone 
strike  earlier this month.
 
 
The Islamic State, also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh, is known for 
launching  terror campaigns and threats designed to "strike terror into the 
hearts 
of the  enemies of Allah," (Quran 8:60). 
Last year, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., _warned that the militant Islamic 
State_ 
(http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-a-direct-threat-that-could-launch-attack-on-us-soil-warns-sen-lindsey-graham-124636/)
  group could launch  
a direct attack on U.S. soil and urged President Barack Obama to do more to 
 counter the group. 
"Mr. President, be honest with the threat we face," Graham said in a Fox 
News  interview. "They are coming." 
The Republican senator, who is also a member of the Senate Armed Services  
Committee, identified the militants as a "direct threat to our homeland." 
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona has also warned that the militants 
are  "getting stronger all the time" and growing in numbers. 
"They have attracted 1,000 young men from around the world who are now  
fighting on their side," McCain explained. "Their end goal, as they've stated  
openly time after time, is the destruction of United States of America." 
Last September, _Obama blamed the U.S. intelligence agencies_ 
(http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-claims-us-intelligence-agencies-underestimated-is
is-al-qaida-threatens-to-attack-the-west-127193/)  for  underestimating the 
threat posed to the West by IS militants. 
In 2009, a similar threat was made by a group of vandals who stole a Statue 
 of Liberty replica from a Brooklyn coffee shop and posted a web video 
showing  them cutting off the statue's blindfolded head. 
It opened with a shot of a waving U.S. flag, followed by the words, "We 
don't  want your freedom," and ended with the slogan "Death to America." The 
YouTube  video was subsequently investigated by the FBI. 
The Islamic State finances its own terror campaigns and is considered to be 
 the richest armed organization in the world. 
Recently, the Islamic State received $6.9 billion in money transfers via  
Iraqi banks, according to the Iraqi Parliament's Finance Committee. 
Companies were able to transfer the funds from the main banks in Iraq to  
banks in the regions controlled by IS, despite strict security measures the  
Iraqi government said it has taken to cripple the terror organization. 
The group also makes money through the sale of oil as well as through 
taxes,  protection money, contributions, tithes, and "charity" from merchants 
in 
regions  under its control. Since their inception, IS has seized all the 
funds from more  than 60 governmental and civilian banks in Iraq and Syria.  
ADVERTISEMENT

Experts have said oil wells under control of the terror organization 
export_ $100 million _ 
(http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-rakes-in-800-million-in-black-market-oil-sales-per-year-2-million-daily-report-estimates-128439/
) worth of oil monthly. 
The Christian Post first reported last October that the IHS, a leading 
source  in global information and analytics, found that IS was making twice as 
much off  of their oil production per day than the $1 million per day figure 
U.S.  lawmakers were previously told when the Deputy Director of the 
National  Counterterrorism Center Nicholas Rasmussen testified before Congress 
in  
September. 
The IHS report stated that IS generates the income needed to continue 
funding  its deadly jihadist movement through the production of over 50,000 
barrels of  crude oil per day, which is sold to black market traders. The 
report 
also added  that IS is only producing "a fraction" of the total oil capacity 
of the oil  regions it controls. 
"Oil fuels ISIL's war machine, notably including the military vehicles 
vital  to its movements and fighting capabilities," the report said. "Oil 
directly  finances ISIL's myriad activities and encourages the activities of 
middlemen who  sell, transport and export the oil and thus have a vested 
interest 
in ISIL." 
================================== 


Barack Obama’s inability to grasp  reality
 
 
By _Wesley  Pruden_ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/wesley-pruden/)  
- The Washington Times - Monday, August 10,  2015 
 
 
ANALYSIS/OPINION: 
_Barack Obama_ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/)  is  
afraid he might be a warmonger at heart. Who knew? But making war against an  
Islamic enemy? That defies everyone’s imagination.


