Tag Archives: ATF

Was El Chapo among the beneficiaries of Obama’s Fast & Furious?

mg_chapo_guns_compOriginally posted at American Thinker

Earlier this month, after eluding police since last summer, in Los Mochis, Mexico, drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán was finally apprehended.  During a raid of the hideout where the world’s most notorious drug lord hid for six months, authorities found a .50 caliber high-powered rifle with a serial number that traced back to none other than Barack Obama, the U.S. Justice Department, and an ATF overseen by former attorney general Eric Holder’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking operation.

Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but the guy responsible for El Chapo being in possession of such a dangerous weapon is the same person currently demonizing the NRA and looking for ways to frustrate the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.

Dubbed “Fast and Furious,” the failed sting operation Obama kept going, which started as “Operation Wide Receiver” in 2006 and was abandoned by Bush, involved federal agents allowing licensed firearms dealers in Phoenix-area shops to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping that after they were sold, authorities could track the arms to Mexican drug cartel leaders like El Chapo and arrest them.

Instead, the ATF lost track of most of what was sold.

The irony is that under the guise of wanting to track guns to Mexico, America’s anti-gun evangelist put 2,000 weapons in the hands of criminal drug cartels.  In turn, rather than the president’s original goal being accomplished, violent chaos ensued when munitions were made available to some very bad people.

In 2010, after Obama’s guns hit the streets of Mexico, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered with a “Fast and Furious” weapon.  The following year, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata also fell victim.

Five years later, Nadir Hamid Soofi, one of two armed terrorists, the other being Elton Simpson, showed up at a Garland, Texas Mohammed cartoon contest to avenge Allah’s honor with a  “Fast and Furious” gun.  Thankfully, an armed traffic cop killed the two ISIS sympathizers, both of whom arrived at the event wearing body armor, before they could kill any infidels.

Judging from the events in Garland, Texas, and the fact that thousands of intruders have successfully crossed the border illegally, surely more than a single “Fast and Furious” gun has been smuggled from Mexico back into the U.S.

And while purely conjecture, one can’t help but wonder whether the “stolen federal agent’s gun” Juan Francisco López-Sánchez allegedly used to kill Kate Steinle in the sanctuary city of San Francisco might also have a serial number the president would rather keep secret.

Let’s face it: the chance that a 5x-deported illegal felon could happen upon a federal agent’s stolen .40 caliber handgun, under a bench, wrapped in a T-shirt, is a whole lot less credible than an illegal border-jumper managing to procure a “Fast and Furious” special on one of his round trips.

But that’s not all.  Thanks to “Fast and Furious” and a president convinced that law and order are somehow accomplished by treating villains as more trustworthy than the law-abiding, the Mexican people have also suffered greatly.

For example, in 2010, 14 teenagers near Ciudad Juárez were murdered at a party, shot by La Línea assassins, who came armed to the festivities with Obama-provided guns.  There’s also Mexican lawyer Mario González Rodríguez.  In 2011, before being murdered with a gun walked over the border and dumped in a shallow grave, Rodríguez was tortured for weeks by members of El Chapo’s Sinaloa cartel.

Beauty queen Maria Susana Flores Gamez was also a victim.  Ms. Gamez was used as a human shield during a shootout between cops and drug-runners.  The gun found lying next to her corpse belonged to the latter group and was gifted compliments of Eric Holder and Barack Obama, both of whom, to this day, accept zero responsibility for all the bloodshed.

Now it’s 2016, and Americans find out that after five of El Chapo’s men were killed in a raid where Guzmán was finally captured, serial numbers on high-powered weapons with Barack Obama’s fingerprints all over them were found inside the hideout.

So it appears as if the president on a mission to educate the illiterate on gun safety also provided the most notorious and deadly drug lord on the planet with a rifle capable of stopping a car or taking out a helicopter.

Worse than that, when not working hard to restrict the sale of firearms, Obama, the one who lost track of 1,400, or 70%, of the 2,000 guns he purposely allowed to be walked across the border into Mexico, is reassuring Americans that he can properly vet the 250,000 ISIS-infiltrated refugees he plans on walking into this country.

