RUTHFULLY YOURS

After eight years of alienating allies, abrogating leadership, eschewing hard decisions and spuriously explaining away Islamic outrages, all that remains to be done is a final spectacle to capture the spirit of his administration: a Rose Garden reception and apology for Gitmo’s liberated inmates
A simple way for President Obama to belatedly fulfill his confident 2008 election promise to close Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) would be to invite all current inmates to join the First Couple at the White House. That would be an act of reconciliation and forgiveness at its most spectacular, the crowning moment of a ground-breaking presidency. His eight years have seen rapprochements with US-hating Venezuela, Cuba and Iran, so why not Gitmo inmates?

Just picture the scene: In a ceremony televised from the Rose Garden, Obama could personally apologise to each detainee and present his honoured guests with large, appropriate sums by way of compensation. That would be small consolation for their abductions at gunpoint, prolonged incarceration, and extended time away from loved ones and their important work, which is the destruction of Western society in the name of radical Islam.

What is clear is that a significant body of inmates released from Gitmo is likely to return rapidly to the cause of terrorism. But not to worry! As Secretary of State John Kerry explains in the video below, there is nothing about the release of homicidal religious fanatics which needs concern reasonable people — the sort who believe Obama to have been a competent president, at any rate.

Gitmo was a vexed solution created by frustrated people in response to a terrible problem created by evil people. But, to the extent that it took likely leaders of global terrorism out of action, it has undoubtedly saved lives. Its existence may even have encouraged ordinary citizens in countries threatened daily by terrorism to go about their lives with just a little less fear.

The Obama interregnum is drawing to a close and eight years of follies, shrunken influence and impotence with it. So, will it be Hillary Clinton who mires the Oval Office in more of the impotent same, plus legal woes and scandals? Or is it the candidate who has torn up the campaign rule book?
The 2016 presidential election will determine how the United States responds to the most decisive challenges for more than a century to its wealth, strength, and security. But none of the presidential aspirants have yet to outline a coherent strategic policy. With one exception, Hillary Clinton, all the candidates oppose the actions and policies of the incumbent president but all have accepted the overt and covert agendas of that same discredited president. These include supporting the wrong side in Syria, the demonization of Russia and insufficient attention to China’s irredentism.

The Democratic nominating process is about the top-down imposition of its preferred candidate, and thus the superdelegates who are expected to deliver the pre-determined outcome of Hillary Clinton. If Mrs Clinton falls by the wayside, due to her escalating legal problems or, perhaps, a convenient health issue, then a similar establishment figure will be injected into the process. In its nomination procedure, the Republican Party has produced a couple of candidates who have promised that it won’t be business-as-usual but who have yet to articulate a long term vision, beyond generalities.

Why so much foreboding? Food is at the lowest price in human history, energy is now also cheap, poverty around the world is at the lowest level ever, and technological and medical advances continue apace. Those things are well and good, but two conflicts are going to crash the civilizational party. The first is the war of Islam on the rest of the planet, an offensive that is well underway. An early report on it is the “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”, 28 pages of which remain classified. No doubt the content of those 28 pages is embarrassing, so much so unsophisticated readers might get angry should they be exposed to their revelations.

At least one official declaration of war came years later. On January 15, 2016, the authoritative and influential cleric Sheikh Abu Taqi al-Din al-Dari delivered the Friday Sermon inJerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque. In short, the sheikh said that the Muslim world must adopt the traditional teachings in the Koran on the perpetual war between the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. In the way the Muslim world is structured, this is a declaration of war on the West. There have been many similar declarations before and this one won’t be the last, but it is the most influential to date.