 
 
The president keeps changing his arguments for approval of his deal with 
the  mullahs in _Iran_ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iran/) , and the 
tone of his  denunciations of anybody who argues with him grows ever 
harsher and  disrespectful. The latest refinement of tone is his assertion that 
it’
s his way  or the highway, that war with _Iran_ 
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iran/)  lies at the end of  that 
forbidden highway. 
But who would start such a war? He doesn’t say. As crazy as the mullahs 
are,  the craziness lies in a distorted theology, not in statecraft. The 
mullahs are  smart enough not to believe everything they say, and go to war 
against the  United States. We logically conclude that _Mr. Obama_ 
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/)  is  afraid that he might 
be the one 
to start the war. Who else does he think it  could be? His “it’s me or war” 
is rendered nonsense, and he knows it. 
Many bad things happen when a leader is weak, confused and forever 
searching  for a reason to do nothing. For all his softness on Islam, he has 
little 
insight  into the men who send out mobs to cry “death to America.” He can’t 
imagine that  men who listen to the call to evening prayer that so 
captivated him as a boy in  Indonesia — “the prettiest sound on Earth” — 
actually 
dream of bringing death to  America. 
The international order so carefully put together, and guarded so 
faithfully,  by American presidents after the Cold War was won, has begun to 
unravel 
under  this president to the consternation of America’s most faithful allies 
and to the  unexpected delight of the nation’s enemies. The anarchy that 
follows this  unraveling is the legacy that he will leave behind him when he 
takes that long,  lingering helicopter ride out of town on inauguration day 
2017. 
“When [Mr.] _Obama_ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/)  
came to  office in 2009,” writes Alexander Woolfson in Standpoint, a London 
political  monthly, “it would have been unimaginable that a caliphate could 
be allowed to  thrive in the midst of the Middle East, or that a U.S. 
president would be  foolish enough to exploit ancient Persian and Arab enmity 
for 
the purposes of  American retrenchment. [Mr.] _Obama_ 
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/) ’s now  familiar refrain 
is to counsel “
strategic patience” while suggesting that  America cannot solve every world 
problem. He remains oblivious to the fact that  his worldview is the problem. 
ISIS has created a version of the future which _Obama_ 
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/)  appears  unable to 
grasp. Its caliphate is 
being sustained through the mass murder and  repression of those who do not 
belong.” 
“Unable to grasp.” That will be the epitaph and the legacy of _Mr. Obama_ 
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/) ’s  presidency. When 
an American president says he wants to “lead from behind,” the  enemies in 
the Middle East, and there are many, naturally assume that he means  he wants 
to fool about on the margins, make speeches, play a little golf (or a  
lot), insult those who disagree with him. Commanders in chief no less than  
privates and corporals can decamp from sworn duty. 
President _Obama_ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/)  
flinches  from the sound of the guns. He orders air strikes, everyone’s 
favorite weapon of  war, reluctantly and with half a heart. In the month before 
ISIS captured  Ramadi, the United States flew 165 air strikes. Bill Clinton 
ordered that many  in a single day in the campaign in Kosovo. George H.W. Bush 
ordered 42,000 in a  month of Operation Desert Storm. Only _Mr. Obama_ 
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/)  can be  surprised when 
the situation on the ground not so slowly deteriorates, Iraqi  soldiers flee 
their posts and the black flags of ISIS steadily advance,  fluttering in the 
wind of White House spin. 
He can’t talk about a strategy in the Middle East because he doesn’t have  
one. He thinks he doesn’t need one because ISIS will helpfully implode. He  
cannot even bring himself to say the words “Islamic violence,” and thus 
cannot  understand the nature of radical Islam. He insists that ISIS is just 
another  manifestation of terrorism, not a caliphate that demands to be 
recognized as a  state. “Nobody,” he says, “is under illusions that [ISIS] can 
actually in a  sustained way feed people or educate people or organize a 
society that would  work.” 
Blinded by what he wants to see, he would be a bowl of mush in the hands of 
 the mullahs if push comes to shove with the United States. _Barack Obama_ 
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/) ,  paralyzed by the 
ideology of the left, could never pull the trigger in a  confrontation with 
_Iran_ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iran/) , and the mullahs —  and 
the world — know it. 
The summer soldiers in the U.S. Senate need not fear war if they take the  
highway rather than the Obama way. They should fear the Islamic bomb if they 
 don’t.


 
 
 
-------------------------------------
 
 
Real Clear Politics
 
Real Clear World

 
 
 
Obama's Failure to Learn in the Middle East
Posted by _Aaron David  Miller_ 
(http://www.realclearworld.com/authors/aaron_david_miller/)  on August 26, 2015



Whether you count yourself a fan of President Barack Obama's Middle East  
policies or a foe, one thing should be stunningly obvious by now: A good part 
of  the president's foreign policy travails in this region stem from a 
pattern of  needlessly high-flying rhetoric. Indeed, time after time again, 
Obama has  gratuitously and unnecessarily raised expectations and then failed 
to 
deliver on  them. 
These largely self-inflicted wounds created an early gap between Obama's  
words and his administration's deeds -- a gap that damaged America's 
credibility  and fed doubts about U.S. resolve in the minds of allies and 
adversaries  alike.  
 