‘Fast and Furious’: What if Eric Holder is Telling the Truth?

Originally posted at BIG Government

In light of the “Fast and Furious” fiasco, the Obama administration is embarrassing itself whenever it tries to convince the public that on issues like healthcare and immigration reform, the government is well equipped to ensure the safety of the American people.

Presently, a scandal surrounding the White House alleges that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) purposely allowed Mexican drug cartel gang members to gain possession of illegal weaponry on the US side of the border. Despite his denials, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice are suspected of knowing about the effort whose intent was to track gunrunning kingpins by way of a “tactic known as ‘letting guns walk.’”

Gun walking involved the feds standing by and doing nothing while weapons such as “an antiaircraftmachine gun, a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher” were loaded into trunks by suspected Mexican straw purchasers.  The illegal acquisition of the weapons was overlooked, with the intent to use the guns as a pseudo-GPS system to track down and overtake dangerous Mexican drug cartels.

The problem is, those same guns eventually turned up at murder scenes alongside the bodies of two dead Border Patrol agents, Jamie Zapata and Brian Terry, not to mention the innumerable Mexicans killed in drug wars with guns smuggled in from Arizona.

In a letter to members of Congress, Eric Holder defended his lack of familiarity with the controversial undertaking, maintaining that he had “no recollection of knowing about the operation, called ‘Fast and Furious,’ or of hearing its name prior to the public controversy about it.”

Some members of Congress believe Eric Holder had prior knowledge of the gun-walking operation.  If the Attorney General continues to maintain he was unaware of the debacle, it must be because he believes that plausible deniability protects and benefits the political future of both himself and the President of the United States.

But Mr. Holder is misguided, because while it would be horrifying to find out he possessed foreknowledge of the failed operation, what would be even worse for big government progressives would be to find out that the Attorney General is actually telling the truth.

Holder not knowing about “Fast and Furious” proves that an Obama appointee’s poor administrative oversight cost the lives of two Americans who died in service to their country, which underscores the potential for massive bureaucratic failures now and in the future.

Both Obama’s and Holder’s attempts to deny complicity serve to verify that every endeavor this administration undertakes threatens more and more innocent people, either through outright incompetency or shameless disregard for human life.

Eric Holder’s actions and denials may be an attempt at feigning innocence, but such efforts undermine Obama’s unrelenting attempts to convince and reassure the nation to entrust government bureaucrats with even larger life-and-death decisions.

Think about it: How can an administration vow to be competent enough to handle the administrative oversight of health care reform for a population of 300 million people if it can’t monitor a small number of guns?

Whether the Attorney General gave his approbation or he didn’t, to track criminals by employing the harebrained idea that murderers could be traced when dead bodies float up in the Rio Grande ultimately affects the credibility of Obama’s future big government plans for America.

The felonious lunacy of “Fast and Furious” exposes the Obama administration’s pervasive impotence on every level. Regardless of how President Obama tries to give surety to the American public, it’s obvious that a group unable to tie their own shoes is in no position to run a health care program slated to cost trillions and affect hundreds of millions Americans over the next 10 years.

Add to the President’s refusal to address dangerous open borders; his favoritism toward illegal aliens living unlawfully in America; and the pursuit of repeated lawsuits against states trying to defend themselves against hostile invasion, and the situation gets still more precarious.

Holder and Obama testifying to being clueless about a poorly thought-out, relatively small-scale yet incredibly dangerous operation indicates that any Obama endeavor larger than “Fast and Furious” could eventually end up exponentially costing more lives.  So how can this administration vouch for immigration reform involving 13 million illegal aliens when they were unable to maintain control over 2,000 illegal guns?

Thus, as Darrell Issa (R-CA) presses Eric Holder to explain the tragedy of how two American border agents ended up in body bags, he may not realize he is doing the nation an even greater service. By getting to the bottom of the “Fast and Furious” controversy, Congressman Issa is reaffirming for a country under siege by an administration whose actions mimic those of armed enemies, that everything the Obama administration touches turns to disaster and one way or another ultimately ends up threatening our lives.