The West is aware that there is a problem but has refused to face up to the fact it is engaged in an existential clash of civilisations. To do so would require an adjustment of its belief system – that all cultures are equally good and that there is nothing inherently wrong with any group of people or culture. Just at the moment the pain of the permanent state of emergency in France, for example, is preferable to the effort involved in seeing the world as it really is. Not that France and neighbouring Germany are blameless. Through the EU they made their own attempts at imposing their beliefs on the rest of the World, with Kulturkampf via EU edicts such as penalties on carbon dioxide emissions far beyond their borders. The EU’s attempt at world domination on the cheap requires a stable world to have a chance of working. The world is no longer stable, so while we will not be spared the edicts of Brussels they will be transcribe in the ink of impotence.

The solution to the problem of Islam is simple: don’t have anything to do with it. This solution had its first run after the 9/11 attacks when the Bush Administration restricted the number of visas issued to Saudi nationals. One of the current presidential aspirants has called for barring all Muslims from entering the United States. If put into effect, this policy would significantly reduce the number of terrorist attacks on the US at no cost in to itself. In fact this policy is necessary to shield the US from the fallout that can be anticipated from the ultimate collapse of the Muslim world.

www.OpenTheBooks.com
In December, we released our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – The Department of Self-Promotion, $4.4 Billion Spent by Federal Agencies on Public Relations (FY2007 – FY2014), click here.

Our report debuted on the front page of two Washington D.C. daily newspapers: TheHill and The Washington Times:

The Hill: Feds Shelling Out Billions to Public Relations Firms, click here
by Megan Wilson | December 8, 2015
The Washington Times: Feds Spend Billions on Self, click here
by Kellan Howell | December 8, 2015
Read my December column at Forbes: Meet the 2nd Largest PR Firm in the World – The United States Government, click here.
Last week, the COX Media national news bureau showcased our report which played on the evening news at ABC-Atlanta (WSB- Channel 2).

Investigative reporter Justin Gray asked 10 federal agencies for an interview and NONE would answer questions on camera!

Now, U.S. Senator Mike Enzi wants answers. Enzi has requested a comprehensive report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

We want answers, too.

For example: Why are some of the world’s largest advertising firms billing taxpayers for their interns – up to $88 per hour? And billing their executives for up to $1.1 million per year?

Why is the average salary for a federal public affairs officer over $100,000 per year, 70% higher than the private sector?

Why does the IRS allow their survey firms to charge taxpayers $70 per hour for each of their $9 per hour telemarketers?

JOIN THE TRANSPARENCY REVOLUTION. IT’S YOUR MONEY!

One of Justice Antonin Scalia’s last official acts may be among the most important of his distinguished career. Last week, he joined with four other justices to halt implementation of President Obama’s new carbon regulation for so long as it is under legal review — an unprecedented move to stay an unprecedented federal overreach into states’ energy decisions.

Titled by the administration the “Clean Power Plan,” the regulation would be one of the costliest ever, dramatically increasing electricity prices across the nation — all while producing essentially zero climate benefits, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s own models.

Thanks to Justice Scalia and the four other justices who voted with him, Americans won the first battle against this reckless plan. But the fight is far from over. Even though the Supreme Court is not expected to issue a final ruling until at least 2017, the EPA is essentially flouting the stay order and encouraging states to continue developing their plans.

State officials — governors, legislators, regulatory agencies, public-utilities commissions, and utilities themselves — should reject the EPA’s offers of assistance. In fact, they should be issuing stop-work orders to prevent the regulation’s implementation until the courts have completed a full review.

With the possible exception of Richard Nixon, there is no president in modern history that has shown more disdain for Congress and the constitutional process that Barack Obama. In his zeal to establish a legacy, he has systematically used his executive powers to trample upon the Constitution and the legislative branch of government.

Obama is now fixing his sights on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility housing America’s most dangerous and maniacal foes. He announced his intention to do so on Tuesday, citing a plethora of reasons, each of which lacks merit.

Obama’s announcement coincides with his overall scheme to advance U.S.-Cuba ties. Last week, Obama announced that he would pay a visit to the despotic Castro brothers. That obscene gesture was made contemporaneous with his notice that he would not be attending Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral, demonstrating to all just how morally bankrupt Obama has become.

