Luke Hamilton
Our new national security policy- -never let an ISIS go to waste
By Luke Hamilton
Boy, turn your head for one minute and suddenly everybody is a war hawk! Wasn't our government in the full-time occupation of blaming Bush for his bloodthirsty colonialism..? All of a sudden, Senator Dianne Feinstein (Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) has gone on record that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a threat which "cannot be overstated." The Department of Homeland Security circulated a memo to law enforcement agencies, suggesting that attacks by ISIS could happen with "little to no warning." Secretaries Hagel and Kerry, along with the President, are working overtime to cobble together an international coalition, intent on engaging in a military campaign against ISIS.
At the same time, the Federal government is actively working to keep our southern border WIDE OPEN. The President, DHS, Secretary Hagel; these are some of the people directly responsible for the fact that anyone and everyone can do the watusi across our southern border without ever being seen, questioned, or identified, and yet they are acting on a credible, dangerous threat to our safety.
- We have a credible threat from a terrorist organization which "cannot be overstated'.
- We have a de facto open borders policy on our Southern border.
These two facts seem to be irreconcilable. ISIS has posted information which seeks to prove that they have active cells here in this country as we speak. Last month, a Twitter profile supposedly affiliated with ISIS posted a picture of a Chicago landmark, boasting about their supposed infiltration of the United States. Given the corroboration of the memo from DHS, it seems clear that our government acknowledges the rapid-strike capability of this group, along with the viability of their threats, and simultaneously retains their position of open immigration.
President Obama has described his willingness to engage this enemy overseas in an open-ended campaign, spanning multiple years. But why would we expend effort, money, and manpower to fight an enemy overseas who has already infiltrated our ranks here at home, going so far as to leave the back-door open for anyone and everyone to visit? Could this cognitive dissonance be deliberate on the part of the Obama Administration? There's a threat to which we are preparing to offer a long-term militaristic response. The top-ranking Senator on the Intelligence Committee has spoken about the threat in the most dire of terms. This enemy has sworn vengeance on us and provided proof which suggests they are capable and nearby. And yet our southern border remains open, day and night.
Either the threat is dire or it is not. Either it's safe to allow all-comers to cross our borders and remain in our country or it isn't. If this cognitive dissonance isn't deliberate, then what is it? Accidental? Can't be. The Border Patrol, INS, and DHS are operating under the orders of the President himself. If he wanted the border closed and scrutinized, it would be. Unknowing? Hardly, given the hubbub which was caused by the Feds dumping illegals in cities without informing local authorities or vetting the immigrants.
The only logical explanation is that this is deliberate. But why? A number of explanations come to mind. Start with the most charitable: arrogance. This is the Administration who oversaw Operation Fast and Furious, where guns were deliberately given to drug cartel members because the DOJ felt capable of managing and tracking the problem. They lost control of the situation and as a result, one Border Patrol agent lost his life and countless others have become victims as a result of those lost weapons. The Obama administration consistently overestimates its abilities. Their refusal to secure the border could be a dangerous game of chicken, designed to bait our enemies into revealing some compromising information about themselves, using the safety of the American people as bait.
Or it could be completely political. Perhaps the Obama Administration isn't willing to close the border, even with a risk of attack, because of the terribly steep price which would be paid by his legacy and the Democratic Party amongst the rabid amnesty lobby; the reverberations of which would be felt for several elections cycles to come. Perhaps he's gambling that he can dodge a bullet until just after the November elections when he can nationalize the illegals in this country, with the intention to shut the door once he has his 5-10 million Democrat voters in house.
But it could also be ideologically motivated, and this is where it gets unsettling. Let's not forget that this President is an acolyte of Saul Alinski, who himself counseled the communities he organized to make the "Haves" as uncomfortable as possible, by whatever means necessary. Obama's very own chief-of-staff, currently presiding over a bloodbath in the city of Chicago, once said that one should "never let a crisis go to waste." Surely the Rahmfather wouldn't advise letting an ISIS go to waste either. Is it possible that the President sees an opportunity to procure millions of votes while gaining even more authoritarian power, due to an increased level of danger or (God forbid) another attack on American soil? He's already asking Congress for a $5b slush fund which he claims would be used to support operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
He's just spreading the slush around, right?? The President is fund-raising on dire threats to the safety of this nation, so is it really such a logical leap to think that the cognitive dissonance displayed by our national security policy is by design? This is entirely plausibl, given the track record of this President, bent on dismantling the Constitution he swore to uphold. The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of all these explanations, borrowing some motivation from each. However, it is a clear dereliction of duty to deliberately compromise the safety of the American people and an inexcusable abuse of Presidential power, regardless of motivation.