Judging by the numbers alone, “Fast and Furious” proves that an administration who failed to control a program that involved a couple of thousand guns should not be trusted with the healthcare oversight for 300 million Americans.  Nor should Obama continue to be allowed to falsely assure the American public that 13 million illegal aliens pose little or no danger to our nation or its people.  Lest we forget, gun walking was supposed to prevent crime, not cause it.

If the good intentions surrounding the giving of guns to criminals failed so miserably, it stands to reason that extending government largesse in the form of health care and immigration reform also carries with it the explosive potential to result in the “Fast and Furious” destruction of the entire nation.

Barack’s ‘Laugh Factory’ Revue

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Democrats have to believe Americans are either stupid or stricken by a nationwide epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorder. If anyone takes the time to try to figure out the contradictory things the left says and does, it’s so convoluted, nonsensical and ridiculous that, if it weren’t so detrimental, one might think it was material for standup comedy at the Laugh Factory.

Recently, when Nancy Pelosi made a solo trip to the White House to discuss concerns over spending cuts to entitlement programs, while she was there, the woman who unwillingly gave up the gavel very likely broached the subject of unemployment and job creation as well.

In the past, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi shared the opinion that unemployment benefits create “jobs faster than practically any other program.” According to Nancy, abysmal job numbers coupled with doling out additional unemployment benefits should have the job market booming.

Ms. Nancy, whose personal income grew by 62% during the recession, is convinced that $330 a week puts disposable cash into the pockets of non-working Americans to spend on shopping sprees.  Praising what she considers a “double benefit,” Pelosi, who regularly sports $80K Tahitian pearls, maintains that job-creating unemployment insurance “injects demand into the economy” by providing the money that keeps the market churning.

Barack Obama’s job stimulus plan varies somewhat from Pelosi’s, but still contains distinct similarities to those proposed by the former Speaker of the House.  Obama is convinced that raising taxes is a job creator and blames Republicans for being unwilling to burden the taxpayer to create jobs. The President’s job plan doesn’t conflict with Pelosi’s unemployment benefit job incentives, because people who run to the mailbox to collect that government-issued three hundred a week still pay taxes to the government on the money so generously given to them by the government.

So, in a roundabout way, both Obama and Pelosi agree that the higher the unemployment the more job creation, because taxes can be obtained from the unemployed – which, according to some liberals, could get people back to work.  It’s a win-win; with unemployment at 9.2%, Pelosi/Obama may be onto something. Thus, despite the bleak job forecast, Americans should be encouraged because as lay offs grow, new jobs can be created in the process.

Seem illogical?  Americans may need to be reminded that this is the political party whose rationale includes telling the nation that sacrifice is needed to get through a difficult economy while insisting that the way to subsist in trying times is to raise the debt ceiling, spend more money, and assume more debt.

Thankfully for Americans clamoring for work, even without Nancy Pelosi’s insightful input the President still exhibits innovative expertise in the area of job creation. Besides raising taxes, as a way to get people working again apparently Obama believes career opportunities can be created by sharing Second Amendment rights with Mexican drug cartels.

Either that, or Barack has been too busy chasing around golf balls and campaigning for 2012 to notice what Attorney General Eric Holder and the ATF have been up to on the border. Then again, it could be neither of those and Obama simply concurs with the idea that jobs can be created and Mexican/American relations enhanced by curtailing the Constitutional right of Americans to bear arms.

By proposing “new reporting requirements on thousands of gun dealers near the Mexico border,” the President may simply be stimulating bureaucratic job opportunities.  Moreover, while Obama concentrates on punishing law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement positions are also being created for personnel willing to apprehend carloads full of illegals at Phoenix, Arizona traffic lights whose vehicles are stocked with assault weapons.

With the law enforcement profession in mind, the text of the Stimulus Bill indicated that, with the knowledge of the federal government, taxpayer monies financed the ATF gun-walking policy. That’s right – either the President failed to read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or someone in his administration convinced him that arming Mexican drug cartels who subsequently shot Americans with ATF Project Gunrunner weapons would get people back to work.  Or maybe both.