Since assuming office in 2009, Obama has had an unhealthy obsession with Gitmo and made it a priority to close the facility. He sees Guantanamo as an extension of American imperialism and a hindrance to closer ties with the Muslim world. Closure of the facility would curry favor with the Cubans and an assortment of repressive Muslim regimes.

Of course, to advance his scheme to close Guantanamo, Obama must make the argument in terms that are palatable to the American public. Establishing closer ties with the Muslim world is not high on the list of priorities for the average American constituent, but security is.

The public argument between Apple and the FBI over cracking the encryption on an iPhone used by the San Bernardino Muslim terrorists is one of those ongoing civil liberties debates that negotiate the terms on which we are asked to sacrifice our civil liberties for the sake of Muslim immigration.

We have already made a thousand accommodations and we will make a thousand more. There will be more databases, naked scanners, eavesdropping, vans that can see through walls, backdoors to every server, registrations, warrantless searches, interceptions and regulations. There will be heavily armed police on the streets. And then curfews and soldiers. These things exist in Europe. They’ll come here.

Some libertarians will argue that we should have none of this and no restrictions on immigration. That we should just shrug off each terror attack and move on with our lives.

Eventually though there will be a terror attack that we can’t shrug off and that can’t be minimized by using the cheap statistical trick of comparing Terror Attack X to the number of people who die every year from cancer. Or there will just be an endless parade of daily attacks, bombings, stabbings or shootings, as in Israel, which create a constant climate of terror that will preclude any hollow rhetoric about the number of people falling off ladders each year or getting struck by lightning.

Some hawks will cheer every terror fighting measure short of closing the door on the root cause of the problem. They would rather see every American wiretapped, strip searched and monitored every hour of the day then just stop the flow of Muslim terrorists into this country.

The encryption methods of an iPhone, like the question of how many ounces there are in your tiny bottle of mouthwash, would not be much of an issue, if Muslim migration did not make it one.

Terrorists adapt to the terrain. They use the native population as protective coloration. They can find a way to transform a shoe, a tube of toothpaste or instant messaging on a game console into a terror tool. Just as the left can ‘politicize’ everything, Muslim terrorists can ‘terrorize’ everything. When everything is a potential terrorist tool, then there can be no such thing as privacy or civil rights.

In November 2014, Congress voted to ban the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. It was not a close vote. The final margin was 91 to 3 in the Senate and 370 to 58 in the House. Those are bipartisan, veto-proof majorities. And since those votes happened, Republicans have gained control of the Senate and increased their House majority.

Yet today President Obama unveiled a plan that directly contradicts the law. He wants to release 35 detainees and move the other 56 to a prison that would be built somewhere in the United States to house them.

In making his case, President Obama repeated the same tired talking points about how Gitmo has been a terrorist recruiting tool, even though there is scant evidence to support this proposition. Even two scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution, Cody Poplin and Sebastian Brady, dispute Obama’s contention. They write:

**Indeed, other issues and grievances seemingly receive much more airtime and emphasis than the detention camp does; and Guantanamo, when mentioned, is often lumped in with other controversial facilities—like Bagram and Abu Ghraib. Detention and abuse of suspected terrorists by the United States, in other words, is a readily discernable motif. But the contemporary propaganda narrative seems to treat that motif as but one category of offenses in a long chain of western transgressions against the Muslim world.

Accordingly, it is hardly clear that Guantanamo’s closure would matter much, so far as concerns the contents of jihadist propaganda. U.S. detention operations at Bagram and Abu Ghraib, after all, are now in the past—but that hasn’t persuaded jihadis to drop their invocations of both prisons in their online literature.**

Poplin and Brady note that Gitmo is especially unimportant in the ISIS narrative. What has really been a terrorist recruiting tool has been the administration’s weakness in the face of the Islamic State. But rather than announce a serious plan to destroy ISIS, Obama finds it much easier to score rhetorical points by announcing a plan to close Gitmo.