 



That gap has never closed, and far from learning from his mistakes, Obama 
has  carried on his pattern of making commitments upon which he cannot 
deliver.  Consider the following.  
Israeli-Palestinian peace: The pattern of setting high bars  in the total 
absence of a valid or even compelling policy reason started almost  
immediately. Two days after his inauguration, Obama, in a personal appearance 
at  the 
Department of State, appointed George Mitchell as his special Middle East  
envoy. No president since Jimmy Carter had invested so much so early in an 
issue  that simply was not ready for prime time. The matter was made worse by 
  administration's calls for a comprehensive Israeli freeze on settlements 
that it  was unwilling or unable to pressure Israel to accept, and for a 
peace agreement  within two years, a notion that even then looked like a 
fantasy. It was also  hampered by an intensive effort by Secretary of State 
John 
Kerry in 2013-2014 to  produce a draft peace accord that had zero chance of 
becoming reality. Today,  the administration's peace process lies in ruins. 
It has no credibility among  Arabs and Israelis. 
‘Assad Must Go' and the Syrian Red-Line: Next came two more  examples of 
presidential rhetoric outstripping U.S. willingness and motivation  to act. 
Perhaps understandably, in response to the Assad regime's savage use of  air 
and artillery strikes against civilians, including the use of barrel bombs,  
the president repeatedly called for the removal of the Syrian dictator and 
in  2011 warned that the regime's use of chemical weapons was unacceptable,  
suggesting a tough U.S. response. The backstory of Obama's retreat from the  
so-called redline need not detain us here. The point is that for a second 
time  in the Middle East, on a crisis far more important than the unresolved  
Israeli-Palestinian problem, the president committed himself to actions he 
did  not take. There was no military response to the red line's crossing by 
Assad.  Not only does the dictator still hold power, but the United States 
may well have  no choice, if there is a political process to end Syria's 
civil war, but to  accept Assad as part of the solution.  
Defeating ISIS: Having first underestimated the danger  of the Islamic 
State, characterizing it in 2014 as a JV team, the president soon  began to 
talk 
of degrading and ultimately destroying the putative terror state.  The 
latest rhetorical formulation Obama used was that of being "on track to  
defeat" 
ISIS. The president cannot afford to take the threat lightly. But none  of 
the words he has used -- first destroy, then defeat -- seem to have any  
grounding in reality. A year after the Islamic State established its caliphate, 
 it is ensconced in Syria, and in Iraq too. And while the United States has 
had  success in killing ISIS fighters and leaders, and in working with  
local allies to recover territory, the Islamic State seems here to  stay. 
Recent reports that the administration has only trained some 60  Syrian 
recruits 
for the battle against ISIS -- some of whom were promptly killed  or 
captured by Jabhat al-Nusrah, al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria -- only attest to  
the 
gap between promises and delivery. 
The Iran Agreement: Clearly the nuclear deal is the one  issue on which the 
administration has actually delivered on its commitment.  Paradoxically, it 
is also the one issue over the past several years on which the  president 
and his advisers have actually lowballed their expectations and not  raised 
hopes to unrealistic levels. But even here, there seems to be a tendency  to 
oversell, with Kerry suggesting that inspections would be carried out 
forever  or saying that the United States has absolute certainty that it will 
know 
what  Iran may be hiding. Selling the agreement to Congress is more 
difficult because  of the administration's earlier commitments to seek 
anywhere, 
anytime  inspections and to ensure that Tehran will come clean on the 
so-called possible  military dimensions of Iran's past nuclear activities. 
Neither 
of these  objectives was probably ever achievable, and the administration 
likely knew that  at the time. 
All administrations promise more than they can deliver. Just look at 
Obama's  predecessor when it came to Iraq. What is odd is that this president 
deemed  himself a realist, not a transformer, when it comes to the Middle East; 
and yet  he seems to fall into the expectations gap so frequently.   
When you do not or will not act, words become substitutes for deeds. Part 
of  the problem may be that the administration sees the world the way it 
wants it to  be, not the way it really is. Perhaps part of the issue is a 
desire 
to deflect  pressure by the use of bold words. Whatever the explanation, to 
have credibility  in foreign policy you must say what you mean, and mean 
what you say. Sadly, far  too many times, the Obama administration has done 
exactly the opposite.  

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to