For an additional amount for ‘‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance,’’ $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.

Leaving aside the good intentions of those in authority, who would argue that funding ATF Project Gunrunner doesn’t illustrate ingenious Democrat job creation at its finest?

On many fronts, the President’s rationale may seem illogical and, were it not so deadly and destructive, even laughable.  Yet, to unemployment-benefit-job-creator Pelosi, the explanation for what appears absurd to sane people probably makes perfect sense to the likes of Nancy. But then again, it could just be another example of the President’s high level of intelligence making it difficult for mere mortals to comprehend the genius behind creating jobs by raising taxes and arming drug cartels.

Therefore, despite the lack of a laugh track, when not out “churning the economy” with unemployment benefits or ducking bullets fired by automatic weapons the ATF allowed murderous Mexican illegals to acquire, it would probably be best for Americans to give up questioning the irrational and prepare for Laugh Factory antics to continue for a least another year.

Preserving Liberty in Libya

Originally posted at American Thinker

Lately, President Barack Obama has been assuming some surprising policy positions.  First, he changed his mind and decided to leave Guantanamo Bay prison open and, instead of in a New York City civilian court, chose to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial before a military tribunal. Then the President verbally supported the anti-Mubarak rebellion in Egypt, after which he voluntarily involved the US military in a NATO-led rag-tag civil war in Libya.

In another unexpected turn of events, a normally Second Amendment-shy Obama publicly supported possibly supplying guns to everyday citizens displeased with overbearing leaders and governments. Seems the President is all for the right to bear arms as long as those bearing the arms are not protected by the United States Constitution and are either foreign rebels or Mexican drug cartels.

The National Rifle Association Institute of Legislative Action claims careful review of “real records … votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows [that] Barack Obama,” rather than a proponent of the right to bear arms is, in fact, “a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.”

Scholar, pro-gun researcher, and gun advocate John Lott claimed that, prior to mulling over supplying armaments to Libyan street rebels, Obama, try as he might to pretend otherwise, was not a big Second Amendment fan.  Which made it surprising that, despite enacting a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns in America based on the excuse that “imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents,” the President actually entertained the idea of putting military hardware into the hands of rebels infiltrated by al Qaeda.

If Obama can manage to justify denying responsible Americans the right to bear arms based on preventing a catastrophe, why not follow through and ban other hazardous activities such as street crossing, propane tank usage, and lawn darts?

Accident prevention aside, the subject of concern is not whether the United States ultimately arms or chooses not to arm Libyan rebels, but that a President whose policy decisions and appointments point to a future where America is disarmed would even mull over such an idea.

On the one hand, the President verbally maintains support for the Second Amendment, while covertly the same President proposes extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns, nominates an “anti-gun zealot” like Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Then, to seal the deal, Obama appoints two anti-individual gun ownership Supreme Court Justices whose presence on the bench promises to deliver regulations that will be more restrictive for gun owners across America.

According to Gun Reports:

In 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in [Illinois].

If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms.

On the 2008 campaign trail, Obama attempted to portray himself as a “Hope and Change” Charlton Heston.  Then the newly-elected supposedly pro-gun Obama administration went ahead an strongly supported the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty.  And, although still refusing to acknowledge knowing about “Fast and Furious” arms to drug cartels, Obama continues, along with Eric Holder, to make less than truthful statements about Mexico’s acquisition of US-provided weaponry.

If ATF testimony proves correct, that means the guy who said “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns” has no problem with drug cartels possessing the rights he believes should be denied law abiding citizens who need guns to protect themselves from the Mexican criminals America has apparently armed.

The Second Amendment, which “James Madison drafted …the First Congress proposed… and the states ratified in 1791,” established the following Constitutional principle: “A well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a Free State [and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Besides giving American citizens the right to protect themselves and their families from crime, “The Second Amendment of the Constitution also gives [Americans] the right to protect … our nation from a corrupt government or foreign invasion.”