His timing is especially bad because, as I argued in the Washington Post, the U.S. needs a detention facility to hold captured ISIS leaders, assuming that we actually capture and interrogate some (as we should). If not Gitmo, then where?

A House bill introduced last year by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity cleared the House Judiciary Committee today.

The bill details many links of the Brotherhood to terrorism, including the endorsement of violence in Egypt last year in response to a “war against Islam’s principles.” It notes that Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain have banned the Brotherhood.

Not more than 60 days after enactment of the bill, the State Department would have to submit a report to Congress on whether the Muslims Brotherhood meets the criteria to be designated a foreign terrorist organization — and if not, explain why not.

The legislation has 28 bipartisan co-sponsors. A companion bill from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sits in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

At today’s Judiciary Committee markup, in which the vote was 17-10 to move the bill to the House floor, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said he was “troubled” to learn that the State Department never considered the Muslim Brotherhood an FTO.

Since its founding in 1928, Goodlatte noted, “the Brotherhood’s strategic goal ‘in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.'”

The chairman stressed that under the designation “this administration would actually have to deny admittance to aliens tied to the Muslim Brotherhood rather than continue to proclaim to the world that the Brotherhood is a moderate and secular organization.”

We often hear the line from a Robert Burns poem, “The best laid schemes of mice and men, often go askew,” invoked when someone’s grandiose plans blow up in one’s face.

That may be what we’re in store for if President Obama’s recently announced plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and place terrorists on U.S. soil is able to proceed unilaterally without congressional approval. This time, the danger in the plan is to the American people.

Slowly over the years he has been in office, Obama has released numerous terrorists to other countries without adequate provisions to prevent them from returning to the battlefield against U.S. soldiers and civilians.

One recent case is that of Ibrahim al Qosi. He was a member of al-Qaida and a personal aide to Osama bin Laden who was released from Guantanamo in 2012 and sent to Sudan. He recently appeared in a video as a spokesperson for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

In the video, “Guardians of Sharia,” he calls on people to commit acts of jihad. Clearly his time in Guantanamo did nothing to rehabilitate him. He is the classic recidivist.

The fact that ex-cons often get released from prison neither rehabilitated nor transformed is nothing new. Recidivism rates for common criminals continue to be an issue for sociologists and criminologists to explore.

The Obama administration is prohibited by law from moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, but President Obama on Tuesday sent Congress his plan for doing just that.

Even before Obama spoke, members of Congress reacted negatively.

“The fact is, it is very hard to stop a president from doing something if he is willing to ignore the law and his oath,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told Fox News Tuesday morning.

Issa said Obama’s plan to close the military prison in Cuba is not a surprise — he talked about doing it even before he became president.

“But the fact that he’s willing to do it in violation of specific law…(shows that) he has very little to lose, in his opinion. He doesn’t believe that the American people will impeach him, and with the death of Justice Scalia, he probably views that the Supreme Court might back him with a 4-4 decision.”

Issa noted that Obama himself signed the bill that included the provision barring transfers of Gitmo detainees to the United States. “But this is a president that doesn’t respect the law and the Constitution.”

Issa said there isn’t much Congress can do “in a timely fashion” if Obama ignores the law and orders the military prison closed. Congress’s recourse would be to go to court, and the courts are not likely to rule quickly.

Issa said that voiding the Guantanamo lease, which the United States holds in perpetuity, would be more complicated for the president to do. He could order the military to leave Guantanamo, but that places the burden on military leaders.

“I have to be quite candid,” Issa said. “It is the decision that U.S. military leaders have to make. Are they going to obey an unlawful order…to move people from Guantanamo? An unlawful order to close the base?”

Issa said he believes the military may push back on the president. “I can see flag officers resigning rather than obeying unlawful orders.”