Unknown to each other, President Barack Obama and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas walk into a bar, and meet, well, at the bar. Obama is there for a secret Marlboro and his favorite martini. Abbas is there to escape Hamas gunmen after his head and maybe order a beer with lemonade. After sitting on adjoining stools and exchanging "high fives" "fist-bumps," and playing a half-round of scissors-paper-rock, they notice each other's lapel pins.
Abbas is wearing one of the Palestinian flag. Obama is wearing a "Hope and Change" pin, which he alternates with an alleged American flag pin with diagonal red and white stripes. Or no pin at all.
Abbas cheerfully offers to trade pins with Obama. Obama says that's a great idea. Abbas fixes the Hope and Change pin to his lapel, and Obama fixes the Palestinian one to his lapel. Then they laugh and excliam together, "Now we are truly on the same side!"
And together they retort, "Haven't we always been?" They laugh again in the knowledge that they're in such perfect sync.
That's the punch line. Something of a downer, isn't it? Not funny at all?
Nevertheless, it's true.
Now, Barack Obama is a jihadist on many fronts: In his domestic policies, and in his foreign policies. For example, he is now proposing that Congress appropriate $3.7 billion in "humanitarian" aid for sub rosa amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants who have been bussed up to the U.S./Mexican border. About 95% of this aid will not go directly to the illegals, but to federal agencies. The Washington Post's David Nakamura and Wesley Lowery, in their July 8th article, "White House requests $3.7 billion in emergency funds for border crisis," noted that this exorbitant amount won’t benefit the illegals, but bureaucracies, foreign and domestic:
Under the White House proposal, most of the emergency funds would be split between the Department of Health and Human Services — which would receive $1.8 billion to provide shelter and care to the immigrants — and the Justice and Homeland Security departments, which would get a combined $1.6 billion to handle enforcement.
The State Department would receive $300 million to help the Central American countries repatriate their citizens and create advertising campaigns about the dangers of placing children in the hands of smuggling cartels. The White House request also includes money to help the federal government fight wildfires.
Write off the $300 million that would go the Central American governments; much of it would be "repatriated" into the pockets and bank accounts of dictators and bureaucrats. That's as natural a law as water flowing downhill. You can bet that any illegal sent back to his home country will get perhaps a free box of Corn Flakes and a dollar a month financial assistance guarantee. And maybe a "free" Obama cell phone thrown in for good measure. But no chickens in every pot.
Why the nearly $4 billion figure proposed by Obama? It's a purely arbitrary figure partly intended to justify the existence of the DHS and HHS and emasculated Border Patrol units charged with protecting our southern border. There are, however, alternatives to sending illegals back where they came from. On July 8th, Ernest Istook in his Washington Times article, "Flying illegals home would be 99.5 percent cheaper than Obama’s plan," reveals just how cheaply they can be sent packing:
We taxpayers are expected to house, feed, clothe and care for almost 30,000 illegal aliens for a full year, according to the White House’s official request.
That’s a small city. Instead, we could fly all of them home for one-half of 1 percent of the $3.8 billion that President Obama proposes we spend. That’s a savings of 99.5 percent!
At the unofficial reported cost of $250 per person per day, President Barack Obama is proposing we spend $1.8 billion “to provide appropriate care for unaccompanied children.” That works out to 19,726 minors for a year. The $250 a day figure compares with the $667 one-way cost of an airline ticket from McAllen, Texas, to Guatemala City, Guatemala, according to both Orbitz and
Priceline. The combined airfare for 29,358 passengers would be $19.6 million. That is one-half of 1 percent of President Obama’s overall $3.8 billion request.
The border "crisis" – one of Obama's custom-designed making and one he is happy with – is about more than tens of thousands of illegals, freeloaders, and other parasites becoming permanent charges to the American taxpayer. It is also a matter of national security and the peril in which Obama has placed the country.
Drew Zahn, in his June 6th WND article, "General: Border crisis threatens U.S. existence," features Marine Corps General John Kelly, who warns that:
America’s porous southern border and the recent surge in illegal immigration is more than just a “humanitarian crisis,” claims the top U.S. general in charge of Central and South America, it’s a threat to the United States’ very existence.
Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly is commander of the U.S. Southern Command, or SOUTHCOM, charged with responsibility for the Caribbean Sea and all lands south of Mexico.
Particularly in regards to the drug trade, murder rates and terrorist activity brewing in Central America, Kelly says, the waves of Latin Americans sweeping through Mexico and illegally into Texas presents a threat to the U.S. every bit as serious as Iran or North Korea. “In comparison to other global threats, the near collapse of societies in [this] hemisphere with the associated drug and [illegal immigrant] flow are frequently viewed to be of low importance,” Kelly said in an interview with Defense One. “Many argue these threats are not existential and do not challenge our national security. I disagree.”
Tell that to the Marines? Obama's attitude is that Marines are only good for holding umbrellas over him in the Rose Garden and dying for no good reason in Islamic pestholes and on VA hospital death lists. Obama hates the military. Have you ever observed Obama saluting a Marine as he gets off Air Force One or a helicopter? It's a comical Alan Alda "MASH" or Three Stooges salute that mocks the Marine.
Kelly testified before Congress on the nature of the threat on our southern border:
“Clearly, criminal networks can move just about anything on these smuggling pipelines,” Kelly said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in February. “Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even quite easily bring weapons of mass destruction into the United States.”
SOUTHCOM’s intelligence assets reveal the possibility is far more than just crying wolf.
“Supporters and sympathizers of Lebanese Hezbollah are involved in both licit and illicit activities in the region,” Kelly told Congress. “Members, supporters, and adherents of Islamic extremist groups are present in Latin America. Islamic extremists visit the region to proselytize, recruit, establish business venues to generate funds, and expand their radical networks. Some Muslim communities in the Caribbean and South America are exhibiting increasingly extremist ideology and activities, mostly as a result from ideologues’ activities and external influence from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Mr. Chairman, we take all these activities seriously.”
One supposes that Obama would welcome a Kenyan-style raid by Somalian or other Islamic terrorists on an American mall or other public venue. It would be another wound he could boast of inflicting on the country, and provide him with an excuse to assume full authoritarian powers. Because that is what will happen if the terrorists who have already slipped over the border, in the persona of Mexican or South American illegals, go into action.
Is that such an unlikely prediction? Well, who could have predicted that Obama would, on one hand, call Israel "one" of America's best allies in the Middle East (in fact, it is the only ally of ours in that region; Saudi Arabia is not an ally, it is filching parasite), and on the other, fund Israel's enemies, enemies determined to erase Israel from the Middle East map.
If U.S. courts and authorities can indict individuals for supporting jihad against this country, Israel, and other countries, why can't Obama be charged with the same crime? Is there a difference, except in scale? In 2013, for example, Money Jihad reported that:
U.S. federal prosecutors have charged two men with attempting to provide support for al-Qaida and two affiliated militant groups. Gufran Ahmed Kauser Mohammed, 30, and Mohamed Hussein Said, 25, made their initial appearance in a federal court in Miami, Florida on Thursday.
The two men are accused of conspiring to provide and attempting to provide material support to al-Qaida, al-Qaida in Iraq and the Somali militant group al-Shabab.
Prosecutors say they conspired to raise money and recruits for the groups. They say Mohammed wired money to Said for the purpose of supporting al-Shabab, and to another person whom he believed was a fundraiser and recruiter for al-Qaida and al-Qaida in Iraq. They say the men also agreed to support al-Qaida by moving experienced al-Shabab fighters to the conflict in Syria.
Shariah Finance Watch lists a number of terrorist funding operations, some squashed, others not.
The Wall Street Journal on June 6th, in its article, "State winks at the Palestinian merger with terror group," questioned the policy of supporting Israel's (and our) enemies in the form of "aid" to the so-called Palestinian State, which dominates that fictive entity and which is currently firing rockets at Israel, our erstwhile "ally."
The 1988 Hamas Charter explicitly commits the Palestinian terror group to murdering Jews. Thanks to the formation this week of an interim government uniting Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which the U.S. supports to the tune of more than $400 million a year, the American taxpayer may soon become an indirect party to that enterprise.
The Wall Street Journal is somewhat clueless about the "merger," later in the article implying that it is somehow feasible and workable, if only Hamas would stop attacking Israel with rockets and guns. Then Congress could pass the appropriations with a good conscience. Congress has a long wait ahead of it.
On July 9th, Daniel Greenfield in his FrontPage articlemade some pertinent observations about the PA/Hamas merger:
Obama’s people have insisted that the PLO-Hamas unity government now running the Palestinian Authority has nothing to do with Hamas and the current attacks on Israeli towns and cities.
Meanwhile Fatah, presided over by PA President Abbas, who according to Obama is Israel’s peace partner, declared that Fatah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad had a whole lot in common.
Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah announced this morning in a Facebook post that the military wings of Hamas, Fatah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are “brothers-in-arms,” united by “one God, one homeland, one enemy, one goal.”
Does this mean that Obama will finally stop funding the Hamas/PLO unity government? About as likely as Hamas giving up violence and moving to Brussels to bake croissants.
Of course, subsidizing the "Palestinian" state predates Obama. But Obama has made clear in no uncertain terms his root hostility to Israel, and would like to see it agree to reduce itself to its fictive and suicidal pre-1967 borders. He knows full well that such an event would trigger the wholesale onslaught of Hamas, Al Queda, and every other Islamic terror organization on Israel.
Before Obama makes any policy suggestions, or even abuses his executive powers by implementing policies without Congress's leave, he cannot help but know the deleterious consequences of those policies beforehand. His policies, from his anti-Israel one, to his pro-Islam one, to his pro-DREAM ACT one (see my article, "Invasion by Invitation"), to his refusal to okay the Keystone Pipeline one until he's good and ready, to his anti-military one (except when he wants to make unauthorized war on other countries), are all instances of crimes committed with malice aforethought.
There is no other credible explanation for his actions. He is not naïve, ignorant, "wrong," or incompetent as even super-critical conservatives insist on accusing him of being. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is a master of the Saul Alinsky/Cloward-Piven strategies to convert the U.S. from a country pock-marked with a strength-sapping welfare state into a full-scale fascist one.
Obama is a multi-talented jihadist (and nihilist).
And that is no laughing matter.