Similar to what Libyans are doing on the streets of small towns like Ajdabiya.

Yet on the revisionist left, which is populated by the party of the President, it is often argued that the Second Amendment is not applicable in today’s society.  However, Obama weighing the possibility to arm Libyan rebels proves otherwise. Isn’t protecting those who cannot protect themselves from Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi the reason Obama considered sending arms to street rebels in the first place?

In both Egypt and Libya, dissenters revolted against tyrannical governments and supposedly, in the pro-democracy spirit, Barack supported foreign guerrillas and pondered equipping a “body of the people” in order to “constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” Such a stance presents Obama with a quandary, because at the podium the President may talk the “insurrectionist model” but on paper, where it counts, the truth is that the same man who overlooks gunrunners smuggling guns across the border would rather Americans didn’t have guns.

 

In other words, but for the presence of al-Qaeda in their midst, Obama seemed open to supporting and possibly even arming citizen uprisings against oppressive governments.  However, if legislative direction is any indication of his true gun philosophy, the President is squarely in opposition to a Constitutional precedent for American citizen/militias to be able to protect our own nation from oppression.  Obama’s policies seem intent on purposely leaving Americans defenseless if a situation similar to the one in Libya should arise here in America.

Consistently cogent Founding Father Thomas Jefferson posed an important question in his 1787 letter to William S. Smith, which said: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Maybe a President of two minds, when not arming far-off insurrectionists and Mexican criminals, can answer Jefferson’s question for the American people he seems determined to disarm.

Another ‘Fast and Furious’ Obama Fiasco


Originally posted at American Thinker

The old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Well, if that well-known idiom is true, shouldn’t the opposite also apply? If something doesn’t work, rather than reproducing the original, shouldn’t someone make adjustments, especially if failing to do so threatens America lives?

Take for example “Operation Fast and Furious,” where, in an effort to track and capture criminals south of the border, the United States Department of Justice allegedly allowed Mexican drug cartels, gunrunners, and gangs to obtain illegal weaponry. Consequently, ICE Special Agent Jamie Jorge Zapata and U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry, armed with only a government-sanctioned bean bag gun, were killed by Mexican gang members. These thugs used artillery smuggled over the border under the watchful eye of the ATF, who, somewhere along the line, lost track of the contraband.

Recently, when Mexican President Felipe Calderón came to visit with President Obama, it was reported that “the two […] came together on a policy to stop drug and weapon smuggling across the border.” Asked why he failed to inform his friend Felipe about a US operation that purposely allowed guns to make their way from Arizona into Mexico, Obama said that he “didn’t know about it.”

Under fire for an operation that allowed smuggling of U.S. weapons across the nation’s border with Mexico, President Obama said in an interview that neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the controversial “Operation Fast and Furious.”

Responding to the question about U.S.-authorized gun smuggling, Obama maintained plausible deniability on behalf of both himself and the Attorney General. However, Federal Senior Agent John Dodson, whose job was to stop drug trafficking, claimed he was told to allow the weapons to “walk” across the border. Dodson contends, “The gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.”

If proven valid, the logic behind such a harebrained idea would be similar to providing U.S. surface-to-air missiles to Iraqi militants so that when American helicopters were shot out of the sky, the radical associations could be traced back to Iran and Hezb’allah.

Dodson predicts that a rogue arsenal will be “claiming victims on both sides of the border for years to come,” which most would agree is a high price to pay for refusing to close the border or take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of America’s citizens.

According to CBS news correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, “Project Gunrunner,” presently known as “Operation Fast and Furious,” was established to prevent “American weapons from getting into the hands of Mexican gangs.” Unfortunately, the endeavor has had the opposite effect. Attkinsson’s account alleges:

ATF managers allegedly made a controversial decision: allow most of the weapons on the streets. The idea, they said, was to gather intelligence and see where the guns ended up […] One agent called the strategy “insane.” Another said: “We were fully aware the guns would probably be moved across the border to drug cartels where they could be used to kill.”