© Luke Hamilton
September 19, 2014
Boy, turn your head for one minute and suddenly everybody is a war hawk! Wasn't our government in the full-time occupation of blaming Bush for his bloodthirsty colonialism..? All of a sudden, Senator Dianne Feinstein (Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) has gone on record that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a threat which "cannot be overstated." The Department of Homeland Security circulated a memo to law enforcement agencies, suggesting that attacks by ISIS could happen with "little to no warning." Secretaries Hagel and Kerry, along with the President, are working overtime to cobble together an international coalition, intent on engaging in a military campaign against ISIS.
At the same time, the Federal government is actively working to keep our southern border WIDE OPEN. The President, DHS, Secretary Hagel; these are some of the people directly responsible for the fact that anyone and everyone can do the watusi across our southern border without ever being seen, questioned, or identified, and yet they are acting on a credible, dangerous threat to our safety.
- We have a credible threat from a terrorist organization which "cannot be overstated'.
- We have a de facto open borders policy on our Southern border.
These two facts seem to be irreconcilable. ISIS has posted information which seeks to prove that they have active cells here in this country as we speak. Last month, a Twitter profile supposedly affiliated with ISIS posted a picture of a Chicago landmark, boasting about their supposed infiltration of the United States. Given the corroboration of the memo from DHS, it seems clear that our government acknowledges the rapid-strike capability of this group, along with the viability of their threats, and simultaneously retains their position of open immigration.
President Obama has described his willingness to engage this enemy overseas in an open-ended campaign, spanning multiple years. But why would we expend effort, money, and manpower to fight an enemy overseas who has already infiltrated our ranks here at home, going so far as to leave the back-door open for anyone and everyone to visit? Could this cognitive dissonance be deliberate on the part of the Obama Administration? There's a threat to which we are preparing to offer a long-term militaristic response. The top-ranking Senator on the Intelligence Committee has spoken about the threat in the most dire of terms. This enemy has sworn vengeance on us and provided proof which suggests they are capable and nearby. And yet our southern border remains open, day and night.
Either the threat is dire or it is not. Either it's safe to allow all-comers to cross our borders and remain in our country or it isn't. If this cognitive dissonance isn't deliberate, then what is it? Accidental? Can't be. The Border Patrol, INS, and DHS are operating under the orders of the President himself. If he wanted the border closed and scrutinized, it would be. Unknowing? Hardly, given the hubbub which was caused by the Feds dumping illegals in cities without informing local authorities or vetting the immigrants.
The only logical explanation is that this is deliberate. But why? A number of explanations come to mind. Start with the most charitable: arrogance. This is the Administration who oversaw Operation Fast and Furious, where guns were deliberately given to drug cartel members because the DOJ felt capable of managing and tracking the problem. They lost control of the situation and as a result, one Border Patrol agent lost his life and countless others have become victims as a result of those lost weapons. The Obama administration consistently overestimates its abilities. Their refusal to secure the border could be a dangerous game of chicken, designed to bait our enemies into revealing some compromising information about themselves, using the safety of the American people as bait.
Or it could be completely political. Perhaps the Obama Administration isn't willing to close the border, even with a risk of attack, because of the terribly steep price which would be paid by his legacy and the Democratic Party amongst the rabid amnesty lobby; the reverberations of which would be felt for several elections cycles to come. Perhaps he's gambling that he can dodge a bullet until just after the November elections when he can nationalize the illegals in this country, with the intention to shut the door once he has his 5-10 million Democrat voters in house.
But it could also be ideologically motivated, and this is where it gets unsettling. Let's not forget that this President is an acolyte of Saul Alinski, who himself counseled the communities he organized to make the "Haves" as uncomfortable as possible, by whatever means necessary. Obama's very own chief-of-staff, currently presiding over a bloodbath in the city of Chicago, once said that one should "never let a crisis go to waste." Surely the Rahmfather wouldn't advise letting an ISIS go to waste either. Is it possible that the President sees an opportunity to procure millions of votes while gaining even more authoritarian power, due to an increased level of danger or (God forbid) another attack on American soil? He's already asking Congress for a $5b slush fund which he claims would be used to support operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
He's just spreading the slush around, right?? The President is fund-raising on dire threats to the safety of this nation, so is it really such a logical leap to think that the cognitive dissonance displayed by our national security policy is by design? This is entirely plausibl, given the track record of this President, bent on dismantling the Constitution he swore to uphold. The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of all these explanations, borrowing some motivation from each. However, it is a clear dereliction of duty to deliberately compromise the safety of the American people and an inexcusable abuse of Presidential power, regardless of motivation.
© Luke Hamilton
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