50-caliber weapons are fearsome. For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border, but were ordered to let them go. One distraught agent was often overheard on ATF radios begging and pleading to be allowed to intercept transports. The answer: ‘Negative. Stand down.’

Months after Zapata’s and Terry’s deaths, it is being revealed that the government sting operation was so incredibly incompetent that at one point, two men at a border crossing were arrested when found with “AK-47 assault rifles, Ruger .45-caliber handguns and ‘cop-killer’ pistols made to fire armor-piercing bullets.”

Then, when U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents ran the “guns’ serial numbers through a nationwide database,” none were flagged as stolen or suspect. Can anyone say “HHS National Electronic Health Records Database“? Thus, two men and six illegal weapons were released, one of which turned up at a “murder scene in Puerto Palomas, Mexico” a month later.

Yet despite the mess, some at the top must still believe the border “war” strategy of arming potential enemy combatants was a smashing success. Why else would the United States now be contemplating arming anti-Gaddafi rebels in Libya? The current goal is to find a legal way to “allow limited supplies of arms to the rebels.” This time, the justification for the gun-gift policy is not to identify criminals, but to help the vulnerable “defend themselves from attack.”

One minor detail: it is believed that al-Qaeda is fighting alongside the rebels and is already suspected of snatching missiles from an arsenal in Libya. Is this “common sense be damned” or the government’s attempt to follow the vapor trail of successfully launched missiles back to Osama bin Laden?

This is why bureaucratic debacles are pervasive. Government simply refuses to fix blunders, habitually perpetrates proven catastrophes, and not only preserves the dysfunctional, but also takes pride in itself for making it worse. Americans died after someone in Obama’s chain of command thought it was a great idea to arm Mexican criminals. The response to failed policy in Mexico is not to eighty-six the idea completely, but to replicate the plan in a civil war where no one is 100% sure who is friend and who is foe.

If, after the fact, American soldiers die because of arming Hezb’allah, al-Qaeda warriors, and “freelance Jihadists” disguised as Libyan rebels, what is Obama going to do — call upon the trusty “Who authorized illegal guns to Mexico?” excuse, which was that he “didn’t know about it”?

Dead Americans and piles of bodies in a Mexican war prove once again that Obama’s policies are not the answer to anyone’s ills, let alone a means to end a war. Moreover, incompetence is revealing itself as a major source of murder and mayhem both here and abroad. What reasoned, rational person would even propose that a policy that failed so miserably in Mexico be duplicated in Libya — especially on behalf of individuals who, once armed, will make bloodthirsty neighborhood drug cartels seem more like Mr. Fred McFeely Rogers?

When he admitted that he knew nothing about American guns being supplied to Mexican criminals, Barack Obama placed blame on a “big government […] with a lot of moving parts” for border patrol agents being killed with weapons the ATF knew were smuggled across the border. Regrettably, what makes things more treacherous is having a president at the controls who, rather than abandoning a failed policy, chooses to compound an already bad set of circumstances by propagating in Libya the same deadly policy proven to be a fiasco in Mexico.

 

The End Result of Obama’s Logic

Originally posted at American Thinker

In Barack Obama’s economy, it appears as if making a philosophical point is worth the loss of American lives. For example, in an appeal to the gay lobby Obama mandated that, in the midst of war, our military be purposely distracted from the pressing issue of defeating the Taliban, by demanding combat troops give precedence to gay sensitivity training on the battlefield.

In addition, the President of the United States seems committed to strengthening America’s enemies by ignoring the true motives of those whose intent is to do us harm. On more than one occasion, after military personnel were murdered in cold blood by “Allahu Akbar”-screaming terrorists, Obama – careful not to be offensive to Islam – refused to refer to terrorism as such.  Instead, rather than condemn the obvious, an emotionless Obama called an act of holy war a “horrific outburst of violence,” leaving the judgment of jihadists to formal inquiry.

North Korea and Pakistan are nuked up. Iran and even Venezuela are careening in that direction. China and Russia, try as they might to pretend otherwise, are poised for military alliance, while Obama’s “world without nuclear weapons” national security policy is at work undermining America’s ability to defend itself.

As the world grows increasingly dangerous, and in hopes of spurring a “denuclearization discipleship,” Obama decided to start the process by emasculating the United States through disarmament.  Barack’s nuclear-free world mantra is devoid of “Peace through strength…trust but verify and beware of evil in the modern world.” In a schoolyard full of bullies dying to take a baseball bat to America’s skull, little Barry comes armed with a water pistol.

To prove his unwavering commitment to a nuclear-free world, the President signed a treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to reduce deployed strategic nuclear warhead arsenals by 90 percent, from 31,000 to 1,500.  Such an irresponsible resolution points to Barack being one of two things: diabolical or naïve. Unfortunately, either way, the outcome is the same – Americans are placed at risk and our country is “fundamentally transformed” into a castrated third-rate power.

Maybe Barack just has an aversion to self-preservation, because the ratified treaty not only limits America’s nuclear arsenal, it gives Russia the right to inspect our reserves after the fact and restricts the nation’s ability to respond to nuclear attack.  Moreover, the START Treaty overlooks the disparity between Russia and U.S. tactical nuclear weapon stockpiles and hands Russia’s modernized long-range missile program the advantage.

Nikita Khrushchev prophesied that one day Russia would “bury ” America. Obama’s liberal dream of a utopian world free of nuclear weaponry could turn into a nightmare for our country by way of annihilation, because 50 years after Khrushchev, Obama has provided gravediggers like Iran and North Korea a shovel.

Besides signing a treaty that could potentially cost millions of American lives, closer to home the Obama administration advised Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents to allow guns to go to Mexico where a fierce border war rages. Gangs, gunrunners and violent drug cartels aren’t privy to nuclear arsenals, so instead the administration armed the enemy with good old-fashioned firepower by walking guns “into the hands of criminals who … use them in Mexico and the United States.”

ATF Federal Senior Agent John Dodson, as well as other sources, revealed: “The gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.”  Obama’s approbation on the deadly decision to supply guns to drug cartels resulted in the death of both ICE Special agent Jaime Zapata and Border agent Brian Terry, armed only with beanbag rounds in a riot gun.

Barack must believe, as do the ATF agents videotaping Mexican cartels loading arms into trucks at Arizona gun shops apparently, that “If you’re going to make an omelet, you’ve got to break some eggs,” and if the egg happens to be a third of North America or a couple of brave Border patrol agents, oh well.  Agent Dodson said Brian Terry was gunned down with a “Fast and Furious gun,” which was found at the murder scene along with “two assault rifles the ATF let go nearly a year before.”

According to Dodson, giving murderers the means to prevail “never did take down a drug cartel.” Yet “thousands … [of] weapons are still out there” and Dodson predicts a rogue arsenal will be “claiming victims on both sides of the border for years to come.”

Obama’s logic is insanely similar on both the nuclear disarmament and Mexican armament situations: Hand the advantage to America’s enemies, disarm the most powerful nation in the world and furnish our nation’s adversaries with opportunities to acquire the artillery to use against us.

Security concerns are greater than ever, and terrorists and drug cartels are forever looking for creative ways to smuggle drugs, weapons of mass destruction, and themselves into the United States.  That explains why it had to be Obama’s twisted logic that recently approved of a delivery system allowing loaded 18-wheelers, driven by Mexican truckers, unlimited access to American roads.

Minimally inspected Mexican long-haul rigs fitted with containers trucking through America adds texture to Obama’s nuclear disarmament fantasy, which is destined to fail, as is the Justice Department’s lame attempt to take drug cartels down by providing gangs with AK-47s while Americans stationed on the border are forbidden to carry guns.

If common sense demands a logical policy decision, Barack Obama chooses the opposite. The pattern is this: In a quest to attain an ideological goal, the President purposefully ties the nation’s hands behind its back, intentionally contributing to America’s weakened condition.  Whether at the treaty table or making policy decisions that affect everything from the American economy to a porous border, Obama seems willing to sacrifice lives and our way of life to promote a liberal ideology that looks increasingly as though its end goal includes the destruction of America.

%d bloggers like this: